Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36798676›Full record

ArticleTobacco induced diseases2023

Tobacco quitline performance: Comparing the impacts of early cessation and proactive re-engagement on callers' smoking status at follow-up at 12 months.

Daniel G Cassidy, Xin-Qun Wang, Indika Mallawaarachchi, Kara P Wiseman, Jon O Ebbert, John A Blue Star, Chase A Aycock, Rosemary Estevez Burns, John R Jones, Andrea E Krunnfusz and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02201810 (Enhancing the Efficacy of Smoking Quit Line in the Military), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% of its field
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.

NCT02201810 nacompletednot on this map

Enhancing the Efficacy of Smoking Quit Line in the Military

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of VirginiaRan2015 to 2020Enrolled614ConditionsInitial Efficacy of Quit Line, Efficacy of Secondary Reengagement InterventionArmsRate reduction intervention, Recycling Group, Choice Group, Proactive QL
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel G CassidyWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Xin-Qun WangDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States.
Indika MallawaarachchiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States.
Kara P WisemanDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States.
Jon O EbbertMayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States.
John A Blue StarWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Chase A AycockWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Rosemary Estevez BurnsWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
John R JonesWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Andrea E KrunnfuszWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Jennifer P HalbertDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States.
Natalie M RoyWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Jordan M EllisWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Juinell B WilliamsDepartment of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, United States.
Robert C KlesgesDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States.
Gerald W TalcottWilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland AFB, Texas, United States.
Joint Base San Antonio · USUniversity of Virginia · USEast Carolina University · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile tobacco Quitlines are effective in the promotion of smoking cessation, the majority of callers who wish to quit still fail to do so. The aim of this study was to determine if 12-month tobacco Quitline smoking cessation rates could be improved with re-engagement of callers whose first Quitline treatment failed to establish abstinence.

methodsIn an adaptive trial, 614 adult smokers, who were active duty, retired, and family of military personnel with TRICARE insurance who called a tobacco Quitline, received a previously evaluated and efficacious four-session tobacco cessation intervention with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). At the scheduled follow-up at 3 months, callers who had not yet achieved abstinence were offered the opportunity to re-engage. This resulted in three caller groups: 1) those who were abstinent, 2) those who were still smoking but willing to re-engage with an additional Quitline treatment; and 3) individuals who were still smoking but declined re-engagement. A propensity score-adjusted logistic regression model was generated to compare past-7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months post Quitline consultation.

resultsUsing a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model, comparison of the three groups resulted in higher odds of past-7-day point prevalence abstinence at follow-up at 12 months for those who were abstinent at 3 months compared to those who re-engaged (OR=9.6; 95% CI: 5.2-17.8; Bonferroni adjusted p<0.0001), and relative to those who declined re-engagement (OR=13.4; 95% CI: 6.8-26.3; Bonferroni adjusted p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in smoking abstinence between smokers at 3 months who re-engaged and those who declined re-engagement (OR=1.39; 95% CI: 0.68-2.85).

conclusionsTobacco Quitlines seeking to select a single initiative by which to maximize abstinence at follow-up at 12 months may benefit from diverting additional resources from the re-engagement of callers whose initial quit attempt failed, toward changes which increase callers' probability of success within the first 3 months of treatment.

trial registrationThis study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02201810).

Indexed as

abstinencenicotine replacement therapyproactive re-engagementquitlinetobacco cessation intervention

Identifiers

PMID36798676
PMCPMC9923459
OpenAlexW4320917113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.