@article {Hollisi53, author = {Jack F Hollis and Timothy A McAfee and Jeffrey L Fellows and Susan M Zbikowski and Michael Stark and Karen Riedlinger}, title = {The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline}, volume = {16}, number = {Suppl 1}, pages = {i53--i59}, year = {2007}, doi = {10.1136/tc.2006.019794}, publisher = {BMJ Publishing Group Ltd}, 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{\texttimes}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.}, issn = {0964-4563}, URL = {https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/16/Suppl_1/i53}, eprint = {https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/16/Suppl_1/i53.full.pdf}, journal = {Tobacco Control} }