The 2009 US Federal Cigarette Tax Increase and Quitline Utilization in 16 States

Table 3

Treatment outcomes at 7 months among those sampled for follow-up surveys in four states and who enrolled around the time of the federal tax increase and in the previous year.

		Registered; March–May 2008	Registered; March–May 2009	Unadjusted; 𝑃 values	Adjusted^1 odds ratios; (95% confidence interval)^2
Full sample^3: 𝑁=645/1651 (39.1%)		𝑁=287/802; 35.8%	𝑁=338/849; 39.8%		𝑁=564/1506
% abstinent (7-day point prevalence)	Responders; ITT^4	30.7; 11.0	28.7; 11.4	0.59; 0.77	0.95 (0.63, 1.45); 1.09 (0.77, 1.56)
% abstinent (30-day point prevalence)	Responders; ITT^4	26.8; 9.6	24.9; 9.9	0.57; 0.84	0.96 (0.63, 1.46); 1.09 (0.76, 1.57)
In multicall program^5: 430/1150		189/521	241/629		𝑁=417/1126
% abstinent (7-day point prevalence)	Responders; ITT^4	34.9; 12.7	32.8; 12.6	0.64; 0.96	0.93 (0.58, 1.49)^5; 1.16 (0.78, 1.72)^5
% abstinent (30-day point prevalence)	Responders; ITT^4	31.8; 11.5	28.6; 11.0	0.48; 0.77	0.91 (0.56, 1.48)^5; 1.14 (0.76, 1.71)^5

¹Controlling for age, gender, race, education, chronic condition, amount smoked, how heard about quitline, and state.
²Before tax period is the reference group.
³Number of respondents/number sampled. Note that the response rate was 4% higher after tax.
⁴ITT = Intent to Treat analyses (missing outcomes = smoking).
⁵Also controlling for call program (multiple versus single), number of counseling calls completed and use of NRT.