4.6 Article

Happy Ending: a randomized controlled trial of a digital multi-media smoking cessation intervention

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 478-484

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02119.x

关键词

behaviour intervention; digital media; randomized controlled trial; smoking cessation; treatment effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To assess the long-term efficacy of a fully automated digital multi-media smoking cessation intervention. Design Two-arm randomized control trial (RCT). Setting World Wide Web (WWW) study based in Norway. Participants Subjects (n = 396) were recruited via internet advertisements and assigned randomly to conditions. Inclusion criteria were willingness to quit smoking and being aged 18 years or older. Invention The treatment group received the internet- and cell-phone-based Happy Ending intervention. The intervention programme lasted 54 weeks and consisted of more than 400 contacts by e-mail, web-pages, interactive voice response (IVR) and short message service (SMS) technology. The control group received a self-help booklet. Additionally, both groups were offered free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Measurements Abstinence was defined as 'not even a puff of smoke, for the last 7 days', and assessed by means of internet surveys or telephone interviews. The main outcome was repeated point abstinence at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following cessation. Findings Participants in the treatment group reported clinically and statistically significantly higher repeated point abstinence rates than control participants [22.3% versus 13.1%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-3.26, P = 0.02; intent-to-treat). Improved adherence to NRT and a higher level of post-cessation self-efficacy were observed in the treatment group compared with the control group. Conclusions As the first RCT documenting the long-term treatment effects of such an intervention, this study adds to the promise of digital media in supporting behaviour change.

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

4.6
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