Krysten W Bold1, Lisa Kimmel2, Tess H Hanrahan1, Denise Romano1,3, Alana M Rojewski1,4, Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin1, Lisa M Fucito1,3,5, Stephanie S O'Malley1,5. 1. 1 Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 2. 2 Being Well at Yale, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. 3 Smilow Cancer Hospital, Yale-New Haven, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. 4 Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 5. 5 Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of implementing evidence-based tobacco treatment at the workplace for service industry employees. DESIGN: Randomized trial using 6 paired worksites (3 test and 3 delayed intervention control sites). SETTING: US Northeast city. PARTICIPANTS: Employees were recruited from university food service settings. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive smoking treatment was provided at the workplace including individual counseling, free pharmacotherapy (dual nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline), and 5 weeks of contingency management that reinforced abstinence or reductions in smoking to encourage progress toward quitting. MEASURES: Primary measures included a smoking status survey administered at the end of treatment at the test sites and before treatment began at the delayed intervention control sites. ANALYSIS: Analyses compared rates of quit attempts and successful abstinence for at least 24 hours between the test and delayed intervention control sites. RESULTS:Twenty-five employees were enrolled in treatment. The majority were single (12/25), black (16/25), and reported their educational attainment as high school or less (18/25). Employees in the test (vs delayed intervention control) sites reported higher rates of quit attempts (66.7% vs 12.5%, P = .02) and success quitting for at least 24 hours (53.3% vs 12.5%, P = .08). Participants rated the treatment as very helpful overall. CONCLUSION: Findings support the feasibility and efficacy of providing workplace-based smoking cessation services and may inform strategies to increase access to treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of implementing evidence-based tobacco treatment at the workplace for service industry employees. DESIGN: Randomized trial using 6 paired worksites (3 test and 3 delayed intervention control sites). SETTING: US Northeast city. PARTICIPANTS: Employees were recruited from university food service settings. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive smoking treatment was provided at the workplace including individual counseling, free pharmacotherapy (dual nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline), and 5 weeks of contingency management that reinforced abstinence or reductions in smoking to encourage progress toward quitting. MEASURES: Primary measures included a smoking status survey administered at the end of treatment at the test sites and before treatment began at the delayed intervention control sites. ANALYSIS: Analyses compared rates of quit attempts and successful abstinence for at least 24 hours between the test and delayed intervention control sites. RESULTS: Twenty-five employees were enrolled in treatment. The majority were single (12/25), black (16/25), and reported their educational attainment as high school or less (18/25). Employees in the test (vs delayed intervention control) sites reported higher rates of quit attempts (66.7% vs 12.5%, P = .02) and success quitting for at least 24 hours (53.3% vs 12.5%, P = .08). Participants rated the treatment as very helpful overall. CONCLUSION: Findings support the feasibility and efficacy of providing workplace-based smoking cessation services and may inform strategies to increase access to treatment.
Authors: Matthew J Carpenter; John R Hughes; Kevin M Gray; Amy E Wahlquist; Michael E Saladin; Anthony J Alberg Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-11-28
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King; Linda J Neff; Jennifer Whitmill; Stephen D Babb; Corinne M Graffunder Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; Jeffrey A Linder; Elyse R Park; Irina Gonzalez; Nancy A Rigotti; Elissa V Klinger; Emily Z Kontos; Alan M Zaslavsky; Phyllis Brawarsky; Lucas X Marinacci; Stella St Hubert; Eric W Fleegler; David R Williams Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Lissa Dutra; Georgia Stathopoulou; Shawnee L Basden; Teresa M Leyro; Mark B Powers; Michael W Otto Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Beatriz H Carlini; Anna M McDaniel; Michael T Weaver; Ross M Kauffman; Barbara Cerutti; Renée M Stratton; Susan M Zbikowski Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 3.295