Kathryn Hawk1, Ruizhi Shi2, June Weiss1, Robert Makuch2, Benjamin Toll3,4, Steven L Bernstein1,4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 4. Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Because of financial pressures, low-income individuals sometimes run out of cellphone service towards the end of the month. AIMS: To determine if the time of month affects ability to reach low-income smokers by telephone. METHODS: We reviewed data from a completed trial in the United States of emergency department (ED)-initiated tobacco dependence treatment for low-income smokers at a busy, academic ED in an urban community. We recorded the date of each one-month follow-up call, and divided each month into four time blocks: Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, and Week 4. RESULTS: A total of 2,049 phone calls were made to reach 769 participants. Of these calls, 677 (33%) resulted in contact; 88% of all participants were contacted. Using generalised estimating equations with Week 4 as reference, the odds of a successful contact at Weeks 1, 2, and 3 were, respectively, 1.52 (95% CI 1.18, 1.96), 1.30 (95% CI 1.01, 1.66), and 1.37 (95% CI 1.07, 1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants became progressively difficult to reach. This result may reflect low-income smokers' decreased rates of active telephone service later in the month and suggests a mechanism to improve follow-up rates in future studies of low-income populations.
INTRODUCTION: Because of financial pressures, low-income individuals sometimes run out of cellphone service towards the end of the month. AIMS: To determine if the time of month affects ability to reach low-income smokers by telephone. METHODS: We reviewed data from a completed trial in the United States of emergency department (ED)-initiated tobacco dependence treatment for low-income smokers at a busy, academic ED in an urban community. We recorded the date of each one-month follow-up call, and divided each month into four time blocks: Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, and Week 4. RESULTS: A total of 2,049 phone calls were made to reach 769 participants. Of these calls, 677 (33%) resulted in contact; 88% of all participants were contacted. Using generalised estimating equations with Week 4 as reference, the odds of a successful contact at Weeks 1, 2, and 3 were, respectively, 1.52 (95% CI 1.18, 1.96), 1.30 (95% CI 1.01, 1.66), and 1.37 (95% CI 1.07, 1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants became progressively difficult to reach. This result may reflect low-income smokers' decreased rates of active telephone service later in the month and suggests a mechanism to improve follow-up rates in future studies of low-income populations.
Authors: Robert H Woolard; Kathleen Carty; Philip Wirtz; Richard Longabaugh; Ted D Nirenberg; P Allison Minugh; Bruce Becker; Patrick R Clifford Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Francisco Ramos-Gomez; Lisa H Chung; Rocio Gonzalez Beristain; William Santo; Bonnie Jue; Jane Weintraub; Stuart Gansky Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Rebecca Cunningham; Maureen A Walton; Shanti P Tripathi; Ryan Outman; Regan Murray; Brenda M Booth Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: John H Kleschinsky; Leslie B Bosworth; Sarah E Nelson; Erinn K Walsh; Howard J Shaffer Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Erica T Warner; Russell E Glasgow; Karen M Emmons; Gary G Bennett; Sandy Askew; Bernard Rosner; Graham A Colditz Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 3.295