Review of strategies to recruit smokers for smoking cessation: a population impact perspective

Abstract

This paper reviews published articles describing several instruments used currently to "capture" the attention of smokers for quit-smoking interventions and emphasizes the distinction between the strategies used to reach eligible individuals and those used to recruit them for the proposed smoking cessation intervention. The search for articles was conducted using MED-LINE, PsychARTICLE, and LILACS. Key IntroductionThere is a growing awareness that smoking control intervention programs should consider the complexity of cultural and socioeconomic situations that are part of the smokers' universe 1 .Several authors have pointed out that effectiveness of multiple interventions may be greater than the sum of their independent effectiveness levels 2,3,4 . Effectiveness of smoking control programs is a function of numerous factors, including efficacy, adherence to the type of intervention or set of interventions, the target population's characteristics, and the tools employed to capture smokers 5 . Creativity and innovation are essential to deal with combinations of such complex variables 6,7 . It is particularly important to understand that not all smokers are the same, and that certain types of smokers need to be "won over" as "potential clients" of an intervention program aimed at addressing their specific needs.The purpose of this paper is to review several tools -both reactive and active -used to "capture" eligible smokers' attention for smoking control intervention programs. More specifically, this paper emphasizes the importance of reaching the target population and motivating it to receive the intervention. The actual efficacy levels of existing cessation interventions have been reviewed previously 8,9 and will not be discussed here.REVISÃO REVIEW Szklo AS S622

Smoking cessation behavioural therapy in disadvantaged neighbourhoods: an explorative analysis of recruitment channels

“…In recruitment strategies, a distinction needs to be made between the channel through which participants had their attention captured (or heard about) an intervention [ 11 ], and the channel through which they were referred to the intervention. These two steps can happen through the same channel (e.g.…”

“…We also know that they can differ by individual socioeconomic status [ 17 , 25 ]. Different channels may deliver participants who exhibit differences in socio-demographic characteristics and nicotine dependence [ 11 ], and possibly also in psychosocial factors such as social support, self-efficacy, and motivation. This might be the case because some strategies, from the viewpoint of the smoker, are pro-active (e.g.…”

Estratégia de recrutamento de fumantes no metrô do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, para ampliar o acesso a linhas telefônicas de apoio à cessação: impacto da novidade

“…Mensagens negativas utilizadas durante longo tempo ficam super expostas, desgastam-se e, conseqüentemente, perdem impacto 4,5,6 . No caso do DPF, as mensagens existentes foram introduzidas há cinco anos.…”

“…O resultado dessas ações é função da eficá-cia do tipo de intervenção proposta e dos instrumentos de recrutamento de fumantes elegíveis utilizados 4 . Esses instrumentos podem envolver canais de comunicação sem contato pessoal direto com o pesquisador ou o provedor do serviço (canais reativos), os quais conseguem atingir uma população elegível mais numerosa a um menor custo 4,5 .…”

“…Esses instrumentos podem envolver canais de comunicação sem contato pessoal direto com o pesquisador ou o provedor do serviço (canais reativos), os quais conseguem atingir uma população elegível mais numerosa a um menor custo 4,5 . A literatura aponta, contudo, para uma taxa de resposta muito baixa ao recrutamento reativo, variando entre 0,1% e 7% 4 . Dessa forma, a novidade, impulsionada pela criatividade do veículo escolhido para divulgar temas originais e relevantes ao público elegível, é vista como um elemento essencial para aumentar a resposta desejada 5,6 .…”