戒烟热线呼叫者使用增益框和损失框短信进行烟草治疗的初步调查。

IF 1.2 Q4 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Journal of Smoking Cessation Pub Date : 2020-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-05-21 DOI:10.1017/jsc.2020.17
Alana M Rojewski, Lindsay R Duncan, Allison J Carroll, Anthony Brown, Amy Latimer-Cheung, Paula Celestino, Christine Sheffer, Andrew Hyland, Benjamin A Toll
{"title":"戒烟热线呼叫者使用增益框和损失框短信进行烟草治疗的初步调查。","authors":"Alana M Rojewski,&nbsp;Lindsay R Duncan,&nbsp;Allison J Carroll,&nbsp;Anthony Brown,&nbsp;Amy Latimer-Cheung,&nbsp;Paula Celestino,&nbsp;Christine Sheffer,&nbsp;Andrew Hyland,&nbsp;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":1.2000,"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":"{\"title\":\"Quit4hlth: a preliminary investigation of tobacco treatment with gain-framed and loss-framed text messages for quitline callers.\",\"authors\":\"Alana M Rojewski,&nbsp;Lindsay R Duncan,&nbsp;Allison J Carroll,&nbsp;Anthony Brown,&nbsp;Amy Latimer-Cheung,&nbsp;Paula Celestino,&nbsp;Christine Sheffer,&nbsp;Andrew Hyland,&nbsp;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\":1.2000,\"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}","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

摘要

最近的证据表明,戒烟热线短信是一种有效的戒烟治疗方法,但人们对短信内容的相对有效性知之甚少。目的:对增益框架(GF;专注于戒烟的好处)和损失框架(LF;聚焦于继续吸烟的成本)吸烟者之间的短信联系戒烟热线。方法:参与者随机接受LF (N = 300)或GF (N = 300)短信,为期30周。自我报告的7天点患病率戒断和24小时戒烟尝试次数在第30周进行评估。使用逻辑回归对戒烟的意向治疗(ITT)和应答者进行分析。结果:ITT分析显示GF组戒烟率为17%,LF组为15% (P = 0.508)。应答者分析显示GF组有44%的人戒烟,而LF组只有35% (P = 0.154)。与LF组相比,GF组有更多的参与者报告在24小时内尝试戒烟(98%对93%,P = 0.046)。结论:虽然在第30周的随访中,两组之间的戒断率没有差异,但GF组的参与者比LF组的参与者有更多的戒烟尝试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Quit4hlth: a preliminary investigation of tobacco treatment with gain-framed and loss-framed text messages for quitline callers.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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. Integrating the "Quit and Stay Quit Monday" Model into Smoking Cessation Services for Smokers with Mental Health Conditions: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. The Efficacy of Individualized, Community-Based Physical Activity to Aid Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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