| Literature DB >> 30961557 |
Seyfi Durmaz1, Isil Ergin2, Raika Durusoy2, Hur Hassoy2, Ayhan Caliskan2, Pinar Okyay3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demand for smoking cessation services has risen in Turkey, as smokers planning to quit reached 35% in 2012. Communication technologies are used globally to support quitters, yet their integration to health services is rare. This study aims to evaluate the effect of support messages through WhatsApp application added to the usual care of a university hospital cessation unit, as compared to usual care alone, on abstinence rates at first month.Entities:
Keywords: Abstinence; Cessation service; Randomized controlled study; Smoking cessation; WhatsApp
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30961557 PMCID: PMC6454636 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6727-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
The distribution of message content according to topic during the intervention [49]
| Main topic | Subtitles | Number of messagesa |
|---|---|---|
| Before the quit day (Having a plan of action) | Controlling the stimulus for smoking | 1 |
| Having a plan of action | 2 | |
| Suggesting the healthy behavior | 1 | |
| Things to do before the quit day | 2 | |
| Individual support from others | 1 | |
| Total | 7 (Daily) | |
| After the quit day (Preventing relapse) | Importance of self-rewarding | 4 |
| Strategies to cope with nicotine withdrawal | 13 | |
| Coping with stimuli for smoking | 13 | |
| Changing the environment | 10 | |
| Preventing relapse | 13 | |
| Total | 53 (First month, daily; Second month, every other day; Third month, every 3 days) |
aEach message may contain more than one topic. The predominant topic has been used for classification
Fig. 1CONSORT flow diagram of the RCT
Sociodemographic, smoking characteristics and health status of participants (total, intervention, control)a, b
| Total | Intervention | Control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | %a | n | %a | n | %a | |
| Gender ( | ||||||
| Female | 52 | 39.4 | 16 | 36.4 | 36 | 40.9 |
| Male | 80 | 60.6 | 28 | 63.6 | 52 | 59.1 |
| Age ( | ||||||
| 18–24 | 13 | 9.8 | 4 | 9.1 | 9 | 10.2 |
| 25–34 | 41 | 31.1 | 12 | 27.3 | 29 | 33.0 |
| 35–44 | 32 | 24.2 | 12 | 27.3 | 20 | 22.7 |
| 45–54 | 30 | 22.7 | 12 | 27.3 | 18 | 20.5 |
| 55+ | 16 | 12.1 | 4 | 9.1 | 12 | 13.6 |
| Marital status ( | ||||||
| Not-married | 66 | 50.0 | 21 | 47.7 | 45 | 51.1 |
| Married | 66 | 50.0 | 23 | 52.3 | 43 | 48.9 |
| Education ( | ||||||
| Secondary school and below | 30 | 22.7 | 6 | 13.6 | 24 | 27.3 |
| High school and above | 102 | 77.3 | 38 | 86.4 | 64 | 72.7 |
| Social class ( | ||||||
| Unemployed | 11 | 9.4 | 1 | 2.6 | 10 | 12.8 |
| Blue collar | 52 | 44.4 | 14 | 35.9 | 38 | 48.7 |
| White collar | 50 | 42.7 | 22 | 56.4 | 28 | 35.9 |
| Self employed | 4 | 3.4 | 2 | 5.1 | 2 | 2.6 |
| Daily cigarette consumption ( | ||||||
| ≤ 10 | 14 | 10.6 | 2 | 4.5 | 12 | 13.6 |
| 11–20 | 64 | 48.5 | 22 | 50.0 | 42 | 47.7 |
| 21–30 | 32 | 24.2 | 14 | 31.8 | 18 | 20.5 |
| > 30 | 22 | 16.7 | 6 | 13.6 | 16 | 18.2 |
| Pack-years ( | ||||||
| ≤ 10 | 39 | 30.5 | 14 | 32.6 | 25 | 29.4 |
| 11–20 | 42 | 32.8 | 15 | 34.9 | 27 | 31.8 |
| > 20 | 47 | 36.7 | 14 | 32.6 | 33 | 38.8 |
| Quit attempts ( | ||||||
| Yes | 23 | 17.4 | 6 | 13.6 | 17 | 19.3 |
| No | 109 | 82.6 | 38 | 86.4 | 71 | 80.7 |
| Nicotine dependence level ( | ||||||
| Low | 14 | 10.6 | 3 | 6.8 | 11 | 12.5 |
| Medium | 89 | 67.4 | 30 | 68.2 | 59 | 67.0 |
| High | 29 | 22.0 | 11 | 25 | 18 | 20.5 |
| Depression score ( | ||||||
| Normal | 83 | 63.8 | 29 | 67.4 | 54 | 62.1 |
| High | 47 | 36.2 | 14 | 32.6 | 33 | 37.9 |
| CO value ( | ||||||
| 0–6 | 13 | 9.8 | 4 | 9.1 | 9 | 10.2 |
| 7–10 | 12 | 9.1 | 3 | 6.8 | 9 | 10.2 |
| > 10 | 107 | 81.1 | 37 | 84.1 | 70 | 79.5 |
| Concomitant disease ( | ||||||
| No | 31 | 23.5 | 9 | 20.5 | 22 | 25 |
| Yes | 101 | 76.5 | 35 | 79.5 | 66 | 75 |
| Consulting physicians ( | ||||||
| A | 27 | 20.5 | 9 | 20.5 | 18 | 20.5 |
| B | 19 | 14.4 | 9 | 20.5 | 10 | 11.4 |
| C | 26 | 19.7 | 8 | 18.2 | 18 | 20.5 |
| D | 30 | 22.7 | 9 | 20.5 | 21 | 23.9 |
| E | 30 | 22.7 | 9 | 20.5 | 21 | 23.9 |
| Pharmacotherapy ( | ||||||
| NRT | 48 | 36.6 | 9 | 20.9 | 39 | 44.3 |
| Bupropion | 22 | 16.8 | 9 | 20.9 | 13 | 14.8 |
| Varenicline | 13 | 9.9 | 4 | 9.3 | 9 | 10.2 |
| Combinedb | 48 | 36.6 | 21 | 36.6 | 27 | 30.7 |
aColumn percent, b Bupropion + NRT
Fig. 2Smoking cessation success rates among respondents, first, third and sixth month follow ups (intervention, control groups)
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with smoking cessation success in the first and third month follow upa-f
| Model 1a | Model 2b, c | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||
| First month follow up | |||
| Group, n (%) | |||
| Intervention | 29 (65.9%) | 2.85 (1.33–6.14)d | 3.51 (1.30–9.44)d |
| Control (ref) | 36 (40.9%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Social class, n (%) | |||
| Unemployed | 1 (9.1%) | 0.08 (0.01–0.66)d | 0.27 (0.25–2.91) |
| Blue collar | 27 (51.9%) | 0.85 (0.38–1.88) | 1.07 (0.39–2.90) |
| White collar (ref)f | 31 (57.4%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Depression score, mean (±SD) | 5.2 (±2.8) | 0.89 (0.80–0.99)d | 0.90 (0.78–1.04) |
| Quit attempts, mean (±SD) | 3.0 (±2.0) | 1.39 (1.08–1.79)d | 1.32 (0.97–1.78) |
| Third month follow up | |||
| Group, n (%) | |||
| Intervention | 22 (50.0%) | 2.34 (1.07–5.09)d | 2.50 (1.04–5.98)c |
| Control (ref) | 27 (30.7%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Social class, n (%) | |||
| Unemployed | 0 (0.0%)e | 0.15 (0.02–1.29)e | 0.42 (0.04–4.23)e |
| Blue collar | 25 (48.1%) | 1.35 (0.59–3.07) | 1.94 (0.77–4.88) |
| White collar (ref)f | 22 (40.7%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Depression score, mean (±SD) | 4.9 (±2.5) | 0.88 (0.78–0.99)d | 0.89 (0.78–1.02) |
| Marital status, n (%) | |||
| Married | 32 (48.5%) | 1.90 (0.82–4.38) | 1.61 (0.63–4.12) |
| Not married (ref) | 17 (25.8%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 6th month follow up | |||
| Group, n(%) | |||
| Intervention | 18 (40.9%) | 2.31 (1.03–5.16)d | 2.31 (1.03–5.16)d |
| Control (ref) | 21 (23.9%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
aModel 1: Adjusted for age and sex,
bModel 2: Adjusted for age, sex and other variables
cNagelkerke R2 (First month) 0.253; R2 (Third month): 0.213 R2 (Sixth month):0.126
dp < 0.05
eAgresti adaptation was applied due to the presence of zero in a cell [50]
fTwo individuals in the “self-employed” class were added to the “white collar” class
Follow-up, continuity to medication and weight gain status of the control and intervention groups by the end of first and third montha-d
| Intervention | Control (ref) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%)b | n (%)b | ||
| First montha | |||
| Adequate total follow-up ( | 23 (52.3) | 29 (33.0) | 2.45 (1.14–5.27)c |
| Adequate telephone follow up ( | 34 (77.3) | 56 (63.6) | 1.97 (0.86–4.52) |
| Adequate face-to-face follow up ( | 23 (52.3) | 26 (29.5) | 2.80 (1.30–6.04)c |
| Medication continuity ( | 21 (50.0) | 29 (34.9) | 1.89 (0.88–4.04) |
| Weight gain ( | 12 (57.1) | 20 (55.6) | 1.07 (0.39–2.89) |
| Third montha | |||
| Adequate total follow-up ( | 22 (50.0) | 21 (23.9) | 3,53 (1.59–7.82)c |
| Adequate telephone follow up ( | 4 (9.1) | 7 (8.0) | 1,13 (0.31–4.12) |
| Adequate face-to-face follow up ( | 22 (50.0) | 26 (29.5) | 2,62 (1.21–5.70)c |
| Medication continuity ( | 11 (27.5) | 8 (10.7) | 3,33 (1.19–9.29)c |
| Weight gain ( | 15 (53.6) | 19 (52.8) | 1,03 (0.38–2.78) |
aAdjusted for age and sex, bColumn percent, cp < 0.05, dAnalysis executed only for quitters