Skip to main content

Table 5 Cessation studies – recruitment

From: Effects of sixty six adolescent tobacco use cessation trials and seventeen prospective studies of self-initiated quitting

Investigators Means of recruitment Reach (recruited/total tobacco users notified) Retention (% at posttest/attended 1st session) Follow-up (% at follow-up/completed pretest)
Ary et al. 1. classroom prevention program 92% 100% 76%
Aveyard et al. 1. use of whole classes as part of personal health and social education lessons 90% NR 89%
Baskerville, Hotte, Dunkley 1. contest 13% 66% NR
  2. home room class announcement    
Bauman et al. 1. telephone screening 55% NA 73%
Beaglehole et al. 1. classroom education program 99% NR 92%
Biener et al. 1. telephone screening based on random-digit-dialing ~75% NA NA
Chakravorty 1. person-to-person NR 95% NA
  2. PA announcement    
  3. flyer    
Charlton 1. class presentation 26% joined clinic ~33% of clinic attendees 39%
Cinnomin, Sussman 1. class presentation 55%   
  2. person-to-person   100% 85%
Colby et al. 1. patient assessment (screening) and information about project 85% NR 95%
  2. money ($20)    
Coleman-Wallace et al. 1. school district support and announcements 21% 77% NA
  2. money ($3) for control group    
  3. mandatory to avoid suspension (57% subjects)    
Corby et al. 1. newspaper ads NR 100% 100%
  2. money ($135 total possible)    
  3. referrals from community agencies    
  4. person-to-person    
Digiusto 1. posters 21% (39% in class time, 11% in lunchtime) 80% ~80%
  2. assembly announcement    
  3. classroom announcement    
  4. class release time in 1 condition    
Dino et al. 1. poster "ads" placed in likely smoking areas and public areas around the school ~10% 65% 48%
  2. PA announcement    
  3. person-to-person    
  4. class release time    
Eakin, Severson, Glasgow 1. person-to-person 76% agreed to be in study/approached 84% 80%
  2. referrals    
  3. money ($60)    
Etter, Ronchi, Perneger 1. names of university administrative files (screening)    
  2. surveys by mail 77% NA 83%
Fibkins 1. person-to-person 9% 100% NA
  2. referrals to school counselor and nurse    
Forster et al. 1. classroom surveys (whole classes) 93% NA 93%
  2. media campaigns    
  3. policy enactment and enforcement    
Glasgow et al. 1. chart review/screening (approach subject at contraceptive visit) 74% agreed to be in study/approached NR 91%
  2. money ($70)    
Glover 1. mandatory NR 100% 100%
Goldberg, Gorn 1. mandatory NR 100% ~65%
Greenberg, Deputat 1. person-to-person 100% – stopped at first 100; perhaps 40% of tobacco users at school 95% 78%
  2. referrals    
  3. 2 unit credit for complete participation    
  4. mandatory    
  5. principal support    
Hafstad, Aaro, Langmark 1. county-wide mass media campaign NR NA 66%
  2. home-mailed questionnaire, with three reminders    
Horn et al. 1. poster "ads" placed in likely smoking areas and public areas around the school ~10% 72% NA
  2. PA announcement    
  3. person-to-person    
  4. class release time    
Horswell, Horton NR NR NR NR
Hotte et al. 1. class credit 74% 46% 31%
  2. some type of school-wide announcements    
Hurt et al. 1. flyers in schools NR 70% 57%
  2. press releases, TV and radio announcements,    
  3. telephone interview/screening    
  4. $100 compensation    
Jason, Mollica, Ferrone 1. classroom program ~100% ~100% 84%
Jerome 1. person-to-person ~23% 88% NA
  2. referral by assistant principal    
Johnson et al. 1. classroom program ~100% 36% 17%
Kempf, Stanley In-patient facility – NA 98% NA 77%
Killen et al. 1. classroom program ~100% NR 78%
Lampkin 1. screened at school health center 42% NR ~68% completed at least 2 sessions 69%
  2. provider referral    
  3. clinical interview    
  4. $2500 offered to participating sites    
Librett 1. posters ~24% 67% NA
  2. flyers    
  3. PA announcements    
  4. person-to-person    
  5. mandatory at 1 of 5 schools    
Lotecka, McWinney 1. person-to-person 78% 46% – 1 month later NR
  2. class release time    
Matson-Koffman, Miller 1. contest with prizes 27% NR 44%
McDonald, Roberts, Deeschaemaker 1. posters NR 46% NR
  2. mandatory tobacco classes    
Mills, Ewy, Dizon 1. mandatory to avoid disciplinary action ~11% 53% 53%
  2. school referral    
Murray, Prokhorov, Harty 1. state-wide campaign; 90% school participation, 95% of youth heard or saw at least 1 TV or radio ad ~90% NA NA
  2. funds available for programs – $0.50 per student    
Myers, Brown In-patient facility – NA NA NA 78%
Myers, Brown, Kelly 1. announcements at outpatient facilities NR 89% 80%
  2. intake interview/screening, child and parent    
Pallonen NR – vocational high school students NR 63% – 4 months after baseline NA
Patten 1. sometimes flyers in schools NR 89% – 6 months after baseline 50%
  2. sometimes press releases, TV and radio announcements    
  3. for Nicotine Dependence Center consultation    
Patterson NR NR 100% 100%
Pendell NR NR NR NR
Perry et al. 1. classroom program ~100% ~100% 97%
Perry et al. 1. classroom program ~100% NR ~100%
Peters 1. widely advertised through TV and print media 94% of requesters agreed to do baseline survey; total reach NR 63% 52%
  2. free to any teen who reported smoking at least 18 months    
Peterson, Clark 1. classroom presentation ~39% NR 100%
Popham et al. 1. state-wide campaign; 50% of youth heard or saw at least 1 TV or radio ad NR NA NA
  2. youth contacted through school districts    
Prince 1. PA announcements ~6% 85% 85%
  2. person-to-person    
  3. referrals    
Quinlan and McCaul 1. screening questionnaire 66% NA 98%
  2. ad in university newspaper    
  3. posters    
  4. extra credit or $10–15    
  5. person-to-person    
  6. lottery ($100)    
Rigotti et al. 1. written information sent from health departments NR NA 76% annual survey rate
  2. minor sting operation    
Skjoldbrand, Gahnberg All youth who were seen at the clinic for check-ups, NA 100% NA NA
Smith et al. 1. flyers 56% 86% 77%
  2. press releases    
  3. referrals    
  4. money ($50)    
St. Pierre, Shute, Jaycox NR 8% 100% NA
Suedfeld et al. 1. college newspaper advertisement NR NR 70%
  2. screening of smokers, blind to study    
Sussman, Burton et al. 1. flyers ~9% 52% 29%
  2. PA announcements    
  3. person-to-person    
  4. class release time    
Sussman, Dent, Lichtman 1. classroom presentation 34% 54% 51%
  2. elective class credit    
  3. person-to-person    
  4. class release time    
  5. flyers    
Sussman, Dent, Stacy 1. classroom program 70% 70% 68%
  2. class credit    
Townsend et al. 1. voluntary – invitation 73% NA NA
Vartiainen et al. 1. campaign letter sent to schools ~3% NA 55%
  2. youth fill out registration cards    
  3. two prizes of ~$800 at 1-month, 2 prizes of~$1,600 at 6-months    
Wakefield et al. 1. contacted school districts 80% took annual survey NA NA
  2. voluntary survey; strong restrictions: 57% public places, 48% home, 91% school    
Weissman et al. 1. person-to-person NR 55% 55%
  2. voluntary – invitation    
Zavela, Harrison, Owens 1. flyers NR 100% 100%
  2. PA announcements    
  3. ads in college newspapers    
  4. referrals    
  5. money ($20)    
Zheng 1. school staff announcements at two schools 72% 98% NA
  2. money ($10)    
  1. NA = not applicable; NR = not reported; ~ = approximately.