Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:20:35.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

National trends and state-level variation in the duration of incoming quitline calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW during 2012–2015

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

Nathan Mann*
Affiliation:
RTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
Ann Malarcher
Affiliation:
McKing Consulting Corporation, Contractor to the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
Lei Zhang
Affiliation:
Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy. MS-K50, Atlanta, GA, USA
Asma Shaikh
Affiliation:
RTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
Jesse Thompson
Affiliation:
RTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
LeTonya Chapman
Affiliation:
RTI International, 3040 E. Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nathan Mann, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Introduction

The duration of incoming quitline calls may serve as a crude proxy for the potential amount of reactive counseling provided.

Aims

To explore whether call duration may be useful for monitoring quitline capacity and service delivery.

Methods

Using data on the duration of incoming quitline calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW from 2012 through 2015, we examined national trends and state-level variation in average call duration. We estimated a regression model of average call duration as a function of total incoming calls, nationally and by state, controlling for confounders.

Results

From 2012 through 2015, average call duration was 11.4 min, nationally, and was 10 min or longer in 33 states. Average call duration was significantly correlated with quitline service provider. Higher incoming call volume was significantly associated with lower average call duration in 32 states and higher average call duration in five states (P-value <0.05). The relationship between call volume and call duration was not correlated with quitline service provider.

Conclusions

Variation in average call duration across states likely reflects different service delivery models. Average call duration was associated with call volume in many states. Significant changes in call duration may highlight potential quitline capacity issues that warrant further investigation.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation (ANRF). (2017). Summary of 100% smokefree state laws and population protected by 100% U.S. Smokefree laws. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SummaryUSPopList.pdf.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. L., Weiss, J. M., Toll, B., & Zbikowski, S. M. (2016). Association between utilization of quitline services and probability of tobacco abstinence in low-income smokers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 71, 5862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs – 2014. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Population Health. (2019). BRFSS Prevalence and Trends Data [online]. 2012–2015 [accessed September 6, 2019]. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/brfssprevalence/.Google Scholar
Davis, K. C., Alexander, R. L., Shafer, P., Mann, N., Malarcher, A., & Zhang, L. (2015). The dose–response relationship between tobacco education advertising and calls to quitlines in the United States, March–June, 2012. Preventing Chronic Disease, 12, 150157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiore, M. C. (2008). Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update (2008 update ed.). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. R., Solomon, L. J., Naud, S., Fingar, J. R., Helzer, J. E., & Callas, P. W. (2014). Natural history of attempts to stop smoking. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(9), 11901198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemeth, J. M., Cooper, S., Wermert, A., Shoben, A., & Wewers, M. E. (2017). The relationship between type of telephone service and smoking cessation among rural smokers enrolled in quitline tobacco dependence treatment. Preventive Medicine Reports, 8, 226231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North American Quitline Consortium (NAQC). (2012a). Quitline service offering models: A review of the evidence and recommendations for practice in times of limited resources. Retrieved February 4, 2016, from http://www.naquitline.org/?qiiissuepapers.Google Scholar
North American Quitline Consortium (NAQC). (2012b). Results from the 2011 naqc annual survey of quitlines. Retrieved February 4, 2016, from http://www.naquitline.org/?page=2011Survey.Google Scholar
Saul, J. E., Bonito, J. A., Provan, K., Ruppel, E., & Leischow, S. J. (2014). Implementation of tobacco cessation quitline practices in the United States and Canada. American Journal of Public Health, 104(10), e98105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
U.S. DHHS. (2014). The health consequences of smoking – 50 years of progress: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.Google Scholar