rss
Tob Control 2007;16:i53-i59 doi:10.1136/tc.2006.019794
  • SUPPLEMENT

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

  1. Jack F Hollis1,
  2. Timothy A McAfee2,
  3. Jeffrey L Fellows1,
  4. Susan M Zbikowski2,
  5. Michael Stark3,
  6. Karen Riedlinger1
  1. 1
    Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
  2. 2
    Free & Clear, Inc, Seattle, WA, USA
  3. 3
    Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland, OR, USA
  1. Jack F Hollis, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA; Jack.Hollis{at}kpchr.org
  • Received 28 December 2006
  • Accepted 20 August 2007

Abstract

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 3×2 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.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: JFH, JLF and KR have no competing interests. TAMcA and SMZ are with Free & Clear, Inc, which is a for-profit company providing telephone counselling services.

  • Funding: This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant R01 CA86242), and we want to thank GlaxoSmithKline for supplying the nicotine patches used in the study.

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

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register hereto access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alertsso you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.