Billie Bonevski1, Laura Twyman2, Christine Paul3, Catherine D'Este4, Robert West5, Mohammad Siahpush6, Christopher Oldmeadow7, Kerrin Palazzi7. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: billie.bonevski@newcastle.edu.au. 2. Cancer Council NSW, Dowling Street, Woolloomooloo 2011, NSW, Australia. 3. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, NSW, Australia. 4. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, NSW, Australia; National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, 0200, ACT, Australia. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E, 6BT, United Kingdom. 6. College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984365 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-4365, United States. 7. Hunter Medical Research Institute, Lookout Road, Lambton 2305, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There remains a need to identify effective smoking cessation interventions in severely disadvantaged populations. This trial aimed to examine the effectiveness of an intervention (Call it Quits) developed to promote smoking cessation and delivered by community social service case-workers. METHODS: Call it Quits was a pragmatic, parallel randomised trial of a case-worker delivered smoking cessation intervention conducted in a non-government community social service organisation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Adult smokers requiring financial assistance were randomly assigned to the five-session Call it Quits intervention or usual care control group. Of the 618 eligible individuals, 300 were randomised to the intervention group, of whom 187 (62%) consented and 318 were randomised to the control group, of whom 244 (77%) consented, resulting in 431 participants. The primary outcome measure was self-reported continuous abstinence up to 6-month follow-up with biochemical verification. Primary analysis was performed using all the available data from participants under the assumption the data is missing completely at random, followed by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the primary outcome were found (1.4% in the control group versus 1.0% in the intervention group, OR = 0.77, p = 0.828). CONCLUSIONS: A multi-component smoking cessation intervention delivering motivational interviewing-based counselling and free NRT by a trained case-worker within a community social service setting was not effective at achieving abstinence in a highly disadvantaged sample of smokers but increased attempts to stop and led to a reduction in number of cigarettes smoked daily.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: There remains a need to identify effective smoking cessation interventions in severely disadvantaged populations. This trial aimed to examine the effectiveness of an intervention (Call it Quits) developed to promote smoking cessation and delivered by community social service case-workers. METHODS: Call it Quits was a pragmatic, parallel randomised trial of a case-worker delivered smoking cessation intervention conducted in a non-government community social service organisation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Adult smokers requiring financial assistance were randomly assigned to the five-session Call it Quits intervention or usual care control group. Of the 618 eligible individuals, 300 were randomised to the intervention group, of whom 187 (62%) consented and 318 were randomised to the control group, of whom 244 (77%) consented, resulting in 431 participants. The primary outcome measure was self-reported continuous abstinence up to 6-month follow-up with biochemical verification. Primary analysis was performed using all the available data from participants under the assumption the data is missing completely at random, followed by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the primary outcome were found (1.4% in the control group versus 1.0% in the intervention group, OR = 0.77, p = 0.828). CONCLUSIONS: A multi-component smoking cessation intervention delivering motivational interviewing-based counselling and free NRT by a trained case-worker within a community social service setting was not effective at achieving abstinence in a highly disadvantaged sample of smokers but increased attempts to stop and led to a reduction in number of cigarettes smoked daily.