Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Jun 20;165:229–235. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.06.014

Table 2. Intervention receptivity and engagement, by baseline smoking category (Experimental cohort only who were eligible for the intervention: n = 801).

Transition Ratesa
Infrequent
N =263
Occasional
N =186
Regular
N =352
p-value for
trendb
Intervention receptivity
Eligible smokers
successfully contacted for
intervention (N=716)
90.1%
(n=237)
88.7%
(n=165)
89.2%
(n=314)
p = 0.74
Contacted smokers who
accepted intervention offer
(N=616)
88.6%
(n=210)
86.1%
(n=142)
84.1%
(n=264)
p = 0.14
Intervention engagement
Accepting smokers who
participated in 1 or more
counseling calls (N=577)
95.2%
(n=200)
91.5%
(n=130)
93.6%
(n=247)
p = 0.51
Participating smokers who
completed full intervention
(N=396)
80.5%
(n=160)
63.8%
(n=83)
61.5%
(n=152)
p < 0.01
a

Transition rate = # reaching outcome / # reaching previous outcome

b

p-value for transition rate trend using Cochran-Armitage Trend test (Armitage, 1955).

d

Total smokers eligible for intervention recruitment (801) = 240 age ≥ 18, plus 561 age <18 with parental consent. Parental consent rates were 87.2% for infrequent smokers, 87.2% for occasional smokers, and 82.1% for regular smokers (trend test: p = 0.20).