4.7 Article

Long-Term Smoking Cessation Outcomes Among Childhood Cancer Survivors in the Partnership for Health Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 52-60

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.0880

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U24-CA55727, RO1-CA77780, R01CA106914-04]
  2. University of Minnesota by the Children's Cancer Research
  3. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute by Liberty Mutual
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA106914, U24CA055727, R01CA077780] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Partnership for Health (PFH) was found to increase smoking cessation among smokers in the Childhood Cancer Survivors Study (CCSS) at the 8- and 12-month postbaseline follow-up. This report provides outcomes at 2 to 6 years postbaseline; the primary outcome is a four-category smoking status variable ( quit at all follow-ups, quit at final follow-up only, smoker at all follow-ups, and smoker at final follow-up only); quit attempts among those who reported smoking at the final follow-up is a secondary outcome. Methods PFH was a randomized control trial with two conditions, peer phone counseling ( PC) and self-help (SH), that involved smokers (n = 796) enrolled in the CCSS cohort. Results Long-term quit rates were higher in PC versus SH participants. Long-term smoking cessation outcomes were lower among those who were nicotine dependent, of lower educational levels, and among men, and were higher among those who used nicotine replacement therapy and who had higher levels of situational self-efficacy. There were no significant differences in relapse rates between conditions or in quit attempts among continued smokers. Conclusion Cessation rates continue to be significantly higher among participants in the PC condition versus SH, although the differences were not large. This article highlights differences in long-term engagement with smoking cessation among those who received the intervention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据