Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26273647›Full record

Observational studyBioMed research international2015

Quitline Use and Outcomes among Callers with and without Mental Health Conditions: A 7-Month Follow-Up Evaluation in Three States.

Katrina A Vickerman, Gillian L Schauer, Ann M Malarcher, Lei Zhang, Paul Mowery, Chelsea M Nash

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katrina A VickermanAlere Wellbeing, Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
Gillian L SchauerCarter Consulting, Inc., Contractor to Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Ann M MalarcherOffice on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Lei ZhangOffice on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Paul MoweryBiostatistics, Inc., 1738 Illehaw Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239, USA.
Chelsea M NashAlere Wellbeing, Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine abstinence outcomes among tobacco users with and without a reported mental health condition (MHC) who enrolled in state tobacco quitline programs.

methodsData were analyzed from a 7-month follow-up survey (response rate: 41% [3,132/7,459]) of three state-funded telephone quitline programs in the United States that assessed seven self-reported MHCs at quitline registration. We examined 30-day point prevalence tobacco quit rates for callers with any MHC versus none. Data were weighted to adjust for response bias and oversampling. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine cessation outcomes.

resultsOverall, 45.8% of respondents reported ≥ 1 MHC; 57.4% of those reporting a MHC reported ≥ 2 MHCs. The unadjusted quit rate for callers with any MHC was lower than for callers with no MHC (22.0% versus 31.0%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for demographics, nicotine dependence, and program engagement, callers reporting ≥ 1 MHC were less likely to be abstinent at follow-up (adjusted OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.51-0.78, P < 0.001).

conclusionsMore intensive or tailored quitline programs may need to be developed among callers with MHCs as their quit rates appear to be lower than callers without MHCs.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionCounselingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHotlinesHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMarylandMental DisordersMiddle AgedNebraskaNorth CarolinaPatient Education as TopicSmoking

Identifiers

PMID26273647
PMCPMC4529922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.