Reaching out, inviting back: using Interactive voice response (IVR) technology to recycle relapsed smokers back to Quitline treatment--a randomized controlled trial

Beatriz H Carlini, Anna M McDaniel, Michael T Weaver, Ross M Kauffman, Barbara Cerutti, Renée M Stratton, Susan M Zbikowski, Beatriz H Carlini, Anna M McDaniel, Michael T Weaver, Ross M Kauffman, Barbara Cerutti, Renée M Stratton, Susan M Zbikowski

Abstract

Background: Tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition that typically requires multiple quit attempts and extended treatment. When offered the opportunity, relapsed smokers are interested in recycling back into treatment for a new, assisted quit attempt. This manuscript presents the results of a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of interactive voice response (IVR) in recycling low income smokers who had previously used quitline (QL) support back to QL support for a new quit attempt.

Methods: A sample of 2985 previous QL callers were randomized to either receive IVR screening for current smoking (control group) or IVR screening plus an IVR intervention. The IVR intervention consists of automated questions to identify and address barriers to re-cycling in QL support, followed by an offer to be transferred to the QL and reinitiate treatment. Re-enrollment in QL services for both groups was documented.

Results: The IVR system successfully reached 715 (23.9%) former QL participants. Of those, 27% (194/715) reported to the IVR system that they had quit smoking and were therefore excluded from the study and analysis. The trial's final sample was composed of 521 current smokers. The re-enrollment rate was 3.3% for the control group and 28.2% for the intervention group (p < .001). Logistic regression results indicated an 11.2 times higher odds for re-enrollment of the intervention group than the control group (p < .001). Results did not vary by gender, race, ethnicity, or level of education, however recycled smokers were older (Mean = 45.2; SD = 11.7) than smokers who declined a new treatment cycle (Mean = 41.8; SD = 13.2); (p = 0.013). The main barriers reported for not engaging in a new treatment cycle were low self-efficacy and lack of interest in quitting. After delivering IVR messages targeting these reported barriers, 32% of the smokers reporting low self-efficacy and 4.8% of those reporting lack of interest in quitting re-engaged in a new QL treatment cycle.

Conclusion: Proactive IVR outreach is a promising tool to engage low income, relapsed smokers back into a new cycle of treatment. Integration of IVR intervention for recycling smokers with previous QL treatment has the potential to decrease tobacco-related disparities.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01260597.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram.

References

    1. Fiore MC, Jaen CR, Baker TB, Bailey WC, Benowitz NL, Curry SJ, Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical practice guideline. US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Rockville, MD; 2008.
    1. Lando HA, Pirie PL, Roski J, McGovern PG, Schmid LA. Promoting abstinence among relapsed chronic smokers: the effect of telephone support. American Journal of Public Health. 1996;86:1786–1790. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.12.1786.
    1. Fu SS, Partin MR, Snyder A, An LC, Nelson DB, Clothier B. et al.Promoting repeat tobacco dependence treatment: are relapsed smokers interested? American Journal of Managed Care. 2006;12:235–243.
    1. Gourlay SG, Forbes A, Marriner T, Pethica D, McNeil JJ. Double blind trial of repeated treatment with transdermal nicotine for relapsed smokers. British Medical Journal. 1995;311:363–366. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.363.
    1. Joseph AM, Rice K, An LC, Mohiuddin A, Lando H. Recent quitters' interest in recycling and harm reduction. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2004;6:1075–1077. doi: 10.1080/14622200412331324893.
    1. Partin MR, An LC, Nelson DB, Nugent S, Snyder A, Fu SS. et al.Randomized Trial of an Intervention to Facilitate Recycling for Relapsed Smokers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2006;31:293–299. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.06.021.
    1. Tonnesen P, Mikkelsen KL, Norregaard J, Jorgensen S. Recycling of hard-core smokers with nicotine nasal spray. Eur Respir J. 1996;9:1619–1623. doi: 10.1183/09031936.96.09081619.
    1. Tonnesen P, Norregaard J, Urbain S, Simonsen K. Recycling with nicotine patches in smoking cessation. Addiction. 1993;88:533–539. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02060.x.
    1. Carlini BH, Zbikowski SM, Javitz HS, Deprey TM, Cummins SE. Telephone-based tobacco-cessation treatment: re-enrollment among diverse groups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;35:73–76. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.025.
    1. Paul CL, Ross S, Bryant J, Hill W, Bonevski B, Keevy N. The social context of smoking: A qualitative study comparing smokers of high versus low socioeconomic position. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:211. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-211.
    1. Pisinger C, Aadahl M, Toft U, Jorgensen T. Motives to quit smoking and reasons to relapse differ by socioeconomic status. Prev Med. 2011;52:48–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.10.007.
    1. Redonnet B, Chollet A, Fombonne E, Bowes L, Melchior M. Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and other illegal drug use among young adults: The socioeconomic context. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;121(3):231–239. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.002.
    1. Zhang X, Martinez-Donate AP, Kuo D, Jones NR, Palmersheim KA. Trends in home smoking bans in the USA, 1995–2007: prevalence, discrepancies and disparities. Tob Control. 2012;21(3):330–336. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.043802.
    1. Lillard DR, Plassmann V, Kenkel D, Mathios A. Who kicks the habit and how they do it: Socioeconomic differences across methods of quitting smoking in the USA. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;64:2504–2519. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.036.
    1. Pleis JR, Lucas JW, Ward BW. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 2009;10:242.
    1. Maher JE, Rohde K, Dent CW, Stark MJ, Pizacani B, Boysun MJ. et a statewide tobacco quitline an appropriate service for specific populations? Tobacco Control. 2007;16:i65–i70. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.019786.
    1. SAS/STAT 9.2 Users Guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC; 2008.
    1. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Wiley & Sons, New York; 1989.
    1. Kutner M, Nachtsheim C, Neter J, Li W. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 5. McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston; 2005.
    1. Hiscock R, Judge K, Bauld L. Social inequalities in quitting smoking: what factors mediate the relationship between socioeconomic position and smoking cessation? J Public Health (Oxf) 2011;33:39–47. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdq097.
    1. Ferguson SG, Shiffman S, Gitchell JG, Sembower MA, West R. Unplanned quit attempts--results from a U.S. sample of smokers and ex-smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:827–832. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp072.
    1. Larabie LC. To what extent do smokers plan quit attempts? Tob Control. 2005;14:425–428. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.013615.
    1. Yeomans K, Payne KA, Marton JP, Merikle EP, Proskorovsky I, Zou KH. et al.Smoking, smoking cessation and smoking relapse patterns: a web-based survey of current and former smokers in the US. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65:1043–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02758.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit