» Articles » PMID: 22011421

Offering Population-based Tobacco Treatment in a Healthcare Setting: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview
Journal Am J Prev Med
Specialty Public Health
Date 2011 Oct 21
PMID 22011421
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The healthcare system is a key channel for delivering treatment to tobacco users. Brief clinic-based interventions are effective but not reliably offered. Population management strategies might improve tobacco treatment delivery in a healthcare system.

Purpose: To test the effectiveness of supplementing clinic-based care with a population-based direct-to-smoker (DTS) outreach offering easily accessible free tobacco treatment.

Design: Randomized controlled trial, conducted in 2009-2010, comparing usual clinical care to usual care plus DTS outreach.

Setting/participants: A total of 590 smokers registered for primary care at a community health center in Revere MA.

Interventions: Three monthly letters offering a free telephone consultation with a tobacco coordinator who provided free treatment including up to 8 weeks of nicotine patches (NRT) and proactive referral to the state quitline for multisession counseling.

Main Outcome Measures: Use of any tobacco treatment (primary outcome) and tobacco abstinence at the 3-month follow-up; cost per quit.

Results: Of 413 eligible smokers, 43 (10.4%) in the DTS group accepted the treatment offer; 42 (98%) requested NRT and 30 (70%) requested counseling. In intention-to-treat analyses adjusted by logistic regression for age, gender, race, insurance, diabetes, and coronary heart disease, a higher proportion of the DTS group, compared to controls, had used NRT (11.6% vs 3.9%, OR=3.47; 95% CI=1.52, 7.92) or any tobacco treatment (14.5% vs 7.3%, OR=1.95, 95% CI=1.04, 3.65) and reported being tobacco abstinent for the past 7 days (5.3% vs 1.1%, OR=5.35, 95% CI=1.23, 22.32) and past 30 days (4.1% vs 0.6%, OR=8.25, 95% CI=1.08, 63.01). The intervention did not increase smokers' use of counseling (1.7% vs 1.1%) or non-NRT medication (3.6% vs 3.9%). Estimated incremental cost per quit was $464.

Conclusions: A population-based outreach offering free tobacco treatment to smokers in a health center was a feasible, cost-effective way to increase the reach of treatment (primarily NRT) and to increase short-term quit rates.

Trial Registration: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.govNCT01321944.

Citing Articles

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Lung Cancer Screening: The Screen Assist Factorial Randomized Clinical Trial.

Park E, Haas J, Rigotti N, Neil J, Marotta C, Wint A JAMA Intern Med. 2025; .

PMID: 40029643 PMC: 11877408. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.8399.


MiQuit: A Study Protocol to Link Low-Income Smokers to a State Tobacco Quitline.

Matthews A, Steffen A, Burke L, Vilona B, Donenberg G Ethn Dis. 2024; DECIPHeR(Spec Issue):44-51.

PMID: 38846727 PMC: 11895545. DOI: 10.18865/ed.DECIPHeR.44.


Clinician Views of Proactive Tobacco Treatment Programs: A Qualitative Evaluation.

Melzer A, Campbell M, Hagedorn H, Fu S J Gen Intern Med. 2024; 39(11):2079-2086.

PMID: 38831247 PMC: 11306907. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08834-3.


Effect of Adding Personalized Instant Messaging Apps to a Brief Smoking Cessation Model in Community Smokers in Hong Kong: Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

Wu Y, Cheung Y, Lee J, Wong C, Ho S, Li W J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e44973.

PMID: 38739429 PMC: 11130779. DOI: 10.2196/44973.


A Proactive Outreach Strategy Using a Local Area Code to Refer Unassisted Smokers in a Safety Net Health System to a Quitline: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

Valencia C, Dove M, Cummins S, Kirby C, Zhu S, Giboney P Nicotine Tob Res. 2022; 25(1):43-49.

PMID: 36103393 PMC: 9717369. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntac156.


References
1.
Sherman S . A framework for tobacco control: lessons learnt from Veterans Health Administration. BMJ. 2008; 336(7651):1016-9. PMC: 2364861. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39510.805266.BE. View

2.
Miller N, Frieden T, Liu S, Matte T, Mostashari F, Deitcher D . Effectiveness of a large-scale distribution programme of free nicotine patches: a prospective evaluation. Lancet. 2005; 365(9474):1849-54. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66615-9. View

3.
Ellerbeck E, Mahnken J, Cupertino A, Cox L, Greiner K, Mussulman L . Effect of varying levels of disease management on smoking cessation: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150(7):437-46. PMC: 2825176. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-7-200904070-00003. View

4.
Murray R, Coleman T, Antoniak M, Stocks J, Fergus A, Britton J . The effect of proactively identifying smokers and offering smoking cessation support in primary care populations: a cluster-randomized trial. Addiction. 2008; 103(6):998-1006. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02206.x. View

5.
Land T, Warner D, Paskowsky M, Cammaerts A, Wetherell L, Kaufmann R . Medicaid coverage for tobacco dependence treatments in Massachusetts and associated decreases in smoking prevalence. PLoS One. 2010; 5(3):e9770. PMC: 2841201. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009770. View