Article Text
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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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