Testing a Brief Quitline Intervention for Tobacco Cannabis Co-Users: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

被引:1
|
作者
Carpenter, Kelly M. [1 ]
Walker, Denise D. [2 ]
Mullis, Kristina [1 ]
Berlin, Helena M. [1 ]
Short, Etta [3 ]
Javitz, Harold S.
Carlini, Beatriz H. [2 ]
机构
[1] RVO Hlth, Ctr Wellbeing Res, 1101 Red Ventures Dr, Ft Mill, SC 29707 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Seattle, WA USA
[3] RVO Hlth, Ft Mills, SC USA
来源
TOBACCO USE INSIGHTS | 2024年 / 17卷
关键词
Tobacco; cessation; quitlines; cannabis; coaching; interventions; PRIMARY-CARE; DISORDERS;
D O I
10.1177/1179173X241261302
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Tobacco cannabis co-use is common and becoming more prevalent. Frequent and heavy users of cannabis may struggle to quit smoking. Quitlines offer free cessation treatment in the United States and 25% of quitline callers may also be cannabis users. The present paper describes a randomized pilot study of a tailored intervention for cannabis and cigarette co-users. The intervention combines the quitline smoking cessation treatment with a motivational enhancement therapy-based cannabis intervention. Methods: The randomized pilot study was conducted within four state-funded quitlines with quitline coaches as interventionists. 102 quitline callers who were cannabis and cigarette co-users were randomized to receive treatment as usual (TAU) or the new Quitline Check-Up (QLCU) intervention. Outcomes were collected 90 days post-randomization. Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability of delivering the QLCU in the quitline setting. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, past 30-day cannabis use, and Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test scores.Results: Study participants were heavy cannabis users, averaging 25 days of use in the past 30; nearly 70% used at a level considered hazardous. Fidelity ratings indicated coaches were successful at delivering the intervention. Treatment engagement was high for both groups (TAU m = 3.4 calls; QLCU m = 3.6 calls) as was treatment satisfaction. Intent-to-treat quit rates (with survey non-responders classified as smokers) were 28.6% for the TAU control group and 24.5% for the QLCU group (P = .45). Discussion: Hazardous cannabis use rates were high in this sample of tobacco cannabis co-users calling quitlines to quit smoking. The intervention for co-users was acceptable and feasible to deliver. No improvements in tobacco cessation outcomes were observed. Pragmatic intervention development within a real-world clinical setting can streamline the intervention development process. More research is needed on tobacco cannabis co-users and who can benefit from a tailored intervention. Registered: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04737772, February 4, 2021.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Cannabis use and the GP: brief motivational intervention increases clinical enquiry by GPs in a pilot study
    McCambridge, J
    Strang, J
    Platts, S
    Witton, J
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2003, 53 (493): : 637 - 639
  • [42] Brief alcohol intervention in a psychiatric outpatient setting: A randomized controlled study
    Nehlin C.
    Grönbladh L.
    Fredriksson A.
    Jansson L.
    Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 7 (1)
  • [43] Brief intervention addressing excessive cannabis use in young people consulting their GP: a pilot study
    Haller, Dagmar M.
    Meynard, Anne
    Lefebvre, Daniele
    Tylee, Andre
    Narring, Francoise
    Broers, Barbara
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2009, 59 (560): : 166 - 172
  • [44] A remote brief intervention plus social media messaging for cannabis use among emerging adults: A pilot randomized controlled trial in emergency department patients
    Bonar, Erin E.
    Goldstick, Jason E.
    Tan, Chiu Yi
    Bourque, Carrie
    Carter, Patrick M.
    Duval, Elizabeth R.
    Mcafee, Jenna
    Walton, Maureen A.
    ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS, 2023, 147
  • [45] Effects of Combining a Brief Cognitive Intervention with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Tolerance: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
    Powers, Abigail
    Madan, Alok
    Hilbert, Megan
    Reeves, Scott T.
    George, Mark
    Nash, Michael R.
    Borckardt, Jeffrey J.
    PAIN MEDICINE, 2018, 19 (04) : 677 - 685
  • [46] A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Brief Parenting Intervention in Low-Resource Settings in Panama
    Mejia, Anilena
    Calam, Rachel
    Sanders, Matthew R.
    PREVENTION SCIENCE, 2015, 16 (05) : 707 - 717
  • [47] A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Brief Parenting Intervention in Low-Resource Settings in Panama
    Anilena Mejia
    Rachel Calam
    Matthew R. Sanders
    Prevention Science, 2015, 16 : 707 - 717
  • [48] A Brief Mindfulness-Based Intervention for Primary Care Physicians: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
    Schroeder, David A.
    Stephens, Elizabeth
    Colgan, Dharmakaya
    Hunsinger, Matthew
    Rubin, Dan
    Christopher, Michael S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LIFESTYLE MEDICINE, 2018, 12 (01) : 83 - 91
  • [49] A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Brief Conflict Reappraisal Intervention for Community Couples with Young Children
    Prime, Heather
    Muise, Amy
    Jambon, Marc
    Koven, Maya
    Markwell, Alexandra
    Wade, Mark
    COGNITIVE THERAPY AND RESEARCH, 2024, 48 (05) : 895 - 909
  • [50] Pilot Testing of an mHealth App for Tobacco Cessation in People Living With HIV: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
    Brin, Maeve
    Trujillo, Paul
    Jia, Haomiao
    Cioe, Patricia
    Huang, Ming-Chun
    Chen, Huan
    Qian, Xiaoye
    Xu, Wenyao
    Schnall, Rebecca
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2023, 12