Alana M Rojewski, Lindsay R Duncan, Allison J Carroll, Anthony Brown, Amy Latimer-Cheung, Paula Celestino, Christine Sheffer, Andrew Hyland, Benjamin A Toll
{"title":"Quit4hlth: a preliminary investigation of tobacco treatment with gain-framed and loss-framed text messages for quitline callers.","authors":"Alana M Rojewski, Lindsay R Duncan, Allison J Carroll, Anthony Brown, Amy Latimer-Cheung, Paula Celestino, Christine Sheffer, Andrew Hyland, Benjamin A Toll","doi":"10.1017/jsc.2020.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recent evidence suggests that quitline text messaging is an effective treatment for smoking cessation, but little is known about the relative effectiveness of the message content.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>A pilot study of the effects of gain-framed (GF; focused on the benefits of quitting) versus loss-framed (LF; focused on the costs of continued smoking) text messages among smokers contacting a quitline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were randomized to receive LF (<i>N</i> = 300) or GF (<i>N</i> = 300) text messages for 30 weeks. Self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence and number of 24 h quit attempts were assessed at week 30. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and responder analyses for smoking cessation were conducted using logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ITT analysis showed 17% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 15% in the LF group (<i>P</i> = 0.508). The responder analysis showed 44% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 35% in the LF group (<i>P</i> = 0.154). More participants in the GF group reported making a 24 h quit attempt compared to the LF group (98% vs. 93%, <i>P</i> = 0.046).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there were no differences in abstinence rates between groups at the week 30 follow-up, participants in the GF group made more quit attempts than those in the LF group.</p>","PeriodicalId":39350,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Smoking Cessation","volume":"15 3","pages":"143-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/jsc.2020.17","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Smoking Cessation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jsc.2020.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that quitline text messaging is an effective treatment for smoking cessation, but little is known about the relative effectiveness of the message content.
Aims: A pilot study of the effects of gain-framed (GF; focused on the benefits of quitting) versus loss-framed (LF; focused on the costs of continued smoking) text messages among smokers contacting a quitline.
Methods: Participants were randomized to receive LF (N = 300) or GF (N = 300) text messages for 30 weeks. Self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence and number of 24 h quit attempts were assessed at week 30. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and responder analyses for smoking cessation were conducted using logistic regression.
Results: The ITT analysis showed 17% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 15% in the LF group (P = 0.508). The responder analysis showed 44% of the GF group quit smoking compared to 35% in the LF group (P = 0.154). More participants in the GF group reported making a 24 h quit attempt compared to the LF group (98% vs. 93%, P = 0.046).
Conclusions: Although there were no differences in abstinence rates between groups at the week 30 follow-up, participants in the GF group made more quit attempts than those in the LF group.