Search

Theory-driven, mass media interventions prevent smoking among youth. This study examined effects of a media campaign on adolescent smoking cessation. Four matched pairs of media markets in four states were randomized to receive or not receive a 3-year television/radio campaign aimed at adolescent smoking cessation based on social cognitive theory. The authors enrolled 2,030 adolescent smokers into the cohort (n = 987 experimental; n = 1,043 comparison) and assessed them via annual telephone surveys for 3 years. Although the condition by time interaction was not significant, the proportion of adolescents smoking in the past month was significantly lower in the experimental than comparison condition at 3-year follow-up when adjusted for baseline smoking status. The media campaign did not impact targeted mediating variables. A media campaign based on social cognitive constructs produced a modest overall effect on smoking prevalence among adolescents, but the role of theory-based constructs is unclear. (Contains 4 tables.)

Smokers not currently interested in quitting (N=616) were randomized to receive telephone-based (a) reduction counseling plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) plus brief advice to quit, (b) motivational advice plus brief advice, or (c) no treatment. More smokers in the reduction (43%) and motivational (51%) conditions made a 24-hr quit attempt over 6 months than smokers in the no-treatment condition (16%; p ? .01), but the 2 active conditions did not differ (p ? .05). Similarly, 18%, 23%, and 4% of each condition were abstinent (7-day point prevalence) at 6 months (p ? .01). Results indicate smoking reduction using NRT does not undermine cessation but rather increases the likelihood of quitting to a degree similar to motivational advice.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.08.001 Byline: Laura J. Solomon (a)(b)(c), Janice Y. Bunn (c)(d)(e), Phyllis L. Pirie (f), John K. Worden (b)(c)(g), Brian S. Flynn (b)(c)(g) Keywords: Cigarette smoking; Adolescents; Self-efficacy; Outcome expectations Abstract: Relatively little is known about smoking cessation self-efficacy and outcome expectations for quitting smoking in adolescent smokers. In this study, we created measures of these two constructs and conducted factor analyses with data from a diverse sample of 1126 adolescent smokers. Results yielded a two-factor solution for the self-efficacy measure, and a four-factor solution for the outcome expectations scale. In a subset of the original sample (n =515), we re-administered the measures one year later and also examined the longitudinal associations between the baseline sub-scale scores and cigarettes smoked per week at follow-up. Results revealed significant relationships between the negative affect sub-scales of the self-efficacy and outcome expectations measures and weekly smoking level. These associations remained when adjusting for baseline smoking level and other sub-scales. The findings lend support for the possible role of affect regulation in smoking reduction in adolescents. Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, United States (b) Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, United States (c) Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, United States (d) Department of Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, United States (e) Department of Physical Therapy, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, United States (f) Department of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, United States (g) Office of Health Promotion Research, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, United States

BackgroundIt is unclear whether offering online data collection to study participants affects compliance or produces bias. ObjectiveTo compare response rates, baseline characteristics, test-retest reliability, and outcomes between cigarette smokers who chose to complete a survey by mail versus those who chose to complete it online. MethodsWe surveyed cigarette smokers who intended to stop smoking within the next 30 days to determine barriers to calling a smoking quit line. Participants were offered the choice of completing a paper version of the survey sent through the mail or an online version at a password-protected website. Participants were called 2 months later to determine if they had made a quit attempt and/or called a smoking quit line since the baseline survey. We compared characteristics and outcomes among those who chose postal versus online completion. We measured test-retest reliability of the baseline survey by resurveying a semirandom sample of participants within 10 days of the original survey. ResultsOf 697 eligible respondents to newspaper ads in 12 US cities, 438 (63%) chose to receive a mailed paper survey and 259 (37%) chose an Internet survey. Survey return rates were the same for the 2 modes (92% versus 92%, P = .82). Online respondents were younger (mean of 46 versus 51 years old for postal, P < .001), more likely to be white (76% versus 62%, P < .001), less likely to be African American (18% versus 30%, P < .001), more highly educated (34% college graduate versus 23%, P < .001), more likely to intend to stop smoking in the next 30 days (47% definitely versus 30%, P < .001), and more likely to have heard of a smoking quit line (51% versus 40%, P = .008). Participants did not differ on gender (54% female for online versus 55% for postal, P = .72) or cigarettes smoked per day (mean of 19 versus 21, P = .30). Online respondents had slightly fewer missing items on the 79-item survey (mean of 1.7% missing versus 2.3%, P = .02). Loss to follow-up at 2 months was similar (16% for online and 15% for postal, P = .74). There was no significant difference between online and postal respondents in having called a smoking quit line during the 2-month follow-up period (20% versus 24%, P = .22) or in having made a quit attempt (76% versus 79%, P = .41). ConclusionsCigarette smokers who chose to complete a survey using the Internet differed in several ways from those who chose mailed surveys. However, more importantly, online and postal responses produced similar outcomes.

Smokers not currently interested in quitting (N = 616) were randomized to receive telephone-based (a) reduction counseling plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) plus brief advice to quit, (b) motivational advice plus brief advice, or (c) no treatment. More smokers in the reduction (43%) and motivational (51%) conditions made a 24-hr quit attempt over 6 months than smokers in the no-treatment condition (16%; p < .01), but the 2 active conditions did not differ (p > .05). Similarly, 18%, 23%, and 4% of each condition were abstinent (7-day point prevalence) at 6 months (p < .01). Results indicate smoking reduction using NRT does not undermine cessation but rather increases the likelihood of quitting to a degree similar to motivational advice.