Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet Reg Health Am ; 23: 100529, 2023 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37408953

RESUMO

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.

2.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 80: 40-47, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30904596

RESUMO

Smoking in the United States follows a clear socioeconomic gradient: low-income Americans smoke more and quit less than those with more education and income. Evidence-based interventions like tobacco quitlines are designed to make effective cessation services available on a population basis to all smokers. However, these interventions do not address many of the unique challenges faced by low-income smokers, including unmet basic needs like food, housing, personal safety and money for necessities that often supersede health needs. Research is needed to maximize the use and effectiveness of tobacco quitlines in low-income populations. This paper details the rationale, design and methods for a 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial currently underway comparing the effects of Standard and Specialized Tobacco Quitlines with and without Basic Needs Navigation on intervention engagement and smoking cessation among low-income smokers. Smokers are recruited from United Way 2-1-1 in Missouri and all participants receive tobacco quitline services from Optum. Quitline and navigation services are provided for 3 months. Participants complete telephone surveys at baseline, 3- and 6-month follow up. The primary study outcome is self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow up. Embedding the study in practice agencies will accelerate dissemination and scalability should our findings demonstrate intervention effectiveness.


Assuntos
Aconselhamento/métodos , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Navegação de Pacientes/métodos , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Fumar , Humanos , Pobreza/psicologia , Serviços Preventivos de Saúde/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Fumar/epidemiologia , Fumar/psicologia , Fumar/terapia , Fatores Socioeconômicos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA