Skip to main content
. 1999 Oct 9;319(7215):948–953. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7215.948

Table 3.

Effect of transtheoretical model intervention relative to control group on smoking status for whole sample and subgroups (baseline smokers and baseline non-smokers)

Characteristics of sample Unadjusted analysis
Odds ratio (95% CI)
% smokers in control group % smokers in intervention group % difference (95% CI) Unadjusted Adjusted for baseline smoking status   Fully adjusted
All participants
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up counted as smokers 26.80 27.69  0.89 (−2.89 to 5.02) 1.05 (0.86 to 1.28) 1.08 (0.87 to 1.32) 1.02 (0.83 to 1.25)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up counted as non-smokers 15.49 16.64  1.16 (−1.60 to 4.34) 1.09 (0.88 to 1.35) 1.14 (0.92 to 1.41) 1.10 (0.89 to 1.37)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up assumed to have same smoking habit as at baseline. (Unknown baseline counted as smokers) 18.32 19.56  1.24 (−1.74 to 4.62) 1.08 (0.89 to 1.33) 1.16 (0.96 to 1.42) 1.14 (0.94 to 1.39)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up assumed to have same smoking habit as at baseline. (Unknown baseline counted as non-smokers) 18.24 19.45  1.21 (−1.76 to 4.57) 1.08 (0.88 to 1.32) 1.16 (0.95 to 1.42) 1.14 (0.93 to 1.39)
Only those participants followed up and whose smoking status was known included 17.48 18.76  1.28 (−1.87 to 4.89) 1.09 (0.87 to 1.36) 1.16 (0.93 to 1.43) 1.12 (0.89 to 1.39)
Only those participants followed up and whose smoking status was known and whose answers were completely consistent included 17.48 19.06 1.58 (−1.58 to 5.2) 1.11 (0.89 to 1.38) 1.19 (0.96 to 1.46) 1.14 (0.92 to 1.42)
Only regular smokers at baseline
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up counted as smokers 80.30 79.71 −0.59 (−5.80 to 3.78) 0.96 (0.72 to 1.30) Only smokers included 0.96 (0.69 to 1.32)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up counted as non-smokers 59.00 57.74 −1.26 (−8.35 to 5.52) 0.95 (0.71 to 1.26) Only smokers included 0.91 (0.71 to 1.18)
Only those participants followed up and whose smoking status was known included 74.93 73.94 −0.99 (−7.34 to 4.49) 0.95 (0.70 to 1.29) Only smokers included 0.92 (0.66 to 1.29)
Only those participants followed up and whose smoking status was known and whose answers were completely consistent included 77.66 75.99 −1.67 (−8.14 to 3.79) 0.91 (0.66 to 1.26) Only smokers included 0.89 (0.62 to 1.27)
Only participants not known to be regular smokers at baseline
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up counted as smokers 18.95 20.29  1.34 (−1.95 to 5.09) 1.09 (0.88 to 1.35) 1.09 (0.87 to 1.37) 1.02 (0.82 to 1.27)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up counted as non-smokers 9.30 11.01 1.70 (−0.38 to 4.2) 1.21 (0.95 to 1.52) 1.22 (0.95 to 1.56) 1.17 (0.91 to 1.51)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up assumed to have same smoking habit as at baseline. (Unknown baseline counted as smokers) 9.38 11.14  1.75 (−0.35 to 4.28) 1.21 (0.96 to 1.53) 1.22 (0.95 to 1.56) 1.18 (0.93 to 1.52)
All participants in comparison, those lost to follow up assumed to have same smoking habit as at baseline. (Unknown baseline counted as non-smokers) 9.30 11.01 1.70 (−0.38 to 4.2) 1.21 (0.95 to 1.52) 1.22 (0.95 to 1.56) 1.17 (0.91 to 1.51)
Only those participants followed up and whose smoking status was known included 10.32 12.16  1.84 (−0.51 to 4.66) 1.20 (0.95 to 1.53) 1.21 (0.94 to 1.56) 1.16 (0.89 to 1.50)
Only those participants followed up and whose smoking status was known and whose answers were completely consistent included 10.21 12.30  2.09 (−0.25 to 4.89) 1.23 (0.97 to 1.56) 1.26 (0.98 to 1.61) 1.20 (0.93 to 1.55)