Articles

<b>Background:</b><b> </b>Despite advancements in smoking cessation interventions, few programs have demonstrated sustained effectiveness among low-income, underserved populations. The Communities Engaged and Advocating for a Smoke-free Environment (CEASE) program was developed to address this gap and support tobacco cessation in these communities. However, it remains unclear whether self-reported outcome measures in this context are in line with more objective outcome measures.<b> </b><b>Aims:</b><b> </b>This study aimed to validate self-reported quit rates using the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) as a gold standard outcome measure for evaluation of the effectiveness of the CEASE smoking cessation intervention compared to a self-help approach among low-income, underserved adult smokers. <b>Methods:</b><b> </b>A quasi-experimental design was employed to evaluate this community-based intervention. Although participants were initially assigned to three groups, this report focuses on two arms that show the major difference in the efficacy of the program: (1) the self-help group (reference; Arm 1) and (2) the in-person CEASE group (Arm 2). Outcomes included successful quitting, assessed through self-reports, and changes in FTND scores. To examine the concordance between these measures, we tested whether changes in FTND scores fully explained the relationship between the intervention and self-reported quitting. Potential confounders included demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related variables. Data were analyzed using regression and structural equation modeling (SEM). <b>Results:</b><b> </b>The majority of participants were Black Americans, followed by White individuals and those of other racial backgrounds. The CEASE intervention (Arm 2) demonstrated effectiveness in reducing nicotine dependence (measured by FTND) and increasing self-reported quit rates compared to the self-help group. Importantly, changes in FTND scores fully explained the effect of the CEASE intervention on self-reported quitting, highlighting the program’s impact on addiction severity. <b>Conclusion:</b><b> </b>Successful quitting measured using self-report is in line with the decline in nicotine addiction severity among low-income racial minority populations. CEASE holds promise as a scalable solution to address smoking disparities in underserved communities.

Background:</b> Smoking cessation interventions are critical for underserved populations, particularly among low-income individuals who may benefit from tailored support. However, the effectiveness of different intervention formats remains unclear, particularly as virtual and hybrid models gain popularity. <b>Aims:</b> This study compares the effectiveness of three smoking cessation intervention arms in a quasi-experimental design: Self-help group (Arm 1), In-person group (Arm 2), and Virtual/hybrid group (Arm 3). The primary outcome was the rate of successful quit across these different intervention modalities. <b>Methods:</b> The study utilized a community-based intervention approach, controlling for potential confounders. The communities were randomized, and this process was blinded. The effectiveness of the In-person group and the Virtual/hybrid group was compared to the Self-help group. The odds ratio (OR) for successful quit rates was calculated for each group, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). <b>Results:</b> Participants included 50.4% of women, 82.8% were Black Americans, 11.6% Whites, and 3.4% other races. In-person group (Arm 2) showed a higher rate of successful quit compared to the Self-help group (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.05, 6.79). Virtual/hybrid group (Arm 3) was not associated with a significantly higher quit rate compared to the Self-help group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 0.57, 3.83). <b>Conclusion:</b> The In-person group, which utilizes the CEASE curriculum and incorporates peer motivation, proved to be significantly more effective than both the Self-help and Virtual/hybrid groups. The findings suggest that low-income, underserved smokers may not be fully prepared to benefit from virtual interventions, or the current curriculum may need adaptation to better serve their needs in a virtual format.