Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial
Introduction State tobacco quitlines are the most commonly available smoking cessation programmes; however, they have low reach and typically only enrol people who are ready to quit in the next 30 days. Expanding quitline services may increase the total number of people engaged in tobacco control ef...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Public Health |
| Online Access: | https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000843.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832583222873030656 |
|---|---|
| author | Matthew W Kreuter Michelle C Kegler Jennifer Wolff Amy McQueen Lauren Grimes Enguday Teshome Rachel Garg Tess Thompson Kelly Carpenter |
| author_facet | Matthew W Kreuter Michelle C Kegler Jennifer Wolff Amy McQueen Lauren Grimes Enguday Teshome Rachel Garg Tess Thompson Kelly Carpenter |
| author_sort | Matthew W Kreuter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction State tobacco quitlines are the most commonly available smoking cessation programmes; however, they have low reach and typically only enrol people who are ready to quit in the next 30 days. Expanding quitline services may increase the total number of people engaged in tobacco control efforts and the number who eventually quit. In this randomised controlled trial, we offered both arms a tobacco quitline intervention. In arm 2, if they declined the quitline, we then offered a smoke-free home (SFH) intervention. We examined the number of participants who accepted each intervention offer at baseline and whether acceptance varied by participant characteristics.Methods We recruited 1982 people who called 211, a social services helpline for social needs; mean age=50, 68% female; 45% white, 41% black and 14% other race/ethnicity; 68% reported an annual household income <US$20 000.Results In each arm, 59.7% of participants accepted the quitline offer. In arm 2, among those who declined the quitline offer, 53.1% accepted the SFH intervention offer. Thus, an additional 212 (21.4% of all arm 2 participants) people who smoke engaged in tobacco control programmes than would have with standard practice alone (quitline only). Acceptance differed by participant characteristics: males were less likely than females to accept either offer. Whites were less likely, and older adults and those with greater nicotine dependence were more likely, to accept the quitline offer.Conclusions Proactive approaches identified many low-income people who smoke and offering an SFH intervention retained many more of them in tobacco control efforts. Future trial results will assess intervention engagement and effects on cessation.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04311983. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-50902798f96a4c90a7779205f952009c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2753-4294 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Public Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-50902798f96a4c90a7779205f952009c2025-01-28T23:30:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Public Health2753-42942024-04-012110.1136/bmjph-2023-000843Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trialMatthew W Kreuter0Michelle C Kegler1Jennifer Wolff2Amy McQueen3Lauren Grimes4Enguday Teshome5Rachel Garg6Tess Thompson7Kelly Carpenter8Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USASchool of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USAWashington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USASchool of Medicine, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, USAWashington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USAWashington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USAWashington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USAThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USARVO Health, Seattle, Washington, USAIntroduction State tobacco quitlines are the most commonly available smoking cessation programmes; however, they have low reach and typically only enrol people who are ready to quit in the next 30 days. Expanding quitline services may increase the total number of people engaged in tobacco control efforts and the number who eventually quit. In this randomised controlled trial, we offered both arms a tobacco quitline intervention. In arm 2, if they declined the quitline, we then offered a smoke-free home (SFH) intervention. We examined the number of participants who accepted each intervention offer at baseline and whether acceptance varied by participant characteristics.Methods We recruited 1982 people who called 211, a social services helpline for social needs; mean age=50, 68% female; 45% white, 41% black and 14% other race/ethnicity; 68% reported an annual household income <US$20 000.Results In each arm, 59.7% of participants accepted the quitline offer. In arm 2, among those who declined the quitline offer, 53.1% accepted the SFH intervention offer. Thus, an additional 212 (21.4% of all arm 2 participants) people who smoke engaged in tobacco control programmes than would have with standard practice alone (quitline only). Acceptance differed by participant characteristics: males were less likely than females to accept either offer. Whites were less likely, and older adults and those with greater nicotine dependence were more likely, to accept the quitline offer.Conclusions Proactive approaches identified many low-income people who smoke and offering an SFH intervention retained many more of them in tobacco control efforts. Future trial results will assess intervention engagement and effects on cessation.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04311983.https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000843.full |
| spellingShingle | Matthew W Kreuter Michelle C Kegler Jennifer Wolff Amy McQueen Lauren Grimes Enguday Teshome Rachel Garg Tess Thompson Kelly Carpenter Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial BMJ Public Health |
| title | Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial |
| title_full | Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial |
| title_fullStr | Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial |
| title_short | Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial |
| title_sort | comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the usa baseline results of a randomised controlled trial |
| url | https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000843.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT matthewwkreuter comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT michelleckegler comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT jenniferwolff comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT amymcqueen comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT laurengrimes comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT engudayteshome comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT rachelgarg comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT tessthompson comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT kellycarpenter comparingacceptanceofsmokingcessationandsmokefreehomeinterventionoffersandassociatedfactorsamongpeoplewithlowincomeintheusabaselineresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial |