Tobacco Quitlines May Help Exclusive Vapers Quit: An Analysis of Data From an Employer-Sponsored Quitline.

Numerous studies have supported the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of quitlines for cigarette smoking cessation, but how effective they are for vaping cessation has not been established. Our secondary analysis examined quitline data on participants in employer-sponsored quitlines in the US run by Optum, Inc to compare quit rates among callers who were exclusive vapers (n = 1,194) with those who were exclusive smokers (n = 22,845). We examined data from the time of quitline enrollment, January 2017, through October 2020. Before adjusting for differences in demographics, quitline treatment engagement, and unadjusted quit rates, the quit rates for vapers were significantly higher. However, after adjusting for demographic and treatment engagement variables, 6-month quit rates among vapers did not differ significantly from rates among smokers.

Appeal of Tobacco Quitline Services Among Low-Income Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: State tobacco quitlines are delivering cessation assistance through an increasingly diverse range of channels. However, offerings vary from state to state, many smokers are unaware of what is available, and it is not yet clear how much demand exists for different types of assistance. In particular, the demand for online and digital cessation interventions among low-income smokers, who bear a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related disease, is not well understood. METHODS: We examined interest in using 13 tobacco quitline services in a racially diverse sample of 1,605 low-income smokers in 9 states who had called a 2-1-1 helpline and participated in an ongoing intervention trial from June 2020 through September 2022. We classified services as standard (used by ≥90% of state quitlines [eg, calls from a quit coach, nicotine replacement therapy, printed cessation booklets]) or nonstandard (mobile app, personalized web, personalized text, online chat with quit coach). RESULTS: Interest in nonstandard services was high. Half or more of the sample reported being very or somewhat interested in a mobile app (65%), a personalized web program (59%), or chatting online with quit coaches (49%) to help them quit. In multivariable regression analyses, younger smokers were more interested than older smokers in digital and online cessation services, as were women and smokers with greater nicotine dependence. CONCLUSION: On average, participants were very interested in at least 3 different cessation services, suggesting that bundled or combination interventions might be designed to appeal to different groups of low-income smokers. Findings provide some initial hints about potential subgroups and the services they might use in a rapidly changing landscape of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation.

Full-scale Randomized Trial Comparing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Telephone-Delivered Coaching With Standard Telephone-Delivered Coaching Among Medicare/Uninsured Quitline Callers.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) telephone-delivered coaching with standard quitline (QL) telephone-delivered coaching. METHODS: Medicare/uninsured adults (analyzable sample N = 1170) who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were recruited from Optum, a major US provider of QL services, in a two-arm stratified double-blind randomized trial with main outcome of self-reported missing = smoking 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 12-month follow-up. Participants were mean (SD) age 47.4 (12.7), 61% female, and 72% white race. Five sessions of telephone-delivered ACT or QL interventions were offered. Both arms included combined nicotine patch (4 weeks) and gum or lozenge (2 weeks). RESULTS: The 12-month follow-up data retention rate was 67.8%. ACT participants reported their treatment was more useful for quitting smoking (92.0% for ACT vs. 82.3% for QL; odds ratio [OR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 4.00). Both arms had similar 12-month cessation outcomes (missing = smoking 30-day PPA: 24.6% for ACT vs. 28.8% for QL; OR =.81; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.05) and the ACT arm trended toward greater reductions in number cigarettes smoked per day (-5.6 for ACT vs. -1.7 QL, among smokers; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: ACT telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching. ACT may help those who fail to quit after standard coaching or who choose not to use nicotine replacement therapy. IMPLICATIONS: In a sample of Medicare and uninsured QL callers, a large randomized trial with long-term follow-up showed that ACT) telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching-which has followed the same behavior change approach since the 1990s. This newer model of coaching might be a welcome addition to QL services.

A Randomized Pilot of a Tailored Smoking Cessation Quitline Intervention for Individuals Who Smoke and Vape.

INTRODUCTION: Although e-cigarettes are not a federally approved tobacco cessation aid in the United States, many smokers use them to quit or cut down on smoking. Tailored behavioral support could improve rates of complete smoking cessation for those individuals. AIMS AND METHODS: A novel behavioral treatment to help dual cigarette and e-cigarette users quit smoking was tested in a randomized pilot with a state tobacco quitline. Ninety-six dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were recruited from incoming state quitline callers and randomized to receive enhanced e-cigarette coaching (EEC) or quitline treatment as usual (TAU) to examine EEC feasibility and acceptability. Outcomes at 3 months were treatment satisfaction, engagement, beliefs, and smoking cessation. This pilot was not powered to detect differences in quit rates. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent responded to the 3-month survey. EEC treatment satisfaction was noninferior to TAU: 93.8% (30/32) of EEC and 73.5% (25/34) of TAU reported being "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with treatment, respectively. EEC participants completed more coaching calls than TAU (M = 3.4 vs. M = 2.7, p = .03), and the majority in both groups elected to receive nicotine replacement therapy (EEC: 100%, TAU: 94%, p = .24). With missing data imputed as smoking, intent-to-treat 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rates were 41.3% (19/46) for EEC and 28.0% (14/50) for TAU (p = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The EEC quitline intervention for dual cigarette and e-cigarette users demonstrated high levels of treatment satisfaction and engagement. This pilot was not powered to detect significant differences in smoking cessation; however, cessation rates were promising and warrant evaluation in a fully powered trial. IMPLICATIONS: If this scalable behavioral treatment to help dual cigarette and e-cigarette users quit smoking proves to be effective in a larger trial, quitlines could implement this harm reduction approach to improve outcomes for callers who already use e-cigarettes and are planning to use them while quitting smoking.

Marijuana Use and Adherence to Smoking Cessation Treatment Among Callers to Tobacco Quitlines.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco kills over half a million adults annually in the United States. Most smokers want to quit, and over 400,000 call state-funded quitlines for help each year. Marijuana use among tobacco users is common and may impede quitting, but co-use rates among quitline callers are unknown. The purpose of our observational study was to describe marijuana use among quitline callers in states with legalized marijuana. METHODS: Participants were 1,059 smokers aged 21 or older from Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, DC, who called quitlines from September through December 2016. Data on quitline callers' demographics, tobacco and marijuana use, and quitline use were collected. We used χ2 and regression analyses to compare marijuana users with nonusers on demographic characteristics and quitline use. RESULT: Among quitline callers in our study, 24% reported using marijuana in the past 30 days: 28.9% in Alaska, 16.7% in Washington, DC, and 25.0% in Oregon (P = .009). Current users, compared with non-users (n = 772), were less likely to be women (48.4% vs 62.0%, respectively, P < .001). Current marijuana users were less likely to be given nicotine replacement therapy (68.4%) than current nonusers (74.1%) (P < .001), but more likely to complete 3 or more counseling calls (P = .005). Of those who used marijuana in the past 30 days, 62.3% used marijuana on 1 to 19 days, 9.0% used on 20 to 29 days, and 28.7% on all 30 days. Among current marijuana users, the percentage who wanted to quit or reduce marijuana use (42.6%) was higher in Alaska (54.6%) and the District of Columbia (56.8%) than in Oregon (37.9%), P = .03. CONCLUSION: One in 4 quitline callers reported past 30-day marijuana use. Given that nearly half (43%) wanted to reduce marijuana use, addressing co-use may be an important addition to quitline treatment. Future studies should assess co-use effects on tobacco cessation outcomes and explore combined treatment or bidirectional referrals between quitlines and marijuana treatment providers.

Feasibility and Early Outcomes of a Tailored Quitline Protocol for Smokers With Mental Health Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with mental health conditions (MHCs) smoke at higher rates, are more nicotine dependent, and have more trouble quitting smoking than those without MHCs. About half of smokers who call state-funded quitlines report MHCs, and those with such conditions have cessation rates 8%-10% lower than those without MHCs. This article describes a clinical pilot of a tailored protocol for quitline callers with MHCs. METHODS: Callers to the Texas Tobacco Quit Line who self-reported MHCs were offered a tailored quitline program, offering up to 12 weeks of combination nicotine replacement (nicotine patch plus gum or lozenge) and seven counseling calls. Characteristics, program engagement, and 7-month outcomes for these pilot participants were compared to callers in the standard Texas Tobacco Quit Line program with and without MHCs not offered the tailored program. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of eligible quitline callers accepted enrollment in the tailored pilot. Pilot enrollees (n = 311) had high rates of comorbidity and serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder (59%). Those in the pilot sample participated in more coaching calls and used more nicotine replacement versus comparison groups. Early cessation outcomes showed numerically higher quit rates for pilot participants than those with MHCs in the standard program, but small sample size and low response rates prevent definitive statements about efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a tailored quitline protocol for callers with MHCs was feasible and acceptable to quitline callers and increased engagement in treatment. A larger study is needed to determine if the protocol increases cessation among this group. IMPLICATIONS: Nearly half of all quitline callers report a MHC. This clinical quality improvement pilot shows that delivering a tailored tobacco cessation program for smokers with MHCs is feasible and acceptable to quitline callers. Participants in the pilot group had higher engagement in treatment, doubling the number of coaching calls received and using more nicotine replacement than comparison groups. Further investigation is needed to determine the effect of this program on cessation rates, although preliminary outcomes are promising.

A Randomized Pilot Study of a Phone-Based Mindfulness and Weight Loss Program.

This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of integrating mindfulness training into a phone-based weight loss program to improve outcomes in those with high levels of emotional eating. Participants were 75 enrollees into an employer-sponsored weight loss program who reported high levels of overeating in response to thoughts and feelings. Seventy-five overweight and obese participants (92% female, 65% Caucasian, aged 26 to 68 years) were randomized to the new mindfulness weight loss program (n = 50) or the standard behavioral weight loss program (n = 25). Both programs consisted of 11 coaching calls with health coaches and registered dietitians with supplemental online materials. Satisfaction, engagement, and percent weight lost did not significantly differ for intervention vs. control at six months. Intervention participants had significantly better scores at six-month follow-up on mindful eating, binge eating, experiential avoidance, and one mindfulness subscale. Exploratory analyses showed that improvements on several measures predicted more weight loss in the intervention group. This pilot study found that integrating mindfulness into a brief phone-based behavioral weight loss program was feasible and acceptable to participants, but did not produce greater weight loss on average, despite hypothesized changes in mindful eating. Only one third of intervention participants reported participating in mindfulness exercises regularly. Mechanisms of change observed within the intervention group suggest that for adults with high levels of emotional eating those who embrace mindful eating and meditation may lose more weight with a mindfulness intervention.

Combined Quitline Counseling and Text Messaging for Smoking Cessation: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: This study seeks to determine whether comprehensive quitline services combined with text messaging improve smoking cessation rates beyond those achieved by offering comprehensive quitline services alone. METHODS: The study sample consisted of callers to the Alere Wellbeing, Inc, commercial quitline in 2012. A quasi-experimental design was implemented using propensity score matching to create the intervention and control groups. The intervention group consisted of those who were offered and accepted a text message intervention in addition to usual quitline services, while the control group consisted of those who were not offered the text message intervention. Analyses utilized baseline data collected at intake, program use data (eg, call history and text message use), and reports of smoking behaviors and program satisfaction collected 6 months after intake. RESULTS: Similar rates of 7-day abstinence were reported regardless of whether participants received combined multi-call quitline services plus text messaging (25.3%) or multi-call quitline services in isolation (25.5%), though those who received combined services reported higher treatment satisfaction (P < .05). Among those who received combined services, the number of text messages sent to the text message program predicted 7-day abstinence such that those who sent more text messages were less likely to report 7-day abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging may not confer additional benefits over and above those received through multi-modal, multi-call quitline programs. Future research should investigate whether text messaging programs improve quit rates when combined with less intensive services such as single-call phone counseling. IMPLICATIONS: While the impact of quitline and text messaging services for smoking cessation have been examined in isolation, no study has explored the impact of combined services on smoking outcomes. This study examines the role of text messaging in combination with comprehensive quitline services including multi-call phone counseling, access to an interactive website and nicotine replacement therapy.

Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers: study protocol for the Helping HAND 2 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers are effective in promoting smoking cessation, but only if the tobacco dependence treatment continues after the patient leaves the hospital. Sustaining tobacco dependence treatment after hospital discharge is a challenge for health care systems. Our previous single-site randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention that facilitated the delivery of comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment, including both medication and counseling, after hospital discharge. We subsequently streamlined the intervention model to increase its potential for dissemination. This new model is being tested in a larger multi-site trial with broader eligibility criteria in order to enroll a more representative sample of hospitalized smokers. This paper describes the trial design and contrasts it with the earlier study. METHODS/DESIGN: A 2-arm, 3-site randomized controlled trial is testing the hypothesis that a multi-component Sustained Care intervention is more effective than Standard Care in helping hospitalized cigarette smokers stop smoking after hospital discharge. The trial enrolls adult daily cigarette smokers who are admitted to 1 of 3 participating hospitals in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Participants receive the same smoking cessation intervention in the hospital. They are randomly assigned to receive either Standard Care or Sustained Care after hospital discharge. Participants in the Sustained Care arm receive a free 3-month supply of FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and 5 interactive voice response calls that provide tailored motivational messages, medication refills, and access to a live tobacco treatment counselor. Participants in the Standard Care arm receive a smoking cessation medication recommendation and information about community resources. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome is biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence for the past 7 days at 6-month follow-up. Other outcome measures include self-reported tobacco abstinence measures, use of medication and counseling after discharge, hospital readmissions, and program cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: We adapted a proven intervention for hospitalized smokers to enhance its potential for dissemination and are testing it in a multi-site trial. Study enrollment data suggests that the trial achieved the goal of recruiting a broader sample of hospitalized smokers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (Helping HAND2) NCT01714323. Registered October 22, 2012.

An online stress management workbook for breast cancer.

Cognitive behavioral stress management groups have been shown to be decrease psychological symptoms and increase adaptive coping in breast cancer patients, but dissemination of this effective intervention has been challenging. The goal of the present project was to develop an online cognitive behavioral stress management intervention for early stage breast cancer survivors and evaluate its effectiveness using a 2 group × 3 time randomized, waitlist-controlled design. Intervention and waitlist control group participants were assessed at three time points: at baseline; at 10 weeks, after which only intervention participants had used the workbook; and at 20 weeks, after which both groups had used the workbook. Results indicate that at 10 weeks intervention participants showed improved self-efficacy for coping with their cancer and for regulating negative mood and lower levels of cancer-related post-traumatic symptoms as compared to the control group, suggesting that an internet stress management intervention could be effective for helping breast cancer patients increase their confidence in their ability to cope with stress.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of a Quitline Vaping Cessation Intervention: Baseline Characteristics of Young Adult Exclusive E-Cigarette Users Seeking Treatment.

Despite interest in quitting vaping among young adults (YAs), little is known about characteristics of e-cigarette (EC) users seeking treatment. In this study, YAs aged 18-24 living in the United States interested in vaping cessation treatment were recruited to complete an online survey regarding demographics and EC use. Primary eligibility criteria were EC use on at least 20 days per month (no other tobacco use), and interest in quitting in the next month. We report descriptive statistics for those who did and did not complete a mandatory coaching call (n = 981). In this sample, most EC users reported high nicotine dependence, a history of unsuccessful quit attempts (including 29.4% with previous NRT use), along with stress, anxiety, and depression. There were few meaningful differences in demographics, EC use behaviors, or behavioral health factors between those who engaged with a phone coaching call (fully enrolled in study; n = 508), and those who did not (n = 473). YAs demonstrated interest in vaping cessation support, but there were no clear characteristics for the half who did not complete a coaching call. Vaping cessation program designers should consider tailoring for the self-reported behavioral health concerns present in this population.

Testing a Brief Quitline Intervention for Tobacco Cannabis Co-Users: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

Background: Tobacco cannabis co-use is common and becoming more prevalent. Frequent and heavy users of cannabis may struggle to quit smoking. Quitlines offer free cessation treatment in the United States and 25% of quitline callers may also be cannabis users. The present paper describes a randomized pilot study of a tailored intervention for cannabis and cigarette co-users. The intervention combines the quitline smoking cessation treatment with a motivational enhancement therapy-based cannabis intervention. Methods: The randomized pilot study was conducted within four state-funded quitlines with quitline coaches as interventionists. 102 quitline callers who were cannabis and cigarette co-users were randomized to receive treatment as usual (TAU) or the new Quitline Check-Up (QLCU) intervention. Outcomes were collected 90 days post-randomization. Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability of delivering the QLCU in the quitline setting. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, past 30-day cannabis use, and Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test scores. Results: Study participants were heavy cannabis users, averaging 25 days of use in the past 30; nearly 70% used at a level considered hazardous. Fidelity ratings indicated coaches were successful at delivering the intervention. Treatment engagement was high for both groups (TAU m = 3.4 calls; QLCU m = 3.6 calls) as was treatment satisfaction. Intent-to-treat quit rates (with survey non-responders classified as smokers) were 28.6% for the TAU control group and 24.5% for the QLCU group (P = .45). Discussion: Hazardous cannabis use rates were high in this sample of tobacco cannabis co-users calling quitlines to quit smoking. The intervention for co-users was acceptable and feasible to deliver. No improvements in tobacco cessation outcomes were observed. Pragmatic intervention development within a real-world clinical setting can streamline the intervention development process. More research is needed on tobacco cannabis co-users and who can benefit from a tailored intervention. Registered: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04737772, February 4, 2021.

Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use among tobacco users who seek help from state tobacco quitlines, the reasons for its use, and whether e-cigarettes impact a user's ability to successfully quit tobacco. This study investigates these questions and describes differences among state quitline callers who used e-cigarettes for 1 month or more, used e-cigarettes for less than 1 month, or never tried e-cigarettes. METHODS: Data on e-cigarette use were collected from 2,758 callers to 6 state tobacco quitlines 7 months after they received intervention from the quitline program. RESULTS: Nearly one third (30.9%) of respondents reported ever using or trying e-cigarettes; most used for a short period of time (61.7% for less than 1 month). The most frequently reported reasons for use were to help quit other tobacco (51.3%) or to replace other tobacco (15.2%). Both e-cigarette user groups were significantly less likely to be tobacco abstinent at the 7-month survey compared with participants who had never tried e-cigarettes (30-day point prevalence quit rates: 21.7% and 16.6% vs. 31.3%, p < .001). Demographic differences between the 3 groups are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a preliminary look at e-cigarette use among state quitline callers and is perhaps the first to describe e-cigarette use in a large group of tobacco users seeking treatment. The notable rates of e-cigarette use and use of e-cigarettes as cessation aids, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved e-cigarettes for this purpose, should inform policy and treatment discussions on this topic.

Enhancing Tobacco Quitline Outcomes for African American Adults: An RCT of a Culturally Specific Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: This study tested the effectiveness of a culturally specific tobacco cessation video intervention among African American quitline enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: This was a 3-arm semipragmatic RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: African American adults (N=1,053) were recruited from the North Carolina tobacco quitline and data were collected between 2017 and 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive (1) quitline services only; (2) quitline services plus a standard, general audience video intervention; or (3) quitline services plus Pathways to Freedom (PTF), a culturally specific video intervention designed to promote cessation among African American persons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included 7-day and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence at 3 months, 28-day continuous abstinence, and intervention engagement. Data analyses occurred in 2020 and 2022. RESULTS: At 6 months, 7-day point prevalence abstinence was significantly greater in the Pathways to Freedom Video arm compared with quitline-only (OR=1.5, CI=1.11, 2.07). Twenty four-hour point prevalence abstinence was significantly greater in the Pathways to Freedom (than in quitline-only) group at 3 (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.03, 2.15) and 6 (OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.10, 2.28) months. At 6 months, 28-day continuous abstinence (OR=1.60, 95% CI=1.17, 2.20) was significantly greater in the Pathways to Freedom Video arm than in the quitline-only arm. Views of the Pathways to Freedom Video were 76% higher than views of the standard video. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally specific tobacco interventions delivered through state quitlines can increase cessation and thus have the potential to decrease health disparities among African American adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03064971.

Leveling the Playing Field: Mailing Pharmacotherapy to Medicaid Members Who Smoke.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking rates differ by insurance type; rates are often double for Medicaid and uninsured compared with that for Medicare or privately insured. State-funded tobacco quitlines' provision of free nicotine replacement therapy varies. In some states, Medicaid beneficiaries must obtain nicotine replacement therapy from a physician, whereas others get nicotine replacement therapy mailed to them. METHODS: This secondary analysis examined the differences in the source and use of cessation treatment by insurance type and their impacts on cessation. The parent trial excluded people who were pregnant, had private insurance, or were not ready to quit. From June 1, 2017 to November 15, 2020, a total of 1,944 low-income people who smoke daily completed a baseline survey and were enrolled in a quitline program; 1,380 (71%) completed a 3-month follow-up. Analyses were completed in August 2022. Participants were classified as Medicaid/dual (55%), Medicare/Veterans Affairs (14%), or uninsured (31%). Nine months into the trial, owing to a system error, the quitline provided nicotine replacement therapy to all study participants regardless of insurance type. RESULTS: Before error versus after error, Medicaid participants reported lower nicotine replacement therapy receipt (3.2% vs 50.8%) and use (32.4% vs 52.6%). The odds of quitting (7-day point prevalence) by 3 months increased for people who smoke who completed more quitline calls and used any (36% quit) versus used no (20% quit) pharmacotherapy, but quitting did not differ by insurance classifications (27%-29%). Getting and using nicotine replacement therapy from the quitline produced the highest quit rates (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Results illustrate the benefit of receiving nicotine replacement therapy from the quitline on cessation. Mailing nicotine replacement therapy to all people who smoke should be standard practice to reduce smoking disparities.

Expanding population-level interventions to help more low-income smokers quit: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-income Americans have higher rates of smoking and a greater burden of smoking-related disease. In the United States, smokers in every state can access evidence-based telephone counseling through free tobacco quitlines. However, quitlines target smokers who are ready to quit in the next 30 days, which can exclude many low-income smokers. A smoke-free homes intervention may help engage smokers in tobacco control services who are not yet ready to quit. Previous research in low-income populations suggests that receiving a smoke-free homes intervention is associated with higher quit rates. This study tests whether, at a population level, expanding on quitlines to include a smoke-free homes intervention for smokers not ready to quit could engage more low-income smokers and increase long-term cessation rates. METHODS: In a Hybrid Type 2 design, participants are recruited from 211 helplines in 9 states and randomly assigned to standard quitline or quitline plus smoke-free homes intervention arms. Participants in both arms are initially offered quitline services. In the quitline plus smoke-free homes condition, participants who decline the quitline are then offered a smoke-free homes intervention. Participants complete a baseline and follow-up surveys at 3 and 6 months. Those who have not yet quit at the 3-month follow-up are re-offered the interventions, which differ by study arm. The primary study outcome is self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: This real-world cessation trial involving 9 state tobacco quitlines will help inform whether offering smoke-free homes as an alternative intervention could engage more low-income smokers with evidence-based interventions and increase overall cessation rates. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Identifier: NCT04311983).

Helping low-income smokers quit: findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing specialized quitline services with and without social needs navigation.

Background: Quitting smoking is especially challenging for low-income smokers due to high stress, high smoking prevalence around them, and limited support for quitting. This study aimed to determine whether any of three interventions designed specifically for low-income smokers would be more effective than standard tobacco quitline services: a specialized quitline, the specialized quitline with social needs navigation, or the standard quitline with social needs navigation. Methods: Using a randomized 2 × 2 factorial design, low-income daily cigarette smokers (n = 1944) in Missouri, USA who called a helpline seeking assistance with food, rent or other social needs were assigned to receive Standard Quitline alone (n = 485), Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 484), Specialized Quitline alone (n = 485), or Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 490). The target sample size was 2000, 500 per group. The main outcome was 7-day self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Multiple imputation was used to impute outcomes for those missing data at 6-month follow-up. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to assess differences between study groups. Findings: Participants were recruited from June 2017 to November 2020; most were African American (1111 [58%]) or White (666 [35%]), female (1396 [72%]), and reported <$10,000 (957 [51%]) or <$20,000 (1529 [82%]) annual pre-tax household income. At 6-month follow-up (58% retention), 101 participants in the Standard Quitline group reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (20.8% of those assigned at baseline, 38.1% after imputation). Quit rates in the Specialized Quitline (90 quitters, 18.6%, 38.1%) and Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (103 quitters, 21.0%, 39.8%) were not different from the Standard Quitline. Quit rates for Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (74 quitters, 15.3%, 30.1%) were significantly lower than Standard Quitline (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.50-0.98). Interpretation: A specialized version of a state tobacco quitline was no more effective than standard quitline services in helping low-income smokers quit. Adding social needs navigation to a standard quitline decreased its effectiveness. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03194958. Funding: National Cancer Institute: R01CA201429.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Approaches in Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Americans of lower SES use tobacco products at disproportionately high rates and are over-represented as patients of emergency departments. Accordingly, emergency department visits are an ideal time to initiate tobacco treatment and aftercare for this vulnerable and understudied population. This research estimates the costs per quit of emergency department smoking-cessation interventions and compares them with those of other approaches. METHODS: Previously published research described the effectiveness of 2 multicomponent smoking cessation interventions, including brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral, and follow-up communication. Study 1 (collected in 2010-2012) only analyzed the combined interventions. Study 2 (collected in 2017-2019) analyzed the intervention components independently. Costs per participant and per quit were estimated separately, under distinct intervention with dedicated staff and intervention with repurposed staff assumptions. The distinction concerns whether the intervention used dedicated staff for delivery or whether time from existing staff was repurposed for intervention if available. RESULTS: Data were analyzed in 2021-2022. In the first study, the cost per participant was $860 (2018 dollars), and the cost per quit was $11,814 (95% CI=$7,641, $25,423) (dedicated) and $227 per participant and $3,121 per quit (95% CI=$1,910, $7,012) (repurposed). In Study 2, the combined effect of brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, and quitline cost $808 per participant and $6,100 per quit (dedicated) (95% CI=$4,043, $12,274) and $221 per participant and $1,669 per quit (95% CI=$1,052, $3,531) (repurposed). CONCLUSIONS: Costs varied considerably per method used but were comparable with those of other smoking cessation interventions.

Establishing treatment fidelity in a web-based behavioral intervention study.

BACKGROUND: : Treatment fidelity pertains to the methodological strategies used to monitor and enhance the reliability and validity of behavioral interventions. Approaches to establishing treatment fidelity in Web-based interventions differ from those used in interventions that are delivered in person. OBJECTIVE: : The aim of this study was to describe a methodology for ensuring treatment fidelity in a Web-based cognitive behavioral stress management intervention. METHODS: : The intervention Coping With Cancer Workbook, adapted for Web-based delivery from an in-person intervention, was tested in a randomized controlled trial with 123 breast cancer survivors. Strategies for ensuring treatment fidelity were implemented and assessed. RESULTS: : The National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium Treatment Fidelity Guidelines were relevant to establishing treatment fidelity for the Web-based intervention. DISCUSSION: : Web-based delivery of behavioral interventions is both a strength and a threat to treatment fidelity. Investigators must be cognizant of the elements of treatment fidelity and implement strategies to monitor and improve the reliability and validity of Web-based interventions.

Vaping and E-Cigarettes Within the Evolving Tobacco Quitline Landscape.

This article summarizes the vaping research literature as it pertains to tobacco quitlines and describes vaping assessment, treatment, and evaluation quitline practices. It also presents 2014-2018 registration data (vaping in the past 30 days, number of use days, use for quitting smoking, and intentions to quit vaping) from 24 public quitlines (23 states and District of Columbia) and 110,295 enrollees to employer-sponsored quitlines. Trends in vaping rates over time, by state, and by age group are described. Approximately 57,000 adult public quitline enrollees in the U.S. reported vaping at registration in 2018 (14.7% of enrollees). Most quitline participants who vape also smoke cigarettes and contact the quitline for smoking cessation support. Rates of reporting vaping and no combustible or smokeless tobacco use in the past 30 days are 0.5% of all public quitline participants (<3% of public quitline vaping product users). Data are not systematically available regarding the number of quitline participants who are seeking help quitting vaping and only vape (do not use combustible or smokeless tobacco). Few quitline participants (<1%) are youth aged <18 years, but more than a third (35%) report vaping. This paper outlines research and evaluation priorities to inform the future quitline treatment landscape with respect to vaping. The quitline community is positioned to increase the likelihood that vaping has a positive impact for adults who smoke through harm reduction or supporting cessation and has opportunities to expand impacts on youth and young adult vaping prevention and cessation.