Mixed-Methods for Comparing Tobacco Cessation Interventions.

IF 1.3 Q4 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Journal of Smoking Cessation Pub Date : 2017-03-01 Epub Date: 2015-05-05 DOI:10.1017/jsc.2015.7
Behnoosh Momin, Antonio Neri, Lei Zhang, Jennifer Kahende, Jennifer Duke, Sonya Goode Green, Ann Malarcher, Sherri L Stewart
{"title":"Mixed-Methods for Comparing Tobacco Cessation Interventions.","authors":"Behnoosh Momin, Antonio Neri, Lei Zhang, Jennifer Kahende, Jennifer Duke, Sonya Goode Green, Ann Malarcher, Sherri L Stewart","doi":"10.1017/jsc.2015.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) and National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP) are both well-positioned to promote the use of population-based tobacco cessation interventions, such as state quitlines and Web-based interventions.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This paper outlines the methodology used to conduct a comparative effectiveness research study of traditional and Web-based tobacco cessation and quitline promotion approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study with three components was designed to address the effect of promotional activities on service usage and the comparative effectiveness of population-based smoking cessation activities across multiple states.</p><p><strong>Results/findings: </strong>The cessation intervention component followed 7,902 smokers (4,307 quitline users and 3,595 Web intervention users) to ascertain prevalence of 30-day abstinence rates 7 months after registering for smoking cessation services. User characteristics and quit success was compared across the two modalities. In the promotions component, reach and use of traditional and innovative promotion strategies were assessed for 24 states, including online advertising, state Web sites, social media, mobile applications, and their effects on quitline call volume. The partnership intervention component studied the extent of collaboration among six selected NCCCPs and NTCPs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study will guide program staff and clinicians with evidence-based recommendations and best practices for implementation of tobacco cessation within their patient and community populations and establish an evidence base that can be used for decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":39350,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Smoking Cessation","volume":"12 1","pages":"15-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/jsc.2015.7","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Smoking Cessation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jsc.2015.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Introduction: The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) and National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP) are both well-positioned to promote the use of population-based tobacco cessation interventions, such as state quitlines and Web-based interventions.

Aims: This paper outlines the methodology used to conduct a comparative effectiveness research study of traditional and Web-based tobacco cessation and quitline promotion approaches.

Methods: A mixed-methods study with three components was designed to address the effect of promotional activities on service usage and the comparative effectiveness of population-based smoking cessation activities across multiple states.

Results/findings: The cessation intervention component followed 7,902 smokers (4,307 quitline users and 3,595 Web intervention users) to ascertain prevalence of 30-day abstinence rates 7 months after registering for smoking cessation services. User characteristics and quit success was compared across the two modalities. In the promotions component, reach and use of traditional and innovative promotion strategies were assessed for 24 states, including online advertising, state Web sites, social media, mobile applications, and their effects on quitline call volume. The partnership intervention component studied the extent of collaboration among six selected NCCCPs and NTCPs.

Conclusions: This study will guide program staff and clinicians with evidence-based recommendations and best practices for implementation of tobacco cessation within their patient and community populations and establish an evidence base that can be used for decision making.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较戒烟干预措施的混合方法。
国家综合癌症控制规划(NCCCP)和国家烟草控制规划(NTCP)在促进使用基于人群的戒烟干预措施方面都处于有利地位,例如州戒烟热线和基于网络的干预措施。目的:本文概述了用于进行传统和基于网络的戒烟和戒烟促进方法的比较有效性研究的方法。方法:设计了一项包含三个组成部分的混合方法研究,以解决促销活动对服务使用的影响以及多个州基于人群的戒烟活动的比较有效性。结果/发现:戒烟干预部分跟踪了7902名吸烟者(4307名戒烟线上使用者和3595名网络干预使用者),以确定注册戒烟服务7个月后30天戒烟率的患病率。比较了两种模式下的用户特征和戒烟成功率。在促销部分,对24个州的传统和创新促销策略的覆盖范围和使用情况进行了评估,包括在线广告、州网站、社交媒体、移动应用程序,以及它们对辞职热线电话数量的影响。伙伴关系干预部分研究了六个选定的非国家重点合作伙伴和非国家重点合作伙伴之间的合作程度。结论:本研究将为项目工作人员和临床医生提供基于证据的建议和最佳做法,以便在患者和社区人群中实施戒烟,并建立可用于决策的证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Smoking Cessation
Journal of Smoking Cessation Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
"It Is A Carrot-Stick Model": A Qualitative Study of Rural-Serving Clinician and Rural-Residing Veteran Perceptions of Requirements to Quit Smoking prior to Elective Surgery. Prevalence, Correlates, and Perception of E-cigarettes among Undergraduate Students of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal: A Cross-Sectional Study. The Evaluation of an Integrated Tobacco Treatment Specialist in Primary Care. The Efficacy of Individualized, Community-Based Physical Activity to Aid Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Effects of Smoking on COVID-19 Management and Mortality: An Umbrella Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1