Alana M Rojewski1, Lindsay R Duncan2, Allison J Carroll3,4, Anthony Brown5, Amy Latimer-Cheung6, Paula Celestino5, Christine Sheffer5, Andrew Hyland5, Benjamin A Toll1,7. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. Queen's University, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Kingston, ON, Canada. 7. Hollings Cancer Center, Charleston, SC, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests that quitline text messaging is an effective treatment for smoking cessation, but little is known about the relative effectiveness of the message content. AIMS: A pilot study of the effects of gain-framed (GF; focused on the benefits of quitting) versus loss-framed (LF; focused on the costs of continued smoking) text messages among smokers contacting a quitline. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive LF (N = 300) or GF (N = 300) text messages for 30 weeks. Self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence and number of 24 h quit attempts were assessed at week 30. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and responder analyses for smoking cessation were conducted using logistic regression. RESULTS: The ITT analysis showed 17% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 15% in the LF group (P = 0.508). The responder analysis showed 44% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 35% in the LF group (P = 0.154). More participants in the GF group reported making a 24 h quit attempt compared to the LF group (98% vs. 93%, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in abstinence rates between groups at the week 30 follow-up, participants in the GF group made more quit attempts than those in the LF group.
INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests that quitline text messaging is an effective treatment for smoking cessation, but little is known about the relative effectiveness of the message content. AIMS: A pilot study of the effects of gain-framed (GF; focused on the benefits of quitting) versus loss-framed (LF; focused on the costs of continued smoking) text messages among smokers contacting a quitline. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive LF (N = 300) or GF (N = 300) text messages for 30 weeks. Self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence and number of 24 h quit attempts were assessed at week 30. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and responder analyses for smoking cessation were conducted using logistic regression. RESULTS: The ITT analysis showed 17% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 15% in the LF group (P = 0.508). The responder analysis showed 44% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 35% in the LF group (P = 0.154). More participants in the GF group reported making a 24 h quit attempt compared to the LF group (98% vs. 93%, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in abstinence rates between groups at the week 30 follow-up, participants in the GF group made more quit attempts than those in the LF group.
Entities:
Keywords:
Message framing; quitline; smoking cessation; text messaging; tobacco treatment
Authors: Nancy Miller; Thomas R Frieden; Sze Yan Liu; Thomas D Matte; Farzad Mostashari; Deborah R Deitcher; K Michael Cummings; Christina Chang; Ursula Bauer; Mary T Bassett Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 28-Jun 3 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jack F Hollis; Timothy A McAfee; Jeffrey L Fellows; Susan M Zbikowski; Michael Stark; Karen Riedlinger Journal: Tob Control Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Benjamin A Toll; Steve Martino; Amy Latimer; Peter Salovey; Stephanie O'Malley; Shannon Carlin-Menter; Jessica Hopkins; Ran Wu; Paula Celestino; K Michael Cummings Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lorien C Abroms; Pamela R Johnson; Leah E Leavitt; Sean D Cleary; Jessica Bushar; Thomas H Brandon; Shawn C Chiang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Krysten W Bold; Benjamin A Toll; Brenda Cartmel; Bennie B Ford; Alana M Rojewski; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Stephanie S O'Malley; Lisa M Fucito Journal: J Smok Cessat Date: 2017-12-11
Authors: Caroline Free; Rosemary Knight; Steven Robertson; Robyn Whittaker; Phil Edwards; Weiwei Zhou; Anthony Rodgers; John Cairns; Michael G Kenward; Ian Roberts Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lorien C Abroms; Shawn Chiang; Laura Macherelli; Leah Leavitt; Margaret Montgomery Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 5.428