Articles

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.