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.

Quitline Programs Tailored for Mental Health: Initial Outcomes and Feasibility.

INTRODUCTION: The general efficacy of quitlines has been widely demonstrated, but uncertainty exists regarding how quitlines might best intervene for persons with mental health conditions. A total of 1 in 5 people in the U.S. has a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. These individuals smoke at 2‒4 times the rate of smoking among those without a mental health condition and face high rates of related death and disability. About half of quitline callers self-report a mental health condition, but until recently, quitline protocols tailored to these smokers did not exist. METHODS: This paper provides initial results for tailored mental health programs from the largest quitline providers in the U.S., Optum and National Jewish Health. From 2017 to 2018, cohorts of callers with a mental health condition who enrolled in tailored programs were compared with cohorts with a mental health condition who received standard care. Both mental health programs offered participants additional calls, longer duration of combination nicotine-replacement therapy, and attention to mental health issues. Analyses were conducted in 2018-2019. RESULTS: Findings suggest that callers with a mental health condition benefit from both standard care and tailored mental health services. Tailored programming did well in engaging people with mental health conditions. At the same time, there were no significant differences in abstinence rates when comparing mental health programs with standard care. Mental health cohorts did receive significantly greater service durations, more counseling calls, and longer nicotine-replacement therapy duration. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored mental health quitline programs present a promising framework for testing the services that address psychiatric symptoms as well as other frequent population characteristics such as chronic illness. Implications for increasing reach to the often underserved population with a mental health condition are discussed.

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.

Quitline Use and Outcomes among Callers with and without Mental Health Conditions: A 7-Month Follow-Up Evaluation in Three States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine abstinence outcomes among tobacco users with and without a reported mental health condition (MHC) who enrolled in state tobacco quitline programs. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a 7-month follow-up survey (response rate: 41% [3,132/7,459]) of three state-funded telephone quitline programs in the United States that assessed seven self-reported MHCs at quitline registration. We examined 30-day point prevalence tobacco quit rates for callers with any MHC versus none. Data were weighted to adjust for response bias and oversampling. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine cessation outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 45.8% of respondents reported ≥ 1 MHC; 57.4% of those reporting a MHC reported ≥ 2 MHCs. The unadjusted quit rate for callers with any MHC was lower than for callers with no MHC (22.0% versus 31.0%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for demographics, nicotine dependence, and program engagement, callers reporting ≥ 1 MHC were less likely to be abstinent at follow-up (adjusted OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.51-0.78, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More intensive or tailored quitline programs may need to be developed among callers with MHCs as their quit rates appear to be lower than callers without MHCs.

Utilization of a Web-based vs integrated phone/Web cessation program among 140,000 tobacco users: an evaluation across 10 free state quitlines.

BACKGROUND: Phone-based tobacco cessation program effectiveness has been established and randomized controlled trials have provided some support for Web-based services. Relatively little is known about who selects different treatment modalities and how they engage with treatments in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the characteristics, Web utilization patterns, and return rates of tobacco users who self-selected into a Web-based (Web-Only) versus integrated phone/Web (Phone/Web) cessation program. METHODS: We examined the demographics, baseline tobacco use, Web utilization patterns, and return rates of 141,429 adult tobacco users who self-selected into a Web-Only or integrated Phone/Web cessation program through 1 of 10 state quitlines from August 2012 through July 2013. For each state, registrants were only included from the timeframe in which both programs were offered to all enrollees. Utilization data were limited to site interactions occurring within 6 months after registration. RESULTS: Most participants selected the Phone/Web program (113,019/141,429, 79.91%). After enrollment in Web services, Web-Only were more likely to log in compared to Phone/Web (21,832/28,410, 76.85% vs 23,920/56,892, 42.04%; P<.001), but less likely to return after their initial log-in (8766/21,832, 40.15% vs 13,966/23,920, 58.39%; P<.001). In bivariate and multivariable analyses, those who chose Web-Only were younger, healthier, more highly educated, more likely to be uninsured or commercially insured, more likely to be white non-Hispanic and less likely to be black non-Hispanic, less likely to be highly nicotine-addicted, and more likely to have started their program enrollment online (all P<.001). Among both program populations, participants were more likely to return to Web services if they were women, older, more highly educated, or were sent nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) through their quitline (all P<.001). Phone/Web were also more likely to return if they had completed a coaching call, identified as white non-Hispanic or "other" race, or were commercially insured (all P<.001). Web-Only were less likely to return if they started their enrollment online versus via phone. The interactive Tobacco Tracker, Cost Savings Calculator, and Quitting Plan were the most widely used features overall. Web-Only were more likely than Phone/Web to use most key features (all P<.001), most notably the 5 Quitting Plan behaviors. Among quitlines that offered NRT to both Phone/Web and Web-Only, Web-Only were less likely to have received quitline NRT. CONCLUSIONS: This paper adds to our understanding of who selects different cessation treatment modalities and how they engage with the program in a real-world setting. Web-Only were younger, healthier smokers of higher socioeconomic status who interacted more intensely with services in a single session, but were less likely to re-engage or access NRT benefits. Further research should examine the efficacy of different engagement techniques and services with different subpopulations of tobacco users.

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.