recruits (22% vs. 17%), and those reporting an intention to remain nonsmoking after the ban were nearly 60% more likely to quit than those who were either thinking of returning to smoking or actively planning to resume smoking (19% vs. 13%). The intervention had an impact on the highest-risk group, those planning to resume smoking (13% vs. 8%). Among minority-group members who were not planning to quit, the intervention had a particularly large impact—a 14% difference in cessation rates between treatment and controls (18% vs. 4%)—although there was no overall intervention effect (Klesges et al., 1999).
In a follow-up study, Klesges et al. (2006) evaluated the effect of a brief tailored tobacco-control intervention during Air Force basic training. The 33,215 participants were randomized to receive an intervention based on their prior tobacco use: those who smoked cigarettes before basic training received a smoking-cessation intervention, and those who used other tobacco products before basic training received a smokeless-tobacco intervention, those who did not use tobacco received a prevention intervention. The controls viewed health-related and first-aid videos. The smoking interventions proved to be associated with long-term tobacco cessation. Based on 7-day point prevalence and continuous abstinence, respectively, smokers who received the active intervention were 1.16 (95% CI, 1.04–1.30) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07–1.41) times more likely to be abstinent from smoking cigarettes than controls at the 1-year follow-up (p < 0.01). The cessation-rate difference was 1.60% (31.09% vs. 29.49%) and 1.73% (15.47% vs. 13.74%) for point prevalence and continuous abstinence, respectively. Smokeless-tobacco users were 1.33 times (95% CI, 1.08–1.63) more likely than controls (p < 0.01) to be continuously abstinent at the follow-up with an overall cessation-rate difference of 5.44% (33.72% vs. 28.28%). However, the smoking-prevention program had no impact on smoking initiation. A study of Air Force recruits who were tobacco users before basic training and received NRTs at the end of basic training found that those who used NRTs were more likely than those who did not use them to plan to resume tobacco use after military training, to have friends who smoked, and to take cigarettes from friends who smoked and were less likely to be abstinent (7-day point prevalence) (Klesges et al., 2007).
A variety of focus groups targeting tobacco-use policies and practices were conducted during Air Force technical-school training, which occurs immediately after the completion of basic training (Peterson et al., 2003). Several focus groups included trainees who had been regular smokers before basic training. The results were surprising: most trainees reported that they had no difficulty in quitting, and most did not report any withdrawal symptoms. Most reported that basic