Jonathan B Bricker1,2, Brianna M Sullivan1, Kristin E Mull1, Alula J Torres3, Kelly M Carpenter3. 1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Optum Center for Wellbeing Research, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) telephone-delivered coaching with standard quitline (QL) telephone-delivered coaching. METHODS: Medicare/uninsured adults (analyzable sample N = 1170) who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were recruited from Optum, a major US provider of QL services, in a two-arm stratified double-blind randomized trial with main outcome of self-reported missing = smoking 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 12-month follow-up. Participants were mean (SD) age 47.4 (12.7), 61% female, and 72% white race. Five sessions of telephone-delivered ACT or QL interventions were offered. Both arms included combined nicotine patch (4 weeks) and gum or lozenge (2 weeks). RESULTS: The 12-month follow-up data retention rate was 67.8%. ACT participants reported their treatment was more useful for quitting smoking (92.0% for ACT vs. 82.3% for QL; odds ratio [OR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 4.00). Both arms had similar 12-month cessation outcomes (missing = smoking 30-day PPA: 24.6% for ACT vs. 28.8% for QL; OR =.81; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.05) and the ACT arm trended toward greater reductions in number cigarettes smoked per day (-5.6 for ACT vs. -1.7 QL, among smokers; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: ACT telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching. ACT may help those who fail to quit after standard coaching or who choose not to use nicotine replacement therapy. IMPLICATIONS: In a sample of Medicare and uninsured QL callers, a large randomized trial with long-term follow-up showed that ACT) telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching-which has followed the same behavior change approach since the 1990s. This newer model of coaching might be a welcome addition to QL services.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) telephone-delivered coaching with standard quitline (QL) telephone-delivered coaching. METHODS: Medicare/uninsured adults (analyzable sample N = 1170) who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were recruited from Optum, a major US provider of QL services, in a two-arm stratified double-blind randomized trial with main outcome of self-reported missing = smoking 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 12-month follow-up. Participants were mean (SD) age 47.4 (12.7), 61% female, and 72% white race. Five sessions of telephone-delivered ACT or QL interventions were offered. Both arms included combined nicotine patch (4 weeks) and gum or lozenge (2 weeks). RESULTS: The 12-month follow-up data retention rate was 67.8%. ACT participants reported their treatment was more useful for quitting smoking (92.0% for ACT vs. 82.3% for QL; odds ratio [OR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 4.00). Both arms had similar 12-month cessation outcomes (missing = smoking 30-day PPA: 24.6% for ACT vs. 28.8% for QL; OR =.81; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.05) and the ACT arm trended toward greater reductions in number cigarettes smoked per day (-5.6 for ACT vs. -1.7 QL, among smokers; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: ACT telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching. ACT may help those who fail to quit after standard coaching or who choose not to use nicotine replacement therapy. IMPLICATIONS: In a sample of Medicare and uninsured QL callers, a large randomized trial with long-term follow-up showed that ACT) telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching-which has followed the same behavior change approach since the 1990s. This newer model of coaching might be a welcome addition to QL services.
Authors: Christopher W Kahler; Heather R Lachance; David R Strong; Susan E Ramsey; Peter M Monti; Richard A Brown Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2007-04-06 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Jonathan B Bricker; Kristin E Mull; Jennifer B McClure; Noreen L Watson; Jaimee L Heffner Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Jonathan B Bricker; Terry Bush; Susan M Zbikowski; Laina D Mercer; Jaimee L Heffner Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jonathan B Bricker; Kristin E Mull; Julie A Kientz; Roger Vilardaga; Laina D Mercer; Katrina J Akioka; Jaimee L Heffner Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 4.492