OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a college-based smokeless tobacco cessation intervention targeting college athletes. METHODS:Sixteen colleges were matched for prevalence of smokeless tobacco use in their combined baseball and football teams and randomly assigned within college pairs to the intervention or the control group. One-year prevalence of cessation among smokeless tobacco users was determined by self-report of abstinence for the previous 30 days. Differences between groups were analyzed in a weighted version of the Fisher 1-sided permutation test for paired samples after adjustment for significant predictors of quitting other than the intervention (i.e., smokeless tobacco uses per week and most frequently used brand). RESULTS:Cessation prevalences were 35% in the intervention colleges and 16% in the control colleges when subjects with unknown quit status were defined as nonquitters. After adjustment for other significant predictors of quitting, the difference of 19% increased to 21%. The intervention effect increased with level of smokeless tobacco use. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention was effective in promoting smokeless tobacco cessation, especially among those who were more frequent users.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a college-based smokeless tobacco cessation intervention targeting college athletes. METHODS: Sixteen colleges were matched for prevalence of smokeless tobacco use in their combined baseball and football teams and randomly assigned within college pairs to the intervention or the control group. One-year prevalence of cessation among smokeless tobacco users was determined by self-report of abstinence for the previous 30 days. Differences between groups were analyzed in a weighted version of the Fisher 1-sided permutation test for paired samples after adjustment for significant predictors of quitting other than the intervention (i.e., smokeless tobacco uses per week and most frequently used brand). RESULTS: Cessation prevalences were 35% in the intervention colleges and 16% in the control colleges when subjects with unknown quit status were defined as nonquitters. After adjustment for other significant predictors of quitting, the difference of 19% increased to 21%. The intervention effect increased with level of smokeless tobacco use. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention was effective in promoting smokeless tobacco cessation, especially among those who were more frequent users.
Authors: D Grady; J Greene; T E Daniels; V L Ernster; P B Robertson; W Hauck; D Greenspan; J Greenspan; S Silverman Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Margaret M Walsh; Timothy J Langer; Niall Kavanagh; Chuck Mansell; William MacDougal; Catherine Kavanagh; Stuart A Gansky Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stuart A Gansky; James A Ellison; Diane Rudy; Ned Bergert; Mark A Letendre; Lisa Nelson; Catherine Kavanagh; Margaret M Walsh Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Stuart A Gansky; James A Ellison; Catherine Kavanagh; Umo Isong; Margaret M Walsh Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.821