ArticleJournal of community health2012
Perceived barriers to adopting an Asian-language quitline service: a survey of state funding agencies.
Article in Journal of community health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deaf Weight Wise: A novel randomized clinical trial with Deaf sign language users.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2023Trial
- A Multistate Asian-Language Tobacco Quitline: Addressing a Disparity in Access to Care.American journal of public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined the perceived barriers to adopting an Asian-language quitline service among agencies that fund current state quitline services across the U.S. A self-administered survey on organizational readiness was sent to the funding agencies of 47 states plus Washington D.C. that currently fund state quitlines in English and Spanish, but not in Asian languages (response rate = 58%). The 2010 Census and the 2009 North American Quitline Consortium Survey were used to obtain the proportion of Asians among the state population and state quitline funding level, respectively. The most frequently cited reasons for not adopting an Asian quitline are: the Asian population in the state would be too small (71.4%), costs of service would be too high (57.1%), and the belief that using third-party translation for counseling is sufficient (39.3%). However, neither the actual proportion of Asians among the state population (range = 0.7% to 7.3%), nor the quitline funding level (range = $0.17 to $20.8 per capita) predicts the reported reasons. The results indicate that quitline funding agencies need more education on the necessity and the feasibility of an Asian-language quitline. Three states are currently participating in a multi-state Asian-language quitline in which each state promotes the service to its residents and one state (CA) provides the services for all the states. This centralized multi-state Asian-language quitline operation, which helps reduce practical barriers in adoption and disparity in access to service, could be extended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22227774What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.