Table 3.
Treatment Outcomes of Tobacco Interventions
| Author/year | Conditions | Smoking measure | Initiation/cessation/reduction | Intervention group rates | Control/standard group rates |
| Albrecht et al. (1998) a | Intervention 1: Teen Fresh Start (TFS), a standardized cognitive behavioral group model designed for adolescents. | Current smoking | Cessation | Intervention 2: EOT: 30.0% | Intervention 1 + control group: EOT: 16.6% |
| Intervention 2: Teen Fresh Start Plus Buddy (TFSB), TFS+peer component | |||||
| Control: Usual care (UC), a 30-minute individual educational session with the nurse | |||||
| Botvin et al. (1992) a | Intervention: CBT/social resistance skills training | 30-day smoking | Initiation | BL: 4.86%, 4-mo: 5.19%* | BL: 5.03%, 4-mo: 7.15%* |
| Control: no contact control group | |||||
| Elder et al. (2002) a | Intervention: Sembrando Salud (Sowing the Seeds of Health), tobacco and alcohol use prevention | 30-day smoking | Initiation | BL: 3.0%, EOT: 2.5%, 1-yr: 3.3%, 2-yr: 2.9% | BL: 3.1%, EOT: 4.6%, 1-yr: 4.7%, 2-yr: 3.5% |
| Control: first aid/home safety prevention | |||||
| Guilamo-Ramos et al. (2010) | All adolescents received Project TNT and parents were randomized to either The Linking Lives Health Education Program, focused on effective communication and parental monitoring strategies for preventing adolescent tobacco use or control curriculum about how to choose a high school | Ever tried smoking | Initiation | BL: 5.0%, 15-mo: 5.0%* | BL: 5.0%, 15-mo: 10.0%* |
| Horn et al. (2005) a | Intervention: American Indian N-O-T. Control: Brief 15-minute intervention with quit-smoking advice and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) brochure on quitting smoking | 24-hr abstinence | Cessation | 3-mo: 18-29% males quit, no females quit | 3-mo: 14.3% males quit, no females quit |
| Joffe et al. (2009) a | Intervention 1: Kickin’ Butts | Quit smoking | Cessation | Intervention 1: EOT 14%, 1-mo: 9%, 6-mo: 10%, 12-mo: 9% | Control: EOT: 13%, 1-mo: 6%, 6-mo: 15%, 12-mo: 12% |
| Intervention 2: N-O-T | Intervention 2: EOT: 18%, 1-mo: 13%b, 6-mo: 5%, 12-mo: 7% | Control: EOT: 17%, 1-mo: 9%b, 6-mo: 9%, 12-mo: 6% | |||
| Control: participants in each intervention arm were randomized to intervention or a single session intervention that encouraged students to quit and provided smoking-cessation pamphlets. | |||||
| Johnson et al. (2005) | Intervention: Project FLAVOR (Fun Learning About Vitality, Origins, and Respect), a multicultural tobacco prevention curriculum | Ever tried smoking | Initiation | Intervention vs. Control: 1-yr: 8%c, 2-yr: OR = 0.77d , e | Standard vs. Control: 1-yr: 11%c, 2-yr: OR= 0.97d |
| Standard curriculum: Project CHIPS (Choosing Healthy Influences for a Positive Self), tobacco prevention without culture specific values | |||||
| Waitlist control | 30-day smoking | Cessation | 2-yr: OR = 0.40 d , e | 2-yr: OR = 0.74d | |
| Kaufman et al. (1994) | Intervention: School curriculum + media. | Composite score of cigarette usef | Reduction | BL: M = 13.0 (SD = 2.3), EOT: M = 13.6 (SD = 1.8), 6-mo: M = 11.6 (SD = 4.0) | BL: M = 12.3, (SD = 1.9), EOT: M = 13.3 (SD = 1.9), 6-mo: 11.0 (SD = 2.5) |
| Comparison group: media only | |||||
| Ma et al. (2004) | Intervention: Asian Adolescents Choose Tobacco Free (ACT) | Quit smoking | Cessation, | EOT: 0.0%, 3-mo: 18.2% | EOT: 22.0%, 3-mo: 23.1% |
| Standard care: N-O-T as standard curriculum | |||||
| Prokhorov et al. (2008) | Intervention: A Smoking Prevention InteractiveExperience (ASPIRE) | Current smoking | Initiation | 18-mo: 1.9%* | 18-mo: 5.8%* |
| Standard-care: provided National Cancer Institute’s Clearing the Air self-help booklet | Past week smoking | Cessation | 18-mo: 60.7% | 18-mo: 61.8% | |
| Rice et al. (2010) a | Intervention: 9th graders received Arab-American Tobacco Use (AATU) | Ever tried smoking | Initiation | 1-yr: 23.3%* | Control group 1: 1-yr: 30.5%* Control group 2: 1-yr: 26.5%* |
| Control 1: 10th graders who did not receive intervention | current smoking | Cessation | 1-yr: 8.1%* | Control group 1: 1-yr: 10.6%* Control group 2: 1-yr: 11.3%* | |
| Control 2: 10th graders assessed one year after the end of intervention as a second comparison group to control for historic effects | Regular smoking | 1-yr: 5.6% | Control group 1: 1-yr: 7.3% Control group 2: 1-yr: 6.5% | ||
| Schinke et al. (1996) a | Intervention 1: Tobacco prevention only | Ever tried smoking | Initiation | Intervention 1 BL: 28% EOT: 28% 6-mo: 26% | Control BL: 20% EOT: 30% 6-mo: 43%* |
| Intervention 2: Diet only | Intervention 2 BL: 24% EOT: 30% 6-mo: 40% | ||||
| Intervention 3: Tobacco and diet | Intervention 3 BL: 18% EOT: 18% 6-mo: 18%* | ||||
| Control: no treatment | Current smoking | Intervention 1 BL: 0% EOT: 0% 6-mo: 0% | Control BL: 11%* EOT: 43% 6-mo: 25% | ||
| Intervention 2 BL: 30%* EOT: 30% 6-mo: 30% | |||||
| Intervention 3 BL: 0% EOT: 0% 6-mo: 0% | |||||
| Sun et al. (2007) | Intervention: Project EX (adapted from TNT). | Past week smoking | Reduction | BL: 32.5%, EOT: 25.6%, 6-mo: OR = 0.33e , g, 1-yr: OR = 0.59e , g | BL: 33.3%, EOT: 32.6% |
| Standard-care: students received tobacco prevention or cessation activities offered at the schools |
Note. *Statistically significant differences between intervention and control condition(s). BL = baseline; EOT = end-of-treatment; CO = expired-air carbon monoxide; Mo = month; Yr = year.
a
Other smoking measures are not included in this table.
b
Self-reported quit rate not confirmed by cotinine at 1-month follow up in the intervention group was significantly greater than the control group.
c
1-year follow-up outcomes reported in Unger et al. (2004).
d
Percentages were not reported.
e
The odds ratio is significantly different from that of the control group.
f
Smoking composite score consisted of personal use of cigarettes, family/peer use, experiencing difficulty as a result of smoking cigarettes, parents would be angry if they found out about smoking, what student would do if a friend offered them cigarettes. Scores ranged from 6 to 32, with higher scores indicating higher level of use.
g
The odds ratios of follow-up assessments were reported in Sussman et al. (2007).