Tobacco quitline staffs' knowledge and attitudes about connecting quitline callers to lung cancer screening educational materials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of training quitline staff in lung cancer screening (LCS) on knowledge and attitudes towards connecting quitline callers to LCS educational materials. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post evaluation within a larger implementation project in the U.S. to support LCS among quitline callers. From July 2020 to June 2021, staff from four quitline service providers completed surveys before and after training on LCS knowledge. After training, staff completed the acceptability of intervention measure, intervention appropriateness measure, and feasibility of the intervention measure. RESULTS: A total of 245 staff completed the initial demographic survey (analytic sample), 130 completed the pre-training survey, and 225 completed the post-training survey. Staff were on average 47.4 years old and 76.7% were female. LCS knowledge improved after the training (n = 120, mean difference = +26.5%, 95% CI 21.6, 31.4, p < 0.001). Overall, staff felt that connecting quitline callers to LCS education materials was acceptable (M = 4.0, SD = 0.8), appropriate (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7), and feasible (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving training about LCS eligibility and the benefits and harms of screening improved LCS knowledge among quitline staff. Quitline staff found that connecting callers with LCS educational materials is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, and aligned with their primary mission.

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.

Focus Groups and In-depth Interviews to Guide the Development of Lung Cancer Screening Informational Materials.

Lung cancer is one of the most lethal cancers in the USA. In 2013, new guidelines issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography among a selected group of high-risk individuals. Specifically, lung cancer screening is recommended for heavy smokers between the ages of 55 to 79, with at least 30 pack-year smoking exposure. Former smokers who meet these guidelines and stopped smoking ≤ 15 years ago are also eligible. There is a need to promote lung cancer screening to increase early diagnosis rates and treatment options, thereby decreasing disease-specific mortality. This study was conducted to refine educational materials used to inform eligible high-risk individuals about the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. Focus groups (n = 16) and in-depth telephone interviews (n = 5) were conducted among screening-eligible participants recruited from western New York. Main themes that emerged from the discussions included cost of obtaining the exam, eligibility criteria/information about the exam, apprehension regarding results, and an increased desire for discussions with their physician to learn more about the screening. The information gained from this study is vital to understanding concerns held by current and former smokers regarding lung cancer screening, as well as critical to determining which information is most valuable for decreasing barriers and correcting misperceptions about the lung cancer screening exam.

Using a Smoking Cessation Quitline to Promote Lung Cancer Screening.

Objective We assessed whether in-depth messaging delivered via a smoking cessation quitline results in participants: (1) speaking to their physician, or (2) insurance company regarding lung cancer screening (LCS). MethodsEligible participants lived in New York State and met the United States Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for LCS (N = 1000). A randomized trial was conducted among New York State Smokers' Quitline participants to assess the impact of a brochure containing information on risks, benefits, and costs associated with LCS (control group) versus the brochure supplemented with phone-based in-depth messaging (treatment group). ResultsAfter a 4-month telephone survey (N = 431), associations between the study groups were examined for: (1) speaking with a physician regarding LCS, and (2) speaking with an insurance company about LCS coverage. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for demographics, insurance status, emphysema/COPD, and past 30-day cigarette use found no significant associations. However, sensitivity analyses among control participants found significant associations, including for speaking with a physician (p < .05) by receipt of the study brochure. Analyses repeated in the treatment group also had statistically significant findings emerge, including for speaking with insurance company (p < .05). ConclusionsThe educational brochure may be an effective and low-cost way to deliver information about LCS.

A Good Idea May Not Be Good Enough: Stakeholder Buy In to QuitConnect, a National Smokers' Registry.

PURPOSE: To examine interest and concerns among those who fund and operate state-run smoking cessation helplines (quitlines) about the concept of creating a centralized smokers' registry that could be used to reengage smokers after they receive initial quitline support services. DESIGN: We conducted 3, hour-long focus groups with stakeholders, covering the perceived benefits and barriers to creating a smokers' registry. SETTING: The focus groups were conducted via telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Three groups participated: quitline service providers (n = 14), quitline funders (n = 9), and national quitline partners (n = 8). METHOD: Data collection: Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and coded for major relevant themes. Analysis Strategies: We used a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Stakeholders were generally positive about the concept of a centralized smokers' registry (ie, QuitConnect), especially with its potential to link relapsed smokers to ongoing research studies designed to help smokers achieve abstinence from tobacco. However, stakeholders expressed concern about QuitConnect duplicating services already offered by state quitlines. CONCLUSION: Despite a common goal, many state quitline stakeholders had strong reservations about the creation of a centralized smokers' registry unless they could see clear evidence that the registry added value and was not duplicative of their existing services.

Implementation of an Inpatient Electronic Referral System (Opt-to-Quit) From the Electronic Health Record to the New York State Smokers' Quitline: First Steps.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To implement a new policy-driven referral program, Opt-to-Quit, using electronic data transfer from the electronic health record (EHR) to the New York State Smokers' Quitline (NYSSQL) and (2) to improve referrals to the NYSSQL for smoking caregivers of children admitted to a children's hospital. METHODS: Smoking caregivers of pediatric patients were referred to the NYSSQL through a standardized template built into the EHR, during the child's hospitalization or emergency department encounter. Direct data exchange was based on a point-to-point protocol, without dependence on any external centralized processing service. Input and oversight were provided by a multidisciplinary task force, which included physician and nursing leadership, information technology specialists, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance personnel and legal counsel, and NYSSQL staff. The process was refined through several iterative plan-do-study-act cycles, using a single-armed, prospective cohort study design, including surveys of nursing staff and continued input of information technology experts on both hospital and Quitline sides. RESULTS: In 2013, 193 smokers were identified in 2 pilot units; 62% (n= 119) accepted referral to the NYSSQL. In 2014, after expansion to all inpatient units and the emergency department, 745 smokers were identified, and 36% (n = 266) accepted referral. Over the 2 years, overall increase in referrals was 124%; as of the first quarter of 2015, referral rate was sustained at 34%. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-wide implementation of the Opt-to-Quit program through our EHR was feasible and sustainable and has significantly improved referrals to the NYSSQL.

Relapse-Prevention Booklets as an Adjunct to a Tobacco Quitline: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Relapse prevention (RP) remains a major challenge to smoking cessation. Previous research found that a set of self-help RP booklets significantly reduced smoking relapse. This study tested the effectiveness of RP booklets when added to the existing services of a telephone quitline. METHODS: Quitline callers (N = 3458) were enrolled after their 2-week quitline follow-up call and randomized to one of three interventions: (1) Usual Care: standard intervention provided by the quitline, including brief counseling and nicotine replacement therapy; (2) Repeated Mailings (RM): eight Forever Free RP booklets sent to participants over 12 months; and (3) Massed Mailings: all eight Forever Free RP booklets sent upon enrollment. Follow-ups were conducted at 6-month intervals, through 24 months. The primary outcome measure was 7-day-point-prevalence-abstinence. RESULTS: Overall abstinence rates were 61.0% at baseline, and 41.9%, 42.7%, 44.0%, and 45.9% at the 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-ups, respectively. Although RM produced higher abstinence rates, the differences did not reach significance for the full sample. Post-hoc analyses of at-risk subgroups revealed that among participants with high nicotine dependence (n = 1593), the addition of RM materials increased the abstinence rate at 12 months (42.2% vs. 35.2%; OR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.03% to 1.85%; P = .031) and 24 months (45% vs. 38.8%; OR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.01% to 1.73%; P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Sending self-help RP materials to all quitline callers appears to provide little benefit to deterring relapse. However, selectively sending RP booklets to callers explicitly seeking assistance for RP and those identified as highly dependent on nicotine might still prove to be worthwhile.

Using Diverse Communication Strategies to Re-Engage Relapsed Tobacco Quitline Users in Treatment, New York State, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Most smoking cessation programs lack strategies to reach relapsed participants and encourage a new quit attempt. We used a multimodal intervention to encourage past quitline registry participants to recycle into services. METHODS: We invited 3,510 past quitline participants back to quitline services, using messages consecutively delivered through Interactive Voice Response (IVR), followed by postcard and email reminders, 2 Short Messaging Services (SMS) texts, and a final cycle of IVR. The primary study outcome was recycling into a new quitline-assisted quit attempt. We used statistical analyses to assess rates and predictors of recycling (socioeconomic, health- and tobacco-related variables) with study participants and compared the study sample with registry participants not selected for the study (comparison group). RESULTS: Quitline services were re-initiated by 12.2% of the intervention sample and 1.9% of the comparison group (z = 6.03, P < .001, effect size of 0.44). Most re-enrollments were done via direct IVR-transfer to the quitline. Predictors of re-enrollment were age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 for every 10 years of age; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-1.57), number of years smoking (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.36), and reporting cancer (OR = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.47-3.68) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.16-2.10). Living with other smokers was correlated with a lower chance of recycling into treatment (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91). CONCLUSION: Recycling previous quitline participants using a proactive, IVR-based intervention is effective in reinitiating quitline-assisted quit attempts. Older, long-term smokers reporting chronic conditions are more likely than younger smokers to re-engage in quitline support when these methods are used.

A randomized trial for hazardous drinking and smoking cessation for callers to a quitline.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether tobacco quitline telephone coaches can be trained to counsel hazardous-drinking smokers to improve smoking cessation success and to limit or abstain from alcohol use. METHOD: Smokers (N = 1,948) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline and reported hazardous drinking (exceeding sex-specific weekly limits [14 drinks for men, 7 drinks for women] or meeting/exceeding daily drinking limits [5 drinks for men, 4 drinks for women] at least once in the past year) were randomized to receive either brief motivational counseling to limit or abstain from alcohol plus an alcohol reduction booklet added to standard care (Alcohol + Tobacco Counseling; ATC), or only smoking cessation counseling plus a smoking cessation booklet added to standard care (Tobacco-Only Counseling; TOC). RESULTS: Acceptable coach adherence was achieved. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that ATC was associated with a significantly higher rate of smoking abstinence at 7-month follow-up (13.5%) compared with TOC (10.3%; p = .03). The respondent analysis (ATC= 26.2%; TOC = 20.4%) paralleled the ITT findings. When controlling for treatment condition, participants who did not report any heavy drinking were significantly more likely to quit smoking than those who reported any heavy drinking (OR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.29, 2.71]; p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A brief alcohol intervention plus standard care via a telephone quitline resulted in significantly higher smoking cessation rates for hazardous-drinking callers. Given that quitline coaches were trained to provide the intervention with acceptable adherence, the potential to extend this intervention for wide-scale implementation and impact is promising.

Patient willingness and barriers to receiving a CT scan for lung cancer screening.

CT scans are becoming a more common method for detecting lung cancers at an earlier, potentially more curable, stage of disease. There is currently little data on attitudes and beliefs about screening for lung cancer. This paper presents the results of a 2011 survey of adult current and former smokers that queried about past use of CT scanning and reasons for having or not having the screening done. A random-digit dialed telephone survey was administered to a representative sample of 1290 US adults. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the correlates of having the test while controlling for the covariates. A total of 13.4% (n = 45) of the sample had ever had a CT scan to detect lung cancer. Of current smokers, 14.6% had received a CT scan, as compared with 12.7% of former smokers. The oldest age group (55+) was significantly more likely to have received a CT scan than the younger age groups. 78.5% of current smokers and 81.4% of former smokers indicated willingness to get the test if advised to do so by their doctor. Among those who said they were not willing to get screened, lack of insurance coverage was cited by 33% of current smokers and 25% of former smokers. Additionally, 33% of current smokers were afraid to find out whether they had cancer. The main barrier to CT scanning for lung cancer is likely to be insurance coverage for the test, which would be a burden for those on limited and fixed incomes. Next steps should include further research into the effect of increased public education about the availability, risks, benefits and barriers to lung cancer screening.

Tobacco quitlines need to assess and intervene with callers' hazardous drinking.

BACKGROUND: Based on published data showing that daily smokers have high rates of hazardous drinking and higher rates of smoking relapse, we hypothesized that New York State Smokers' Quitline (NYSSQL) callers would exhibit elevated rates of risky drinking and risky drinking callers would report lower rates of smoking cessation. METHODS: We assessed rates of hazardous drinking among 88,479 callers to the NYSSQL using modified NIAAA guidelines. Using 2 routine NYSSQL short-term follow-up interviews (n = 14,123 and n = 24,579) and a 3-month follow-up interview (n = 2,833), we also compared smoking cessation rates for callers who met criteria for hazardous drinking compared to moderate drinkers and nondrinkers. RESULTS: At baseline, 56% of callers reported drinking, and 23% reported hazardous drinking using modified NIAAA guidelines. Hazardous drinkers did not differ on measures of smoking cessation outcomes compared to nondrinkers but did have lower smoking cessation rates compared to persons who reported moderate alcohol consumption for the enhanced services program 1-week follow-up (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 1.09 [1.01, 1.17], p = 0.04) and the standard 2-week follow-up (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 1.17 [1.07, 1.29], p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a quarter of smokers calling the NYSSQL reported a hazardous drinking pattern, which was associated with lower cessation outcomes compared to those who reported a moderate drinking profile. Given the large number of high-risk drinkers who can be identified through a quitline, tobacco quitlines may provide a venue for providing brief alcohol interventions to these high-risk drinkers. Future studies should evaluate whether a brief alcohol intervention would result in improved smoking cessation rates for hazardous drinking smokers.

Does offering more support calls to smokers influence quit success?

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that offering additional callback counseling support to smokers calling a telephone quit line increases quit rates. However, what is less certain is the most cost-efficient protocol for offering such a service. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the efficacy of offering 2 versus 4 counseling callbacks after an initial call from Medicaid/uninsured adult smokers contacting the New York State Smokers' Quit Line (NYSSQL). Outcomes compared are the 7- and 30-day nonsmoker prevalence rates measured at 3-month follow-up and the cost per quit. DESIGN: A 2-group randomized trial was conducted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study population included 1923 adult (18+ years) Medicaid/uninsured current smokers (10+ cigarettes per day) who called the NYSSQL between February and March 2009 seeking help to stop smoking. At the time of the study, the NYSSQL provided Medicaid/uninsured callers with up to 6 weeks of free nicotine medications and up to 4 counseling callbacks. Half the subjects were randomized to standard care with up to 4 counseling callbacks with the remaining subjects offered only 2 counseling callbacks. All participants were sent a minimum of a 2-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy, with some receiving up to 6 weeks. Participants were recontacted 3 months after enrollment in the study to assess smoking status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quit rates, total counseling callbacks completed, reductions in cigarette consumption, and cost per quit measures. RESULTS: There was not a significant difference between study groups in the number of callbacks completed. There was also no difference in 7- or 30-day nonsmoker prevalence rates measured after 3 months' follow-up or reported use of the free nicotine replacement therapy between those assigned to either the 2- or 4-callback protocols. The cost per quit was essentially the same in both groups (2 callbacks--$442 per quit vs 4 callbacks--$445 per quit). CONCLUSION: There was no advantage in terms of quit success or cost to offering up to 4 callbacks instead of 2 callbacks.

Does the number of free nicotine patches given to smokers calling a quitline influence quit rates: results from a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The offer of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) can be a cost-effective marketing strategy to induce smokers to call a telephone quitline for quitting assistance. However, the most cost-effective supply of free NRT to provide to smokers who call a quitline remains unknown. This study tests the hypothesis that smokers who call a telephone quitline and are given more free nicotine patches would report higher quit rates upon follow-up 12 months later. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used to assess nicotine patch usage patterns and quit rates among five groups of smokers who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline (NYSSQL) between April 2003 and May 2006 and were mailed 2-, 4-, 6- or 8-week supplies of free nicotine patches. The study population included 2,442 adult (aged 18 years or older) current daily smokers of 10 or more cigarettes per day, who were willing to make a quit attempt, and reported no contraindications for using the nicotine patch. Outcome variables assessed included the percentage of smokers who reported that they had not smoked for at least 7-days at the time of a 12 months telephone follow-up survey, sustained quitting, delayed quitting and nicotine patch use. RESULTS: Quit rates measured at 12 months were higher for smokers in the groups who received either 2, 6, or 8 weeks of free patches. The lowest quit rate was observed among the group of Medicaid/uninsured smokers who were eligible to receive up to six weeks of free patches. The quit rate for the 4-week supply group did not differ significantly from the 6-week or 8-week groups. These patterns remained similar in an intent-to-treat analysis of 12-month quit rates and in an analysis of sustained quitting. CONCLUSION: No clear cut dose response relationship was observed between the number of free nicotine patches sent to smokers and smoking outcomes. Baseline differences in the characteristics of the groups compared could account for the null findings, and a more definitive randomized trial is warranted.

Educating smokers about their cigarettes and nicotine medications.

The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of specially designed educational materials to correct misperceptions held by smokers about nicotine, nicotine medications, low tar cigarettes, filters and product ingredients. To accomplish this, 682 New York State Smokers' Quitline callers were randomized to one of two groups: control group received counseling, nicotine patches and quit smoking guide; and experimental group received counseling, nicotine patches, quit guide, plus information about cigarette characteristics mailed in a brand-tailored box. Participants were contacted 1 month later to assess knowledge about cigarettes and actions taken to alter smoking behavior. The results found that respondents in the experimental condition were more likely to report using and sharing the test materials with others compared with the control condition. Overall mean knowledge scores for the experimental group were slightly higher compared with those who received the standard materials. Knowledge of cigarette ingredients was not related to quit attempts or quitting smoking. This study found that the experimental materials were better recalled and contributed to higher levels of knowledge about specific cigarette design features; however, this did not translate into changes in smoking behavior.

Randomized trial: Quitline specialist training in gain-framed vs standard-care messages for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting). METHODS: Twenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Specialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference = -2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to -2.3; P < .001; for avoiding negative consequences, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 1.5 vs standard-card mean frequency rating = 1.0; mean difference = -0.5; 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.3; P < .001). Gain-framed counseling was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of abstinence at the 2-week follow-up (ie, 99 [23.3%] of the 424 in the gain-framed group vs 76 [12.6%] of the 603 in the standard-care group, P < .001) but not at the 3-month follow-up (ie, 148 [28.4%] of the 522 in the gain-framed group vs 202 [26.6%] of the 760 in the standard-care group, P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Quitline specialists can be trained to provide gain-framed counseling with good fidelity. Also, gain-framed messages appear to be somewhat more persuasive than standard-care messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation.

The identification of framed messages in the New York State Smokers' Quitline materials.

Research suggests that smoking cessation messages are most persuasive when framed in terms of the benefits achieved from quitting (i.e. gain-framed) than when framed in terms of the costs of not quitting (i.e. loss-framed). It is unknown, however, if these findings about optimal message frames have been translated into public health practice. The current study examined message framing in telephone counseling sessions with smokers calling the New York State Smokers' Quitline (NYSSQ). We conducted a content analysis of all NYSSQ print material and 12 Quitline service calls. Two independent raters coded each message within these documents as being gain-framed, loss-framed or non-framed. Messages from the service calls also were coded for their function (e.g. information provision, information gathering). Interrater reliability was acceptable (kappa > 0.80). Of the 997 print messages evaluated, 21.6% were gain-framed, 13.8% were loss-framed and 64.6% were non-framed. For the service calls, only the messages with an information provision function included framed content. Of the 420 information provision messages, 10.2% were gain-framed, 1.7% were loss-framed and 88.1% were non-framed. The loss-framed and non-framed messages indicate missed opportunities for providing gain-framed messages within the Quitline services, thus emphasizing a possible gap between research and practice.

Using direct mail to prompt smokers to call a quitline.

Telephone quitlines efficiently deliver cessation services, but few smokers use them. This article describes an unsolicited direct mail campaign designed to increase calls to the New York State Smokers' Quitline. Two post-cards advertising the quitline and the availability of free nicotine patches were sent to 77,527 smoker households between August and October 2005. One postcard emphasized the effectiveness of the nicotine patch, whereas the other contrasted the risks of smoking and patch use. Response was evaluated using geographically linked calls to the quitline 15 days before and after each mailing. The postcard campaign increased call volume by 36%, with no difference between the two postcard versions. Those who reported calling the quitline in response to a mailing were more likely to request nicotine patches (91% versus 82%, p < .001). Direct mail can be used to increase quitline call volume and should be one of the promotional tools used by quitlines.

Smokers' acceptance of "cold calls" offering quitline services.

OBJECTIVE: A random sample of smokers was offered a transfer to the New York State Smokers' Quitline in order to assess smokers' acceptance of "cold calls" offering quitline services. METHOD: A 30-minute survey to assess adult tobacco use was administered to 121 western New York smokers who were originally sampled for a random digit dialled survey in 2005, and then re-interviewed one year later, between April and July 2006. Smokers' interest in receiving immediate quitline assistance was assessed at the end of the survey, when the smokers could choose to be transferred to the New York State Smokers' Quitline in order to receive the quitline's cessation services. RESULTS: 41% of smokers accepted the offer for, and subsequently received, New York State Smokers' Quitline services. After controlling for factors related to cessation, women were more likely to respond to the offer. CONCLUSIONS: Although telephone quitline utilisation is low, these data suggest that the demand is high and "cold calls" may be a strategy to extend the use of quitline cessation services.

Free nicotine patch giveaway program 12-month follow-up of participants.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of a free nicotine patch giveaway program offered to New York City (NYC) smokers conducted in 2003. METHODOLOGY: The effectiveness of the program was assessed by contrasting the 12-month quit rate of program participants with the quit rate from a group of Quitline callers who were not offered free nicotine patches. The follow-up surveys were conducted in 2004 and the analysis in 2005. RESULTS: The 7-day nonsmoking prevalence rate measured at 12 months among callers who received the nicotine patches was 1.78 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-2.66) than the quit rate among a comparable group of callers to the Quitline from NYC a year earlier who did not receive nicotine patches. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of free nicotine patches through a telephone quitline was effective in inducing a large number of smokers to make a quit attempt and stop smoking, above and beyond the efficacy of the quitline support alone.

Giving away free nicotine medications and a cigarette substitute (Better Quit) to promote calls to a quitline.

This article presents results from two population-based promotions for free cessation products used to induce smokers to call the New York State Smokers'. The first promotion was a press announcement urging smokers to call the quitline to get a voucher for a free 2-week supply of nicotine patches or gum (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]). The second promotion involved comparing response to two newspaper advertisements for the quitline, one of which offered a free stop smoking guide and one that offered the guide plus a free stop smoking aide called Better Quit (BQ). Responses to each promotion were monitored by tracking the call volume to the quitline-before, during, and after each of the promotions. The NRT voucher promotion increased median call volume 25-fold compared to prepromotion levels, whereas the BQ newspaper advertisement increased median call volume 2-fold compared to a newspaper advertisement for the quitline, which did not offer BQ. A random sample of 732 smokers who received the free NRT voucher were followed up 4 to 6 months later to determine their use of NRT and smoking behavior. Embedded within this follow-up study was a randomized experiment in which half the smokers were mailed a quit kit with BQ included and the other half received just the quit kit. Seventy percent of follow-up survey respondents said that they had redeemed the NRT voucher and used the medication to try to quit smoking. Twenty-two percent reported they were no longer smoking, compared with the 12 percent among a comparison group of quitline callers who had not received the free NRT voucher (odds ratio = 1.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.17-2.68). There was no difference in quit rates between those that were sent the BQ cigarette substitute and those that did not get the BQ. This study shows that offering a free 2-week voucher for NRT is a cost-effective method to increase calls to a stop smoking quitline and may also increase the odds of quitting for those who get the free NRT.