Randomized trial: Quitline specialist training in gain-framed vs standard-care messages for smoking cessation

37Citations
Citations of this article
88Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Smoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting).MethodsTwenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided. ResultsSpecialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference =-2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] =-2.8 to-2.3; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Toll, B. A., Martino, S., Latimer, A., Salovey, P., O’Malley, S., Carlin-Menter, S., … Cummings, K. M. (2010). Randomized trial: Quitline specialist training in gain-framed vs standard-care messages for smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102(2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp468

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free