Linda A. Bailey

BACKGROUND: Quitlines have become an integral part of tobacco control efforts in the United States and Canada. The demonstrated efficacy and the convenience of telephone based counselling have led to the fast adoption of quitlines, to the point of near universal access in North America. However, information on how these quitlines operate in actual practice is not often readily available. OBJECTIVES: This study describes quitline practice in North America and examines commonalities and differences across quitlines. It will serve as a source of reference for practitioners and researchers, with the aim of furthering service quality and promoting continued innovation. DESIGN: A self administered questionnaire survey of large, publicly funded quitlines in the United States and Canada. A total of 52 US quitlines and 10 Canadian quitlines participated. Descriptive statistics are provided regarding quitline operational structures, clinical services, quality assurance procedures, funding sources and utilisation rates. RESULTS: Clinical services for the 62 state/provincial quitlines are supplied by a total of 26 service providers. Nine providers operate multiple quitlines, creating greater consistency in operation than would otherwise be expected. Most quitlines offer services over extended hours (mean 96 hours/week) and have multiple language capabilities. Most (98%) use proactive multisession counselling-a key feature of protocols tested in previous experimental trials. Almost all quitlines have extensive training programmes (>60 hours) for counselling staff, and over 70% conduct regular evaluation of outcomes. About half of quitlines use the internet to provide cessation information. A little over a third of US quitlines distribute free cessation medications to eligible callers. The average utilisation rate of the US state quitlines in the 2004-5 fiscal year was about 1.0% across states, with a strong correlation between the funding level of the quitlines and the smokers' utilisation of them (r = 0.74, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Quitlines in North America display core commonalities: they have adopted the principles of multisession proactive counselling and they conduct regular outcome evaluation. Yet variations, tested and untested, exist. Standardised reporting procedures would be of benefit to the field. Shared discussion of the rationale behind variations can inform future decision making for all North American quitlines.

Importance: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective: To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results: Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.