Judith J Prochaska1, Cati Brown-Johnson2, Michael Baiocchi3, Adrienne S Lazaro4, Amy Chieng4, Sarah Stinson4, Nicole Anzai4. 1. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: jpro@stanford.edu. 2. Evaluation Sciences Unit, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America. 4. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: U.S. reductions in smoking have not been experienced equally. Smoking prevalence is greater among persons of lower education, lower income, and unemployed. We evaluated whether a cessation intervention for job-seekers would result in significantly fewer cigarettes smoked per day and a greater likelihood of tobacco abstinence and re-employment, compared to the control condition at 6-months follow-up. METHODS:Unemployed, job-seekers who smoked daily were recruited from five employment development departments in the San Francisco Bay Area, October 2015 to February 2018. Intention to quit smoking was not required. Participants were randomized to a brief motivationally-tailored, computer-assisted counseling intervention or referred to a toll-free quitline. Midstudy, 8-weeks of combination nicotine replacement was added to the intervention. Expired carbon monoxide and cotinine testing verified abstinence. Data were analyzed fall 2019. RESULTS:Participants (N = 360; 70% men; 43% African American, 27% non-Hispanic Caucasian; 19% unhoused) averaged 12 cigarettes/day (SD = 6), 67% smoked within 30 min of wakening; 27% were in preparation stage to quit. During the 6-month study period, intervention participants were more likely to make a quit attempt (71% vs. 58%, p = .021) and reported significantly greater reduction in cigarettes/day than control participants (median reduction: 6.9 vs. 5.0, p = .038); however, bioconfirmed abstinence (3%) and re-employment (36%) did not differ by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse sample with economic hardships, quit attempts and smoking reduction were greater in the intervention group; however, few achieved abstinence, and neither abstinence nor re-employment differed by condition. A priority group, further research is needed on smoking and re-employment.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: U.S. reductions in smoking have not been experienced equally. Smoking prevalence is greater among persons of lower education, lower income, and unemployed. We evaluated whether a cessation intervention for job-seekers would result in significantly fewer cigarettes smoked per day and a greater likelihood of tobacco abstinence and re-employment, compared to the control condition at 6-months follow-up. METHODS: Unemployed, job-seekers who smoked daily were recruited from five employment development departments in the San Francisco Bay Area, October 2015 to February 2018. Intention to quit smoking was not required. Participants were randomized to a brief motivationally-tailored, computer-assisted counseling intervention or referred to a toll-free quitline. Midstudy, 8-weeks of combination nicotine replacement was added to the intervention. Expired carbon monoxide and cotinine testing verified abstinence. Data were analyzed fall 2019. RESULTS:Participants (N = 360; 70% men; 43% African American, 27% non-Hispanic Caucasian; 19% unhoused) averaged 12 cigarettes/day (SD = 6), 67% smoked within 30 min of wakening; 27% were in preparation stage to quit. During the 6-month study period, intervention participants were more likely to make a quit attempt (71% vs. 58%, p = .021) and reported significantly greater reduction in cigarettes/day than control participants (median reduction: 6.9 vs. 5.0, p = .038); however, bioconfirmed abstinence (3%) and re-employment (36%) did not differ by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse sample with economic hardships, quit attempts and smoking reduction were greater in the intervention group; however, few achieved abstinence, and neither abstinence nor re-employment differed by condition. A priority group, further research is needed on smoking and re-employment.
Authors: Judith J Prochaska; Wayne F Velicer; James O Prochaska; Kevin Delucchi; Sharon M Hall Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: William B Bunn; Gregg M Stave; Kristen E Downs; Jose Maria J Alvir; Riad Dirani Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Sarah D Mills; Shelley D Golden; Lisa Henriksen; Amanda Y Kong; Tara L Queen; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: James O Prochaska; Susan Butterworth; Colleen A Redding; Verna Burden; Nancy Perrin; Michael Leo; Marna Flaherty-Robb; Janice M Prochaska Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-11-22 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: E R Gritz; C R Carr; D Rapkin; E Abemayor; L J Chang; W K Wong; T R Belin; T Calcaterra; K T Robbins; G Chonkich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1993 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Garrett R Beeler Asay; Kakoli Roy; Jason E Lang; Rebecca L Payne; David H Howard Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.830