Table 2.
Barriers | Overall (%) | MMA (%) | HCA (%) | Difference between approaches p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Reasons for declining | ||||
Had already quit smoking | 15.0 | 20.8 | 10.4 | 0.04* |
TC was too expensive | 10.5 | 10.4 | 11.1 | 0.87 |
Did not want to quit | 9.5 | 10.4 | 9.6 | 0.86 |
Did not want to receive cessation assistance | 5.0 | 3.9 | 5.9 | 0.52 |
Had already found other cessation assistance | 3.2 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 0.71 |
Wanted to receive other cessation assistance | 3.2 | 1.3 | 4.4 | 0.22 |
Other | 2.7 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 0.31 |
Other reasons for not participating after referral | ||||
Unable to reacha | 32.7 | 23.4 | 36.3 | 0.05 |
Did not fulfil inclusion criteriab | 18.2 | 24.7 | 15.6 | 0.15 |
HCA: healthcare approach. MMA: mass media approach. TC: telephone counselling.
Unable to reach was identified by the research team when the smoking cessation counsellors were either unable to reach parents at all or unable to reach parents after they had been able to reach parents once.
Examples of the inclusion criteria for the RCT were: 1) being at least a weekly smoker; 2) being a parent/caretaker of a child aged 0–18 years; and 3) having the intention to quit smoking currently or in the future18.
Statistically significant, p<0.05.