Table 1.
Description of Articles Included in Study (N=17)
| Study | Study details | Data set | Focus |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilization | Effectiveness | ||||
| Prout et al.29 | A cross-sectional study analyzing utilization of Massachusetts Quitline between 1994 and 1997 | MA behavioral risk surveillance system | X | ||
| Maher et al.40,41 | A longitudinal study analyzing utilization, 7-day cessation at 3-months follow-up, and satisfaction of Washington Quitline callers between 2004 and 2005, with results stratified by race/ethnicity and educational attainment | Independent data collection | X | ||
| Boles et al.39 | Analysis of 7-day cessation, satisfaction, experiences, and perceptions of the Alaska Quitline among Alaskan Natives compared with those among non-Alaskan Natives who had set a quit date at 3 months follow-up, between 2006 and 2007 | Independent data collection | X | ||
| Kaufman et al.30 | Cross-sectional analysis of factors associated with awareness and utilization of quitlines in the U.S. in 2007 | Health information national trends survey |
X | ||
| Zhu et al.31 | Cross-sectional analysis of California Quitline utilization and how callers were made aware of the quitline for White individuals; English-speaking Asian individuals; and Chinese-, Korean-, and Vietnamese-speaking individuals between 1993 and 2008. Results included and analyzed calls to the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese language quitline and English-speaking quitline services. | California health interview surveys | X | ||
| Zhu et al.10 | Cross-sectional analysis of African American and White smokers calling the California Quitline between 1993 and 2009. Utilization rates were calculated by comparing crude calling numbers and smoking prevalence within subgroups. | Independent data collection, CTS | X | ||
| Burns et al.13 | Factors in nonadherence to quitline services: smoker characteristics explain little | NJH data | X | ||
| Schauer et al.27 | Prevalence and correlates of quitline awareness and utilization in the U.S.: an update from the 2009–2010 NATS | NATS | X | ||
| Kerkvliet and Fahrenwald42 | Tobacco quitline outcomes for priority populations | Independent data collection | X | ||
| Martinez et al.37 | Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline utilization and cessation among American Indians | Independent data collection | X | X | |
| Fallin et al.28 | Smoking-cessation awareness and utilization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults: an analysis of the 2009–2010 NATS | NATS | X | ||
| Lien et al.38 | Tobacco user and characteristics and outcomes related to intensity of quitline program use: results from Minnesota and Pennsylvania | Independent data collection | X | ||
| Lukowski et al.32 | Characteristics of American Indian/Alaskan Native quitline callers across 14 states | NJH data | X | ||
| Sedjo et al. 201634 | Smoking-cessation treatment: use trends among non-Hispanic White and English-speaking Hispanic/Latino smokers, Colorado 2001–2012 | Attitudes and Behaviors Survey | X | ||
| Lukowski et al.33 | Characteristics of LGBT quitline callers across 14 states | NJH data | X | ||
| Marshall et al.34 | Race/ethnic variations in quitline use among U.S. adult tobacco users in 45 states, 2011–2013 | National quitline data warehouse | X | ||
| Allen et al.35 | Gender differences in utilization of services and tobacco cessation outcomes at a state quitline | Arizona Smokers’ helpline database | X | ||
| Total | 13 | 5 | |||
MA, Massachusetts; CTS, California Tobacco Surveys; LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender; NATS, National Adult Tobacco Survey; NJH, National Jewish Health.