Longitudinal Care Improves Cessation in Smokers Who Do Not Initially Respond to Treatment by Increasing Cessation Self-Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Readiness to Quit: A Mediated Moderation Analysis. (15th September 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Burns, Rachel J.; Rothman, Alexander J.; Fu, Steven S.; Lindgren, Bruce; Vock, David M.; Joseph, Anne M.
• Is Part Of: Annals of behavioral medicine. Volume 50(2016) Supplement 1
• Page Start: 58
• Page End: 69
• Publication Date: 2015-09-15
• Subjects: Smoking cessation -- Mediated moderation -- Longitudinal care; Medicine and psychology -- Periodicals; Sick -- Psychology -- Periodicals; Behavioral Medicine; 616.0019
• DOI: 10.1007/s12160-015-9732-1
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0883-6612

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Tobacco Longitudinal Care study was a randomized controlled trial for smoking cessation. It demonstrated that longitudinal care for smoking cessation, in which telephone-based counseling and nicotine replacement therapy were offered for 12 months, was more effective than the standard 8-week treatment. Purpose: This study aims to identify for whom and how longitudinal care increased the likelihood of abstinence. Methods: Mediated moderation analyses were utilized across three time points. Results: There was a trend towards smokers who did not respond to treatment (i.e., were still smoking) by 21 days being more likely to be abstinent at 6 months if they received longitudinal care rather than usual care. Similarly, those who did not respond to treatment by 3 months were more likely to be abstinent at 12 months if they received longitudinal care. At both time points, the likelihood of abstinence did not differ across treatment conditions among participants who responded to treatment (i.e., quit smoking). The effect on 6-month outcomes was mediated by satisfaction and readiness to quit. Cessation self-efficacy, satisfaction, and readiness to quit mediated the effect on 12-month outcomes. The effect of treatment condition on the likelihood of abstinence at 18 months was not moderated by response to treatment at 6 months. Conclusions: Smokers who did not respond to initial treatment benefited from longitudinal care. Differential effects of treatment condition were not observed among those who responded to early treatment. Conditional assignment to longitudinal care may be useful. Determining for whom and how interventions work over time will advance theory and practice.