SUPPLEMENT

The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline

Jack F Hollis¹, Timothy A McAfee², Jeffrey L Fellows¹, Susan M Zbikowski², Michael Stark³, Karen Riedlinger¹

¹ Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
² Free & Clear, Inc, Seattle, WA, USA
³ Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland, OR, USA

Correspondence to:
Jack F Hollis, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA; Jack.Hollis{at}kpchr.org

Objectives: State and national tobacco quitlines have expanded rapidly and offer a range of services. We examined the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of offering callers single session versus multisession counselling, with or without free nicotine patches.

Methods: This 3x2 randomised trial included 4614 Oregon tobacco quitline callers and compared brief (one 15-minute call), moderate (one 30-minute call and a follow-up call) and intensive (five proactive calls) intervention protocols, with or without offers of free nicotine patches (nicotine replacement therapy, NRT). Blinded staff assessed tobacco use by phone at 12 months.

Results: Abstinence odds ratios were significant for moderate (OR = 1.22, CI = 1.01 to 1.48) and intensive (OR = 1.29, CI = 1.07 to 1.56) intervention, and for NRT (OR = 1.58, CI = 1.35 to 1.85). Intent to treat quit rates were as follows: brief no NRT (12%); brief NRT (17%); moderate no NRT (14%); moderate NRT (20%); intensive no NRT (14%); and intensive NRT (21%). Relative to brief no NRT, the added costs for each additional quit was $2467 for brief NRT, $1912 for moderate no NRT, $2109 for moderate NRT, $2641 for intensive no NRT, and $2112 for intensive NRT.

Conclusion: Offering free NRT and multisession telephone support within a state tobacco quitline led to higher quit rates, and similar costs per incremental quit, than less intensive protocols.

Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratios; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy; OTQL, Oregon tobacco quitline

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Pbert, L. (2009). Enhancing the Effect of Telephone Quitline Counseling Through Proactive Call-Back Counseling. Chest 136: 1199-1200 [Full Text]  
• Cokkinides, V., Bandi, P., McMahon, C., Jemal, A., Glynn, T., Ward, E. (2009). Tobacco Control in the United States--Recent Progress And Opportunities. CA Cancer J Clin 59: 352-365 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Tworek, C., Haskins, A., Woods, S. (2009). Maine's Tobacco Medication Program: Compliance, patterns of use, and satisfaction among smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 11: 904-907 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ossip, D. J., Abrams, S. M., Mahoney, M. C., Sall, D., Cummings, K. M. (2009). Adverse effects with use of nicotine replacement therapy among quitline clients. Nicotine Tob Res 11: 408-417 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Miller, C L, Sedivy, V (2009). Using a quitline plus low-cost nicotine replacement therapy to help disadvantaged smokers to quit. Tobacco Control 18: 144-149 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lichtenstein, E. (2007). Quitlines. Tobacco Control 16: i1-i2 [Full Text]  
• Anderson, C M, Zhu, S-H (2007). Tobacco quitlines: looking back and looking ahead. Tobacco Control 16: i81-i86 [Abstract] [Full Text]