Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011517›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019

Quitline program utilization and cessation outcomes: A comparison of provider-referred clients by healthcare settings.

Uma S Nair, Ryan C Reikowsky, Alicia M Allen, Melanie L Bell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Improving smoking cessation support for Quebec's smokers: an evaluation of Quebec's telephone quitline.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice
    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

4 authors.

Uma S NairDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Avenue, Drachman Hall, Tucson AZ-85724, United States of America.
Ryan C ReikowskyDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Avenue, Drachman Hall, Tucson AZ-85724, United States of America.
Alicia M AllenFamily & Community Medicine Department, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, 3950 South Country Club Drive, Suite 330, Tucson, AZ 85714, United States of America.
Melanie L BellDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Avenue, Drachman Hall, Tucson AZ-85724, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

US Public Health Service guidelines recommend that healthcare providers assess patients for tobacco use and refer tobacco users to cessation services (e.g., quitlines). However, once referred, little is known on how program outcomes for referred tobacco users vary across healthcare settings. To examine differences in program enrollment, dropout at follow-up, utilization (number of coaching sessions and nicotine replacement therapy use), and quit outcomes among tobacco users referred across settings to a state quitline. In a retrospective analysis of clients referred to the quitline (January 2011-June 2016), referrals were categorized into six settings: general medical practice (reference group), acute care hospitals, behavioral health, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), county health departments, and specialty clinics. Outcome variables included enrollment, dropout, program utilization, and 30-day tobacco abstinence at 7-month follow-up. Compared to medical practices, clients referred from behavioral health were less likely to enroll in services (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.76, 0.87), less likely to report using NRT in-program (OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.42, 0.62), and along with clients referred from FQHCs (OR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.64, 0.94) were less likely to be quit at follow-up (OR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.59, 0.92). Clients referred from acute care hospitals were less likely to enroll in services (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.56, 0.64) and were more likely to drop-out of cessation services (OR = 1.12; 95%CI: 1.00-1.26). Findings reflect the need for better tailoring of messages for tobacco assessment within specific healthcare settings while bolstering behavioral counseling that quitlines provide to increase enrollment, engagement, and retention in tobacco cessation services.

Indexed as

Healthcare settingsProvider referralsTobaccoTobacco cessation

Identifiers

PMID31011517
PMCPMC6462770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.