Objectives. We examined socioeconomic disparities in a community-based tobacco dependence treatment program.

Methods. We provided cognitive-behavioral treatment and nicotine patches to 2739 smokers. We examined treatment use, clinical and environmental, and treatment outcome differences by socioeconomic status (SES). We used logistic regressions to model end-of-treatment and 3- and 6-month treatment outcomes.

Results. The probability of abstinence 3 months after treatment was 55% greater for the highest-SES than for the lowest-SES (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03, 2.33) smokers and increased to 2.5 times greater for the highest-SES than for the lowest-SES smokers 6 months after treatment (AOR = 2.47; 95% CI = 1.62, 3.77). Lower-SES participants received less treatment content and had fewer resources and environmental supports to manage a greater number of clinical and environmental challenges to abstinence.

Conclusions. Targets for enhancing therapeutic approaches for lower socioeconomic groups should include efforts to ensure that lower-SES groups receive more treatment content, strategies to address specific clinical and environmental challenges associated with treatment outcomes for lower-SES smokers (i.e., higher dependence and stress levels and exposure to other smokers), and strategies to provide longer-term support.

Tobacco use is a leading contributor to socioeconomic health disparities in the United States.1–5 Americans with household incomes of $15 000 or less smoke at nearly 3 times the rate of those with incomes of $50 000 or greater.6 Quit attempts show no socioeconomic gradient, but successful cessation is associated with a considerable socioeconomic disparity7–15 that appears to be increasing.4,16,17 Community-based tobacco dependence treatment programs can reduce these disparities by providing all smokers with needed assistance; however, smokers of lower socioeconomic status (SES) often have poorer treatment outcomes.18–23 Examination of factors related to socioeconomic disparities in treatment outcomes may identify targets for enhancing therapeutic approaches for lower-socioeconomic groups.

In health research, SES is a broad construct describing relative access to basic resources required to achieve and maintain good health.24,25 Common measures of SES (e.g., educational achievement, income, occupation, wealth) assess different, albeit related aspects of the construct but are generally limited by a lack of precision and difficulty classifying all groups. Educational achievement is considered a basic element of SES, captures important aspects of lifestyle and behavior, and is perhaps the most widely used proxy for SES because of its influence on future occupational opportunities and earning potential; however, household income is considered the best measure of available material resources, especially for those who are not primary wage earners in families.24,26,27 Composite measures incorporate and, therefore, adjust for different aspects of SES.28

In the United States, minority ethnic status often affects access to basic resources, but the magnitude of socioeconomic disparities is often greater than that between minority and majority ethnic groups in the United States, and the effects of minority ethnic status on smoking cessation are often reduced or eliminated after socioeconomic factors are taken into account.29–31 Nonetheless, in the United States, ethnic groups tend to live in different social and physical environments, and minority ethnic status often includes a constellation of stressors separate from and additive to SES.29 Moreover, lower SES coupled with tobacco use and minority ethnic status might lead to a unique set of multiple and cumulative disparities.29

Conceptual models propose that health disparities emerge because of higher levels of stress, less access to physical and environmental resources, greater environmental constraints, fewer affective and cognitive resources, and poorer health behaviors.26,32 Consistent with these models, SES is empirically related to smoking cessation through complex reciprocal relations among numerous clinical and environmental factors, including stress, coping resources, psychological factors, exposure to other smokers, and use of treatment resources.33–38 Cognitive-behavioral treatment of tobacco dependence can potentially address many of these factors, but little is known about the role these factors play when lower-SES smokers are provided with treatment.

Disparities are prominent among numerous factors important to cessation and treatment of tobacco dependence. In the United States, minority ethnic groups such as African Americans and Hispanic Americans as well as lower-SES groups are less likely to receive advice about and assistance with smoking cessation from health care providers.39–41 Although minority ethnic groups are no less likely to quit when provided with nicotine replacement,42 they and lower-SES groups are less likely to have accurate information about nicotine replacement and less likely to use evidence-based tobacco dependence treatments.43–47 Lower-SES groups are less likely to be covered by smoking bans in the workplace and at home,48–50 and some lower-SES groups are more highly nicotine dependent than higher-SES groups.51 The role of many of these disparities in the treatment of tobacco dependence remains relatively unexamined.

We examined socioeconomic disparities in a community-based tobacco dependence treatment program in Arkansas. We used statistical modeling of treatment outcomes to examine the independent contributions of SES, ethnicity, and other factors. Consistent with conceptual models and previous studies, we hypothesized that the lowest-SES participants would have less treatment use and the greatest clinical and environmental challenges to achieving and maintaining abstinence from tobacco use.

All English-speaking smokers (n = 2739) who attended treatment for tobacco dependence at 14 sites from 2005 to 2008 were included. Sites included 10 area health education centers, 2 regional medical centers, 1 women’s health clinic, and 1 medical center primary care clinic.

Tobacco Dependence Treatment

Behavioral treatment consisted of 6 weekly closed-group 60-minute sessions of manual-driven, multicomponent cognitive-behavioral therapy consistent with the Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline.18,23,52–54 A lay overview of the biopsychosocial underpinnings of tobacco dependence was addressed, including physiological components (i.e., tolerance and withdrawal), learning components (i.e., triggers or cues, tobacco use as reinforcement), and use of tobacco to cope with nicotine-related (i.e., lowered plasma nicotine levels) and nicotine-unrelated (i.e., managing stress) events. Flexibility in establishing the quit date was permitted. Treatment components were delivered as per written treatment protocols and included scheduled gradual rate reduction, self-monitoring, stimulus control, problem-solving, conflict management, cigarette refusal training, enhancing social support, goal setting, relapse prevention, and stress management. Groups consisted of 5 to 10 participants. Individual sessions were offered when participants were unable to attend group sessions. We provided free nicotine patches in 2-week increments with a prescription and treatment attendance and encouraged 12 weeks of patch use. Structured treatment protocols, standardized quarterly site reviews, and weekly supervision meetings addressed treatment fidelity.


This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and was part of a state-sponsored treatment and referral system that used quitline media promotion, health care provider training, a smoke-free workplace program, and a faxed referral program to recruit participants into 2 treatment programs (in-person and telephone quitline). The Arkansas Department of Health managed the promotion for the quitline. The first author (C. E. S.) managed all other programs. Protocols dictated that all participants be offered both quitline and in-person treatment on initial contact. All staff scheduled participants for both treatment programs. Both treatment programs provided the same manual-driven treatment protocols and used the same centralized electronic treatment record database in which all participant contacts were recorded.

Tobacco treatment specialists certified by the ACT Center University of Mississippi Medical Center training program delivered treatment. Tobacco treatment specialists had multiple responsibilities, including helping community health care providers to identify, treat, and refer tobacco users; responding to on-site providers’ requests to discuss tobacco use with patients; conducting intakes and delivering group and individual treatment; entering intake and treatment data into the database; and devoting 10% to 50% of their time to delivering quitline treatment as needed.


We collected standard demographic, tobacco use, and clinical information during the intake interview.

Socioeconomic status.

Household income was assessed with 6 categories used by the US Census Bureau (< $10 000, $10 000–$14 999, $15 000–$24 999, $25 000–$34 999, $35 000–$49 999, ≥ $50 000). Use of these categories allowed the program to make direct comparisons with population data sets that used the same categories. Educational level was assessed with years of completed education, a continuous variable that was later grouped into 4 categories (< 12 years of education, 12 years of education, 13–14 years of education, ≥ 15 years of education). A composite index for SES was created that incorporated both household income and educational level. Values were assigned to income level (lowest = 1 to highest = 6) and educational category (lowest = 1 to highest = 4). Adding the income and educational level values resulted in a discrete analogue SES scale (range = 2–10). This SES scale also was collapsed into 3 SES levels: SES1 (2–4), SES2 (5–7), and SES3 (8–10).

Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence.

Scores from 5 to 10 indicate higher nicotine dependence levels.55,56

Perceived Stress Scale-4.

Higher scores on this 4-item questionnaire indicate greater stress. Mean national levels range from 4.2 to 4.7. Mean levels for smokers range from 4.8 to 5.9.57,58

Motivation, self-efficacy, and concern about weight gain.

Motivation, self-efficacy, and concern about weight gain were measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 = “not at all” and 10 = “the most ever” in response to the following questions: “How much do you want to quit smoking?”; “How confident are you that you can quit using tobacco and stay quit for good?”59–61; and “How concerned are you about gaining weight after you quit?”62

Smoking policy at work and at home.

The smoking policies in participants’ workplaces and homes were assessed with the following options: (1) no smoking anywhere inside or outside; (2) no smoking inside, but smoking is allowed outside; (3) smoking is allowed in certain areas inside; or (4) smoking is allowed anywhere inside.

Treatment use.

We measured use of treatment with

    number of treatment contacts,

    amount of treatment content (sessions 1–6),

    whether patches were dispensed,

    number of nicotine patches dispensed,

    whether the behavioral treatment was completed, and

    treatment modality (individual, group, or both).

Treatment completion was defined as completing 5 of the 6 sessions of content.

Outcome Assessment

Smoking status at the last treatment contact was used as the end-of-treatment outcome. Three and 6 months after the end of treatment, a specially trained follow-up interviewer attempted contact with all participants by telephone and asked, “How many cigarettes are you smoking on a usual day?,” followed by “Have you smoked any cigarettes in the past 7 days?” Participants were considered abstinent if they answered “zero” and “no,” respectively. Seven-day point prevalence is an appropriate, valid, and reliable method for assessing abstinence in this type of program.63,64

Data Analysis

We analyzed data with PASW Version 18 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted analysis of variance and χ2 analyses to examine differences among participants contacted and lost to follow-up 6 months after treatment and to examine differences among the 3 SES levels (α = 0.05). Bonferroni correction was used to manage familywise error in multiple comparisons.65 Standardized residuals (R = {observed – expected}/[square root of expected]) were used to identify sources of significant differences (standardized residual > 2.00) for categorical variables.66

Abstinence rates were calculated for end-of-treatment and 3- and 6-month treatment outcomes by SES with 2 methods to accommodate missing data: (1) intention to treat, imputing all participants lost to follow-up as smoking, and (2) complete-case analysis, eliminating participants lost to follow-up from the analysis.67,68

We used logistic regressions to model abstinence rates at the end of treatment and 3 and 6 months after treatment, accounting for demographic, treatment use, and clinical or environmental factors, with SES as the primary focus. A backward conditional process eliminated variables with significance levels greater than .1 in a stepwise manner. All variables found to differ significantly by SES level (see Table 3) were included in preliminary analyses in which demographic, treatment use, and clinical or environmental factors were analyzed in blocks.

Participants were primarily middle-aged (mid 40s) and lower SES (Table 1). Nearly 1 in 5 were members of a minority ethnic group (African American, multiethnic, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or other); about 10% had the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree or greater; and just 42.7% had private health insurance. Participants were highly motivated and moderately confident about quitting smoking but also were highly dependent and smoked, on average, more than a pack a day, starting in midadolescence, and had smoked for nearly 3 decades. Although most were ready to make a quit date at intake, most had not made a quit attempt recently. Levels of stress were relatively high.57 Of those who were employed, about 80% reported that their efforts to quit were supported by their workplaces and that they worked in smoke-free indoor environments, but more than half of those who were partnered had smoking partners, and nearly two thirds allowed smoking inside their homes. Most participants were referred by health care providers (46.6%), followed by word-of-mouth (25.5%); workplaces (9.7%); print, brochures, and Web site or other (9.1%); and television and radio (8.9%). Note that no television and radio promotion for in-person treatment was used. Those referred by television or radio were scheduled for in-person treatment by quitline intake staff.


TABLE 1— Participant Characteristics (n = 2739): Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

TABLE 1— Participant Characteristics (n = 2739): Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

Variable (No.)Range (Mean ±SD) or %
Demographic factors
Age, y (2730)16–84 (45.7 ±12.4)
Education, y (2723)1–23 (12.6 ±2.2)
 < 1218.4
 ≥ 1514.9
Gender (2739): Male37.6
Ethnicity (2736)
 African American13.5
Partnered (2732)b57.0
Work status (2734)
 Full- or part-time52.9
Household income, $ (2650)
 ≤ 10 00025.7
 10 001–14 99912.5
 15 000–24 99917.9
 25 000–34 99913.6
 35 000–49 99913.8
 ≥ 50 00016.5
Health care insurance status (2723)
 Medicaid or Medicare26.8
 Private insurance42.7
 No insurance30.6
Clinical and environmental factors
Partner smokes (2723)54.6
Last quit attempt (2718)
 Within 30 d8.7
 1–3 mo ago10.7
 3–6 mo ago8.8
 > 6 mo ago62.3
Sought help in past (2703)22.8
Ready to set a quit date (2718)83.2
Smokes menthol cigarettes (1663)24.1
Uses smokeless tobacco (2700)1.6
Work supports quittingc (2651)79.9
Smoking policy at home (2716)
 None inside or outside2.9
 None inside34.4
 Allowed inside62.7
Smoking policy at workc (2680)
 None inside or outside13.3
 None inside68.5
 Allowed inside18.2
Psychiatric diagnosisd (2291)16.0
Cigarettes/d (2678)0–120 (23.0 ±12.7)
Age started smoking, y (2698)4–62 (16.8 ±5.7)
Years smoking (2706)0–72 (27.8 ±12.8)
FTND level (2693)0–10 (5.4 ±2.3)
Motivation level (2706)0–10 (9.1 ±1.5)
Confidence level (2709)0–10 (7.5 ±2.3)
PSS-4 level (2705)0–16 (7.3 ±2.7)
Concern about weight  gain (1003)0–10 (5.0 ±4.2)
Body mass index, weight  (lbs) × 703/(height in in2)(798)15–62 (28.1 ±6.7)

Note. FTND = Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; PSS-4 = Perceived Stress Scale-4.

aMultiethnic (1.4%), American Indian (1.3%), Hispanic (0.7%), other (0.5%), or Asian/Pacific Islander (0.3%).

bMarried or living with a significant other.

cOf those working.

dSelf-identified as diagnosed with a psychiatric diagnosis.

Treatment Use

The treatment completion rate was 40.8%. Participants completed a mean of 3.6 (SD = 2.0) sessions of content in a mean of 4.4 (SD = 3.3) treatment contacts. Nicotine patches were dispensed to 39.5% of the participants, with a mean of 15.4 (SD = 28.2) patches dispensed per participant. Almost half of the participants (47.7%) were treated entirely in groups; 37.7% attended only individual sessions; and 14.6% attended both group and individual sessions.

Differences Between Participants Contacted and Lost to Follow-Up

Those contacted were more likely to be retired, older, and of higher SES and to have smoked for more years and started smoking at a later age compared with those lost to follow-up 6 months after treatment. They had lower stress levels and were more likely to have a nonsmoking partner and less likely to have no health insurance; they were more likely to have never made a quit attempt and to have previously sought professional help with quitting than were those lost to follow-up. Those contacted were less likely to be referred by workplaces and less likely to be unemployed than were those lost to follow-up. Greater treatment use was associated with a greater likelihood of being contacted (Table 2).


TABLE 2— Differences Among Participants Contacted and Lost to Follow-Up 6 Months After Treatment: Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

TABLE 2— Differences Among Participants Contacted and Lost to Follow-Up 6 Months After Treatment: Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

Variable/LevelSuccessfully Contacted, Mean (SD) or %Lost to Follow-Up, Mean (SD) or %
Demographic factors
Age, y47.4 (12.4)42.9 (11.9)
Work status
 Full- or part-time60.139.9
SESb5.9 (2.3)5.3 (2.3)
Treatment use factors
Patches dispensed, no.17.7 (31.4)11.7 (21.6)
Amount of treatment content3.9 (1.9)3.3 (1.9)
Treatment contacts, no.4.8 (3.7)3.8 (2.6)
Completed treatment
Patches dispensed
Clinical and environmental factors
Partner smokes (P = .02)
Last quit attempt
 Within 30 d66.034.0
 1–3 mo ago61.738.3
 3–6 mo ago66.034.0
 > 6 mo ago63.037.0
Sought help in past
Age started smoking, y17.1 (5.9)16.5 (5.4)
Years smoking29.1 (13.0)25.6 (12.2)
PSS-4 level7.1 (2.7)7.5 (2.7)
 Health care provider62.337.7
 Word of mouth64.835.2
 Print media, Web site, or other63.636.4
 Television or radio63.136.9

Note. PSS-4 = Perceived Stress Scale-4; SES = socioeconomic status. Only variables with significant differences between contacted and lost to follow-up were included. The sample size was n = 2739.

aLocation of significant contributor to the difference (standardized residual > 2.00).

bSES was measured with a composite index (SES) that incorporated values for household income and educational level (range = 2 [lowest]–10 [highest]); SES1 included values from 2–4; SES2 from 5–7; SES3 from 8–10.

All differences significant at P < .01 unless otherwise noted.

Treatment Outcomes

Treatment outcomes were available for 100% of the participants at end of treatment, 67.4% at 3 months after treatment, and 62.0% at 6 months after treatment. The end-of-treatment tobacco use abstinence rate was 37.7%. The intention-to-treat abstinence rates were 19.0% at 3 months and 16.9% at 6 months after treatment. The complete-case analysis abstinence rates were 28.2% at 3 months and 27.3% at 6 months after treatment.

Socioeconomic Disparities

The composite SES measure differentiated SES groups along appropriate dimensions. SES1 individuals were the least likely to be employed and to have private health insurance and the most likely to be disabled, to be covered by Medicaid and/or Medicare, or to have no health insurance. SES1 composed 35.4% of the sample, SES2 40.5%, and SES3 24.1%.

Treatment outcomes.

Significant differences in abstinence rates across SES levels were found at the end of treatment and 3 and 6 months after treatment (Figure 1). Consistent with our expectations, SES1 was the least likely to be abstinent at end of treatment (χ22 = 7.33; P = .03) and 3 months (χ22 = 11.00; P < .01) and 6 months (χ22 = 31.07; P < .01) after treatment. Six-month differences were maintained with complete-case analysis abstinence rates (23.5%, 25.8%, and 34.0%; χ22 = 14.52; P < .01), suggesting that the findings were not an artifact of a greater proportion of lower-SES participants being lost to follow-up and thus imputed as smoking.

Treatment use.

Contrary to expectations, the SES1 group was the most likely to receive nicotine patches, although no differences were found in the mean number of patches dispensed. Although there were no differences in the mean number of treatment contacts, the lowest-SES groups received the least amount of treatment content and were the least likely to complete treatment. SES1 patients were the most likely to be treated entirely with individual sessions (Table 3).


TABLE 3— Differences Among the Socioeconomic Status Levels: Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

TABLE 3— Differences Among the Socioeconomic Status Levels: Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

VariableSES1 (n = 933), % or Mean (SD)SES2 (n = 1069), % or Mean (SD)SES3 (n = 635), % or Mean (SD)
Demographic factors
Minority ethnic status21.316.614.2
Work status
 Full- or part-time27.858.679.2
Health care insurance status
 Medicaid or Medicare45.422.46.8
 Private insurance9.547.282.0
 No insurance45.130.511.2
Treatment use factors
Patches dispensed43.341.332.6
Treatment content3.4 (2.0)b3.7 (1.9)b4.0 (1.9)b
Completed treatment35.641.747.1
Individual sessions only43.135.233.4
Clinical and environmental factors
Partner smokes57.157.048.0
Sought help with quitting in past  (P = .03)20.322.926.2
Work supports quittinga72.678.085.3
Smoking allowed inside home70.063.150.6
Smoking allowed inside workplacea26.518.213.9
With psychiatric diagnosis25.513.57.6
Cigarettes/d24.4 (14.1)b,c22.6 (11.9)b22.2 (11.8)c
Age started smoking, y16.2 (6.3)c16.8 (5.3)b17.7 (5.4)b,c
Years smoking28.8 (13.2)b,c27.4 (12.9)b26.5 (11.9)c
FTND score5.8 (2.3)b5.3 (2.2)b5.0 (2.3)b
Motivation level9.3 (1.4)b9.1 (1.5)b8.8 (1.7)b
Confidence level7.8 (2.2)b,c7.4 (2.4)b7.2 (2.3)c
PSS-4 level7.8 (2.6)b7.2 (2.6)b6.6 (2.7)b
 Health care provider57.042.739.2
 Television or radio6.110.012.1
 Word of mouth27.227.720.8

Note. FTND = Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; PSS-4 = Perceived Stress Scale-4; SES = socioeconomic status. The sample size was n = 2739. SES was measured with a composite index (SES) that incorporated values for household income and educational level (range = 2 [lowest]–10 [highest]); SES1 included values from 2–4; SES2 from 5–7; SES3 from 8–10. Only categorical variable levels with standardized residuals > 2.00 were included.

aOf those working.

b,cSame subscript within a row indicates location of significant differences for continuous variables.

All differences significant at P < .01 level unless otherwise noted.

Clinical and environmental factors.

Consistent with expectations, lower-SES groups smoked more cigarettes per day, had higher Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence scores, started smoking at an earlier age, and smoked more years than did SES3 individuals. SES1 individuals were the least likely to have sought professional assistance in the past; however, SES1 individuals were significantly more motivated to quit and confident about quitting than were SES2 and SES3 individuals. SES1 individuals reported the highest Perceived Stress Scale-4 scores and had the highest proportion of current psychiatric diagnoses.

SES1 individuals were the least likely to report that their workplace supported quitting, the most likely to report that smoking was allowed inside their workplaces, the most likely to have smoking partners, and the most likely to allow smoking inside their homes. SES1 participants were the most likely to be referred by health care providers, the least likely to be referred by television or radio advertisements, and the least likely to be referred by workplaces. SES3 participants were the least likely to be referred by word of mouth (Table 3).

Models predicting treatment outcomes.

SES was not significantly associated with end-of-treatment outcomes but was significantly associated with 3- and 6-month treatment outcomes. With all other factors accounted for, the odds of achieving abstinence 3 months after treatment increased by a factor of 1.06 (95% CI = 1.00, 1.11) for every 1-unit increase in the SES scale (range = 2–10); the odds of achieving abstinence 6 months after treatment increased to 1.12 (95% CI = 1.06, 1.18) for every 1-unit increase in the SES scale. The probability of abstinence 3 months after treatment was 55% greater for the highest-SES participants (SES = 10) than for those with the lowest SES (SES = 2; AOR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.03, 2.33) and increased to 2.5 times greater for the highest-SES participants 6 months after treatment (AOR = 2.47; 95% CI = 1.62, 3.77).

The final model of 6-month treatment outcomes included 8 variables: SES, amount of treatment content, treatment modality, cigarettes per day, confidence level, Perceived Stress Scale-4, smoking policy in the home, and referral source (Table 4). The odds of abstinence increased for those who received more treatment content and were more confident about quitting and decreased as the number of cigarettes smoked per day and the level of stress increased. Those with home smoking bans were more likely to be abstinent than were those who were referred from sources other than workplaces. Those who were treated entirely in groups were less likely to be abstinent than those who were treated with both individual and group sessions and those treated with individual sessions only.


TABLE 4— Logistic Regression Model of Abstinence Rates 6 Months After Treatment: Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

TABLE 4— Logistic Regression Model of Abstinence Rates 6 Months After Treatment: Community-Based Tobacco Dependence Treatment Program, Arkansas, 2005–2008

Variable/LevelAOR (95% CI)
Demographic factor
SESa,†1.12 (1.06, 1.18)
Treatment use factors
Amount of treatment contenta,†1.32 (1.24, 1.41)
Treatment modality
 Individual and group**1.00
 Individual only1.13 (0.82, 1.57)
 Group only0.81 (0.59, 1.12)
Clinical and environmental factors
Smoking policy in the home
 Smoking allowed inside (Ref)***1.00
 No smoking allowed inside or outside**2.05 (1.14, 3.67)
 No smoking allowed inside***1.41 (1.10, 1.80)
Referral source
 Workplace (Ref)**1.00
 Health care provider2.17 (1.36, 3.44)
 Word of mouth***2.11 (1.31, 3.41)
 Print media, brochures, Web site, other***2.11 (1.21, 3.67)
 Television or radio***2.11 (1.22, 3.65)
Cigarettes/da,***0.98 (0.97, 0.99)
Confidence levela,***1.07 (1.02, 1.13)
Stress level (PSS-4)a,*0.96 (0.92, 1.01)

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; PSS-4 = Perceived Stress Scale-4; SES = socioeconomic status. The sample size was n = 2739.

aWith all other factors accounted for, a difference of +1 in the measure increased the odds of abstinence by the AOR.

*P < .1; **P = .05; ***P < .01; P < .001.

Ethnicity was not significantly associated with treatment outcomes at any point; nonetheless, minority ethnic smokers were disproportionately represented in the socioeconomic gradient: 14% of those with an SES score of 10 and 33% with an SES score of 2 were members of a minority ethnic group.

Significant socioeconomic disparities were found in this community-based tobacco dependence treatment program. These disparities affected treatment outcomes and increased in magnitude as time elapsed from end of treatment to 6 months after treatment (Figure 1). Consistent with conceptual and empirical models, lower-SES participants received less treatment content and had fewer resources and environmental supports to manage a greater number of clinical and environmental challenges. These findings suggest that targets for enhancing therapeutic approaches for lower-SES groups should include efforts to ensure that lower-SES groups receive more treatment content, strategies that address the specific clinical and environmental characteristics that affect treatment outcomes for lower-SES smokers, and strategies to manage long-term clinical and environmental challenges presented earlier in the treatment protocol. These strategies should include a more proactive approach to problem-solving barriers to establishing smoking bans in the home and implementing more intensive and tailored approaches to managing stress and bolstering cognitive and affective resources. Consistent with other studies, these findings support efforts to provide more intensive pharmacotherapy for lower-SES groups to help minimize treatment outcome disparities associated with higher dependence levels and heavier smoking69; however, these findings indicate that methods to enhance medication use in community treatment programs are also needed. Given that the magnitude of the disparities increased as the time from treatment end increased, innovative methods to provide continued support in the months after treatment also should be considered. Although the effects of ethnicity were not significant in our models, a greater proportion of minority ethnic group participants were of lower SES, suggesting that when considering the needs of lower-SES groups, the perspectives of minority ethnic smokers who might constitute a significant proportion of that group need to be considered.

This study contributes to the few studies that examined community-based in-person treatment programs.70 Outcomes were comparable to those found in more controlled settings, even though overall participant characteristics were indicative of poorer outcomes.19,53 Behavioral treatment use was relatively high for community-based treatment, but nicotine patch use was relatively low. Although the prescription requirement might have posed a barrier, prescriptions often were provided without additional visits, and most participants were referred by health care providers. With a mean of more than 4 treatment contacts, attendance did not limit patch dispensation. Given the lack of third-party coverage for cessation medications at the time in Arkansas, the likelihood that participants received medications from other sources was small. Consistent with previous studies and tobacco treatment specialist reports (not shown), nonuse of nicotine patches might have been related to the desire to quit without medication.71 More research is needed to examine systematic and attitudinal barriers to use of free nicotine replacement in treatment programs for lower-SES groups.

The lowest-SES smokers were the most frequently referred by health care providers. These findings contradict previous findings but show that health care providers, if cultivated, can be an important referral source for lower-SES smokers. In this study, the site agreement included annual 1-hour trainings in brief interventions. Tobacco treatment specialists were located in the health care environment, developed relationships with providers, and encouraged the use of fax referrals. These results were consistent with the notion that providers who are familiar with treatment programs and have training are more likely to refer.72,73 Higher-SES smokers were referred more frequently by television or radio advertisements for the quitline, supporting previous contentions that quitline television and radio advertisements enhance socioeconomic disparities.74,75

Future research is needed to examine the efficacy of new approaches to more effectively treat lower-SES smokers and reduce treatment outcome disparities as well as to ascertain whether these findings are applicable to quitlines. Although numerous states provide in-person treatment, telephone treatment is offered in every state and uniquely purported to access and treat lower-SES groups.70,76,77

We used a uniquely rich data set for exploring outcome associations from a regionally diverse sample of smokers. Nevertheless, interpretations were limited by the proportion of participants lost to follow-up, although rates were similar to other community-based studies, and evidence suggests similar abstinence rates between those contacted and those lost to follow-up.18,19,78 Lack of biochemical validation of self-reported abstinence is a limitation as well; however, again, studies suggest low rates of deception,78 and self-report is commonly acknowledged as an appropriate method of assessing outcomes for this type of study.63 Thus, outcomes can be viewed with a reasonable degree of confidence.


The programs mentioned in this study were funded by contracts from the Arkansas Department of Health. The data analysis and preparation of this manuscript were funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute (1 R03 CA141995−01A1) and National Center for Research Resources (RR 020146).

Human Participant Protection

Institutional review board approval was obtained from Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.


1. Jha P, Peto R, Zatonski W, Boreham J, Jarvis MJ, Lopez AD. Social inequalities in male mortality, and in male mortality from smoking: indirect estimation from national death rates in England and Wales, Poland, and North America. Lancet. 2006;368:367370. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54:11211124. MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291:12381245. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, et al. Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in 4 major risk factors for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971-2002. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:23482355. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2010. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2007. Google Scholar
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Google Scholar
7. Trinidad DR, Perez-Stable EJ, White MM, Emery SL, Messer K. A nationwide analysis of US racial/ethnic disparities in smoking behaviors, smoking cessation, and cessation-related factors. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:699706. LinkGoogle Scholar
8. Reid JL, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Fong GT, Siahpush M. Socioeconomic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four western countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(suppl):S20S33. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Barbeau EM, Krieger N, Soobader MJ. Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in NHIS 2000. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:269278. LinkGoogle Scholar
10. Agrawal A, Sartor C, Pergadia ML, Huizink AC, Lynskey MT. Correlates of smoking cessation in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Addict Behav. 2008;33:12231226. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Fagan P, Augustson E, Backinger CL, et al. Quit attempts and intention to quit cigarette smoking among young adults in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:14121420. LinkGoogle Scholar
12. Fagan P, Shavers V, Lawrence D, Gibson JT, Ponder P. Cigarette smoking and quitting behaviors among unemployed adults in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007;9:241248. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Fagan P, Shavers VL, Lawrence D, Gibson JT, O’Connell ME. Employment characteristics and socioeconomic factors associated with disparities in smoking abstinence and former smoking among U.S. workers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18:5272. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Wetter DW, Cofta-Gunn L, Irvin JE, et al. What accounts for the association of education and smoking cessation?Prev Med. 2005;40:452460. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Ferguson J, Bauld L, Chesterman J, Judge K. The English smoking treatment services: one-year outcomes. Addiction. 2005;100(suppl 2):5969. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Smith P, Frank J, Mustard C. Trends in educational inequalities in smoking and physical activity in Canada: 1974-2005. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63:317323. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Harper S, Lynch J. Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in adult health behaviors among U.S. states, 1990-2004. Public Health Rep. 2007;122:177189. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Sheffer CE, Stitzer M, Payne TJ, Applegate BW, Bourne D, Wheeler JG. Treatment for tobacco dependence for rural, lower-income smokers: outcomes, predictors, and measurement considerations. Am J Health Promot. 2009;23:328338. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Foulds J, Gandhi KK, Steinberg MB, et al. Factors associated with quitting smoking at a tobacco dependence treatment clinic. Am J Health Behav. 2006;30:400412. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Judge K, Bauld L, Chesterman J, Ferguson J. The English smoking treatment services: short-term outcomes. Addiction. 2005;100(suppl 2):4658. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Burgess DJ, Fu SS, Noorbaloochi S, et al. Employment, gender, and smoking cessation outcomes in low-income smokers using nicotine replacement therapy. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:14391447. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Nides MA, Rakos RF, Gonzales D, et al. Predictors of initial smoking cessation and relapse through the first 2 years of the Lung Health Study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63:6069. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: Public Health Service; 2008. Google Scholar
24. Shavers VL. Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99:10131023. MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Miech RA, Hauser RM. Socioeconomic status and health at midlife: a comparison of educational attainment with occupation-based indicators. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11:7584. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Adler NE, Newman K. Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:6076. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, Lynch JW, Davey Smith G. Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:712. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, Lynch JW, Davey Smith G. Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 2). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:95101. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Kawachi I, Daniels N, Robinson DE. Health disparities by race and class: why both matter. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:343352. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. King G, Polednak A, Bendel RB, Vilsaint MC, Nahata SB. Disparities in smoking cessation between African Americans and Whites: 1990-2000. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:19651971. LinkGoogle Scholar
31. King AC, Cao D, Southard CC, Matthews A. Racial differences in eligibility and enrollment in a smoking cessation clinical trial. Health Psychol. 2011;30:4048. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Gallo LC, Matthews KA. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: do negative emotions play a role?Psychol Bull. 2003;129:1051. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Stronks K, van de Mheen HD, Looman CW, Mackenbach JP. Cultural, material, and psychosocial correlates of the socioeconomic gradient in smoking behavior among adults. Prev Med. 1997;26:754766. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Fernander AF, Shavers VL, Hammons GJ. A biopsychosocial approach to examining tobacco-related health disparities among racially classified social groups. Addiction. 2007;102(suppl 2):4357. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Honjo K, Tsutsumi A, Kawachi I, Kawakami N. What accounts for the relationship between social class and smoking cessation? Results of a path analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:317328. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Manfredi C, Cho YI, Crittenden KS, Dolecek TA. A path model of smoking cessation in women smokers of low socio-economic status. Health Educ Res. 2007;22:747756. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Businelle MS, Kendzor DE, Reitzel LR, et al. Mechanisms linking socioeconomic status to smoking cessation: a structural equation modeling approach. Health Psychol. 2010;29:262273. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Witkiewitz K, Marlatt GA. Relapse prevention for alcohol and drug problems: that was Zen, this is Tao. Am Psychol. 2004;59:224235. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Okuyemi KS, Ahluwalia JS, Richter KP, Mayo MS, Resnicow K. Differences among African American light, moderate, and heavy smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2001;3:4550. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Lopez-Quintero C, Crum RM, Neumark YD. Racial/ethnic disparities in report of physician-provided smoking cessation advice: analysis of the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:22352239. LinkGoogle Scholar
41. Houston TK, Scarinci IC, Person SD, Greene PG. Patient smoking cessation advice by health care providers: the role of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:10561061. LinkGoogle Scholar
42. Fu SS, Burgess DJ, Hatsukami DK, et al. Race and nicotine replacement treatment outcomes among low-income smokers. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:S442S448. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Bansal MA, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Giovino GA. Stop-smoking medications: who uses them, who misuses them, and who is misinformed about them?Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(suppl 3):S303S310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Murphy JM, Mahoney MC, Hyland AJ, Higbee C, Cummings KM. Disparity in the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among Medicaid and general population smokers. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;11:341345. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. McMenamin SB, Halpin HA, Bellows NM. Knowledge of Medicaid coverage and effectiveness of smoking treatments. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:369374. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Fu SS, Kodl MM, Joseph AM, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in the use of nicotine replacement therapy and quit ratios in lifetime smokers ages 25 to 44 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:16401647. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Cokkinides VE, Halpern MT, Barbeau EM, Ward E, Thun MJ. Racial and ethnic disparities in smoking-cessation interventions: analysis of the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:404412. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Messer K, Mills AL, White MM, Pierce JP. The effect of smoke-free homes on smoking behavior in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:210216. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Nagelhout GE, Willemsen MC, de Vries H. The population impact of smoke-free workplace and hospitality industry legislation on smoking behaviour: findings from a national population survey. Addiction. 2011;106:816823. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. Shavers VL, Fagan P, Alexander LA, Clayton R, Doucet J, Baezconde-Garbanati L. Workplace and home smoking restrictions and racial/ethnic variation in the prevalence and intensity of current cigarette smoking among women by poverty status, TUS-CPS 1998-1999 and 2001-2002. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(suppl 2):3443. MedlineGoogle Scholar
51. Siahpush M, McNeill A, Borland R, Fong GT. Socioeconomic variations in nicotine dependence, self-efficacy, and intention to quit across four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15(suppl 3):iii71iii75. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Chambless DL, Baker MJ, Baucom DH, et al. Update on empirically validated therapies, II. Clin Psychol. 1998;51:321. Google Scholar
53. Payne TJ, Smith PO, Adams SG, Diefenbach L. Pretreatment cue reactivity predicts end-of-treatment smoking. Addict Behav. 2006;31:702710. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
54. Schmitz JM, Rosenfarb IS, Payne TJ. Cognitive and affective responses to successful coping during smoking cessation. J Subst Abuse. 1993;5:6172. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Fagerstrom KO, Schneider NG. Measuring nicotine dependence: a review of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. J Behav Med. 1989;12:159182. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
56. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86:11191127. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
57. Cohen S, Lichtenstein E. Perceived stress, quitting smoking, and smoking relapse. Health Psychol. 1990;9:466478. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
58. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24:385396. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
59. McCarthy DE, Piasecki TM, Jorenby DE, Lawrence DL, Shiffman S, Baker TB. A multi-level analysis of non-significant counseling effects in a randomized smoking cessation trial. Addiction. 2010;105:21952208. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
60. Moolchan ET, Berlin I, Robinson ML, Cadet JL. Characteristics of African American teenage smokers who request cessation treatment: implications for addressing health disparities. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:533538. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
61. McKee SA, O’Malley SS, Salovey P, Krishnan-Sarin S, Mazure CM. Perceived risks and benefits of smoking cessation: gender-specific predictors of motivation and treatment outcome. Addict Behav. 2005;30:423435. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
62. Perkins KA, Marcus MD, Levine MD, et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapy to reduce weight concerns improves smoking cessation outcome in weight-concerned women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2001;69:604613. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Hughes JR, Keely JP, Niaura RS, Ossip-Klein DJ, Richmond RL, Swan GE. Measures of abstinence in clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:1325. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
64. Hughes JR, Benowitz N, Hatsukami D, Mermelstein RJ, Shiffman S. Clarification of SRNT workgroup guidelines for measures in clinical trials of smoking cessation therapies. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6:863864. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
65. Abdi H. Bonferroni and Sidak Corrections for Multiple Comparisons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2007. Google Scholar
66. Hinkle D, Wiersma W, Jurs S, eds. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co; 1988. Google Scholar
67. Hall SM, Delucchi KL, Velicer WF, et al. Statistical analysis of randomized trials in tobacco treatment: longitudinal designs with dichotomous outcome. Nicotine Tob Res. 2001;3:193202. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
68. Nelson DB, Partin MR, Fu SS, Joseph AM, An LC. Why assigning ongoing tobacco use is not necessarily a conservative approach to handling missing tobacco cessation outcomes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:7783. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
69. Piper ME, Cook JW, Schlam TR, et al. Gender, race, and education differences in abstinence rates among participants in two randomized smoking cessation trials. Nicotine Tob Res. −≠+≠;12:647657. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
70. Hughes JR, Suiter C, Marcy T. Use and outcomes of a state-funded in-person counselling program. Tob Control. 2010;19:260. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
71. Gross B, Brose L, Schumann A, et al. Reasons for not using smoking cessation aids. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:19. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
72. Steinberg MB, Alvarez MS, Delnevo CD, Kaufman I, Cantor JC. Disparity of physicians’ utilization of tobacco treatment services. Am J Health Behav. 2006;30:375386. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
73. Sheffer C, Anders M, Brackman SL, Steinberg MB, Barone C. Tobacco intervention practices of primary care physicians treating lower socioeconomic status patients. Am J Med Sci. 2011; Oct 17 [Epub ahead of print]. Google Scholar
74. Niederdeppe J, Fiore MC, Baker TB, Smith SS. Smoking-cessation media campaigns and their effectiveness among socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged populations. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:916924. LinkGoogle Scholar
75. Niederdeppe J, Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker J, Davis KC, Wagner L. Socioeconomic variation in recall and perceived effectiveness of campaign advertisements to promote smoking cessation. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:773780. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
76. Lichtenstein E, Zhu SH, Tedeschi GJ. Smoking cessation quitlines: an underrecognized intervention success story. Am Psychol. 2010;65:252261. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
77. Cummins SE, Bailey L, Campbell S, Koon-Kirby C, Zhu SH. Tobacco cessation quitlines in North America: a descriptive study. Tob Control. 2007;16(suppl 1):i9i15. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
78. Tomson T, Bjornstrom C, Gilljam H, Helgason A. Are non-responders in a quitline evaluation more likely to be smokers?BMC Public Health. 2005;5:16. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar


No related items




Christine E. Sheffer, PhD, Maxine Stitzer, PhD, Reid Landes, PhD, S. Laney Brackman, MPH, Tiffany Munn, BA, and Page Moore, PhDChristine E. Sheffer, S. Laney Brackman, and Tiffany Munn are with the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. Maxine Stitzer is with Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Reid Landes and Page Moore are with the Department of Biostatistics, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Community-Based Treatment of Tobacco Dependence”, American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 3 (March 1, 2012): pp. e8-e16.


PMID: 22390525