Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Evaluating the effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with usual care for smoking cessation when offered to smokers at homeless centres: protocol for a multi-centre cluster-randomized controlled trial in Great Britain

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smoking is extremely common among adults experiencing homelessness, but there is lack of evidence for treatment efficacy. E-cigarettes are an effective quitting aid, but they have not been widely tested in smokers with complex health and social needs. Here we build upon our cluster feasibility trial and evaluate the offer of an e-cigarette or usual care to smokers accessing a homeless centre.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Multi-centre two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with mixed-method embedded process and economic evaluation in homeless centres in England, Scotland and Wales. Adult smokers (18+ years; n = 480) accessing homeless centres and who are known to centre staff and willing to consent.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Clusters (n = 32) will be randomized to either an e-cigarette starter pack with weekly allocations of nicotine containing e-liquid for 4 weeks [choice of flavours (menthol, fruit and tobacco) and strengths 12 mg/ml and 18 mg/ml] or the usual care intervention, which comprises very brief advice and a leaflet signposting to the local stop smoking service.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome is 24-week sustained carbon monoxide-validated smoking cessation (Russell Standard defined, intention-to-treat analysis).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

(i) 50% smoking reduction (cigarettes per day) from baseline to 24 weeks; (ii) 7-day point prevalence quit rates at 4-, 12- and 24-week follow-up; (iii) changes in risky smoking practices (e.g. sharing cigarettes, smoking discarded cigarettes) from baseline to 4, 12 and 24 weeks; (iv) cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (v) fidelity of intervention implementation; mechanisms of change; contextual influences and sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study, to our knowledge, to randomly assign smokers experiencing homelessness to an e-cigarette and usual care intervention to measure smoking abstinence with embedded process and economic evaluations. If effective, its results will be used to inform the larger-scale implementation of offering e-cigarettes throughout homeless centres to aid smoking cessation.

Youth use of e-liquid flavours-a systematic review exploring patterns of use of e-liquid flavours and associations with continued vaping, tobacco smoking uptake or cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is concern that young people may be attracted to e-liquid flavours, prompting long-term vaping in naive users and potentially subsequent tobacco smoking. We aimed to review the use of e-liquid flavours by young people and describe associations with uptake or cessation of both regular vaping and tobacco smoking, adverse effects and subjective experiences.

DESIGN

Systematic review, including interventional, observational and qualitative studies reporting on the use of e-cigarette flavours by young people (aged < 18 years).

SETTING

Studies published in English language from any country or cultural setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Young people and their carers (aged < 18 years).

MEASUREMENTS

A meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity, inconsistency in reporting of flavour categorizations and non-interventional study designs; thus, we narratively report findings.

FINDINGS

In total, 58 studies were included. The quality of the evidence was extremely low. Most (n = 39) studies were cross-sectional survey designs. In total, 11 longitudinal cohort studies assessed trajectories; eight qualitative studies reported on user experiences. Studies reported views and experiences of a total of 512 874 young people. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies suggested that flavours are important for initiation and continuation of vaping. Qualitative evidence shows interest and enjoyment in flavours. There was judged to be insufficient evidence that use of e-liquid flavours specifically is associated with uptake of smoking. No studies found clear associations between flavours and cessation in this population. We found no included reports of adverse effects of flavours.

CONCLUSIONS

Flavours may be an important motivator for e-cigarette uptake, but the role of flavours in tobacco smoking uptake or cessation is unclear. The quality of the evidence on use of e-cigarette flavours by young people is low overall.

Disruption and adaptation in response to the coronavirus pandemic - Assets as contextual moderators of enactment of health behaviours

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 UK first national lockdown (March-July 2020) enactment of healthy behaviours was fundamentally changed due to social restrictions. This study sought to understand perspectives on health behaviour change, as part of a wider study tracking reported health behaviour change over time.

METHODS

A purposive sample was selected. N = 40 qualitative interviews were conducted remotely (phone/video) from participants across England and Wales, and transcribed verbatim. Descriptive case studies were shared at regular analysis meetings. Inductive reflexive thematic coding was undertaken and coding was discussed using a team approach to agreeing analytical codes. A multiple lens theoretical perspective was adopted to illuminate the perceived influences and restrictions on participants' reports of health behaviour change.

RESULTS

There was a clear progressive narrative for all participants, through initial responses and reactions to the pandemic, framed as 'disruption', then, as lockdown was acclimatized to, evidence of 'adaptation'. Adaptation was seen in terms of modification, substitution, adoption, discontinuation/cessation, stultification, maintenance and recalibration of health behaviours. An illustrative case study exemplifies the narrative encompassing these features and demonstrating the complex non-linear interactions between context and enacted health behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals responded to pandemic-related social restrictions in complex ways. Those in contexts with existing social assets, community links and established patterns of healthy behaviours were able to respond positively, adapting by modifying behaviour and using technology to engage in healthy behaviours in new and innovative ways. For those in more vulnerable contexts, enacting (negative) health behaviour change was an expression of frustration at the limitations imposed by social restrictions.

Development of a Smoke-Free Home Intervention for Families of Babies Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care

Neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have a disproportionately higher number of parents who smoke tobacco compared to the general population. A baby’s NICU admission offers a unique time to prompt behaviour change, and to emphasise the dangerous health risks of environmental tobacco smoke exposure to vulnerable infants. We sought to explore the views of mothers, fathers, wider family members, and healthcare professionals to develop an intervention to promote smoke-free homes, delivered on NICU. This article reports findings of a qualitative interview and focus group study with parents whose infants were in NICU (n = 42) and NICU healthcare professionals (n = 23). Thematic analysis was conducted to deductively explore aspects of intervention development including initiation, timing, components and delivery. Analysis of inductively occurring themes was also undertaken. Findings demonstrated that both parents and healthcare professionals supported the need for intervention. They felt it should be positioned around the promotion of smoke-free homes, but to achieve that end goal might incorporate direct cessation support during the NICU stay, support to stay smoke free (relapse prevention), and support and guidance for discussing smoking with family and household visitors. Qualitative analysis mapped well to an intervention based around the ‘3As’ approach (ask, advise, act). This informed a logic model and intervention pathway.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.

AIMS

We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.

METHOD

A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.

RESULTS

We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Social recovery therapy for young people with emerging severe mental illness: the Prodigy RCT

BACKGROUND

Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Without intervention, their social problems can persist and have large economic and personal costs. Thus, more effective evidence-based interventions are needed. Social recovery therapy is an individual therapy incorporating cognitive-behavioural techniques to increase structured activity as guided by the participant's goals.

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to test whether or not social recovery therapy provided as an adjunct to enhanced standard care over 9 months is superior to enhanced standard care alone. Enhanced standard care aimed to provide an optimal combination of existing evidence-based interventions.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, single-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial was conducted in three UK centres: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants were aged 16-25 years with persistent social disability, defined as < 30 hours per week of structured activity with social impairment for at least 6 months. Additionally, participants had severe and complex mental health problems, defined as at-risk mental states for psychosis or non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems indicated by a Global Assessment of Functioning score ≤ 50 persisting for ≥ 6 months. Two hundred and seventy participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either enhanced standard care plus social recovery therapy or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome was weekly hours spent in structured activity at 15 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included subthreshold psychotic, negative and mood symptoms. Outcomes were collected at 9 and 15 months post randomisation, with maintenance assessed at 24 months.

RESULTS

The addition of social recovery therapy did not significantly increase weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months (primary outcome treatment effect -4.44, 95% confidence interval -10.19 to 1.31). We found no evidence of significant differences between conditions in secondary outcomes at 15 months: Social Anxiety Interaction Scale treatment effect -0.45, 95% confidence interval -4.84 to 3.95; Beck Depression Inventory-II treatment effect -0.32, 95% confidence interval -4.06 to 3.42; Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States symptom severity 0.29, 95% confidence interval -4.35 to 4.94; or distress treatment effect 4.09, 95% confidence interval -3.52 to 11.70. Greater Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States for psychosis scores reflect greater symptom severity. We found no evidence of significant differences at 9 or 24 months. Social recovery therapy was not estimated to be cost-effective. The key limitation was that missingness of data was consistently greater in the enhanced standard care-alone arm (9% primary outcome and 15% secondary outcome missingness of data) than in the social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care arm (4% primary outcome and 9% secondary outcome missingness of data) at 15 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy as an adjunct to enhanced standard care. Both arms made large improvements in primary and secondary outcomes. Enhanced standard care included a comprehensive combination of evidence-based pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions. Some results favoured enhanced standard care but the majority were not statistically significant. Future work should identify factors associated with the optimal delivery of the combinations of interventions that underpin better outcomes in this often-neglected clinical group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47998710.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 25, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

How a sample of English stop smoking services and vape shops adapted during the early COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic in England led to major changes in the delivery of support via stop smoking services (SSS) and to the widespread temporary closure of bricks and mortar e-cigarette retailers (vape shops herein). The impact of disruptions across the smoking cessation support landscape has not been fully documented. The purpose of this study was to capture how SSS and vape shops in England were affected and adapted their 'business as usual' during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2020. Surveys were disseminated through online networks, professional forums and contacts. Open-ended qualitative responses were coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Responses from 46 SSS and 59 vape shops were included. SSS were able to adapt during this period, e.g. offering a remote service. A high percentage (74.6%) of vape shops had to close and were unable to make changes; 71.2% reported business declining. For both vape shops and SSS qualitative data revealed practical challenges to adapting, but also new pathways to support and co-working.

CONCLUSION

The closure of vape shops appears to have most impacted smaller bricks and mortar shops affecting businesses by decline in customers and impacting staff (furlough). For those services that could stay open there may be lessons learned in how to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people who smoke by considering new pathways to support.

A feasibility trial of an intervention in alcohol dependence for structured preparation before detoxification versus usual care: the SPADe trial results

BACKGROUND

Individuals who are 'moderately' or 'severely' dependent consume alcohol at levels that are likely to have a severe impact on their own health and mortality, the health and behaviours of others (family members) and to have economic and social implications. Treatment guidelines suggest that treatment needs to be planned with medically assisted withdrawal (also referred to as detoxification), and aftercare support but outcomes are poor with low proportions engaging in after care and high relapse rates. An approach of structured preparation before alcohol detoxification (SPADe) puts an emphasis on introducing lifestyle changes, development of coping strategies for cravings, stress and emotions as well as introducing changes to the immediate family and social environment in advance of alcohol cessation. Such a pre-habilitation paradigm compliments the established treatment approach. The key research question was: can we design a large scale, randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will answer whether such an approach is more effective than usual care in helping individuals to maintain longer periods of alcohol abstinence?

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, parallel, two-arm, feasibility RCT comparing SPADe and usual care against usual care only in maintaining alcohol abstinence in adults with alcohol dependence receiving care in two community addiction services in London. Feasibility outcomes, exploration of primary and secondary clinical outcomes and health economic outcomes are analysed. The trial follows the guidelines of phase 2 of the Medical Research Council (MRC) for complex interventions.

RESULTS

We were able to recruit 48/50 participants during a period of 9 months. Retention in the trial for the whole period of the 12 months was 75%. Treatment compliance was overall 44%. Data completion for the primary outcome was 65%, 50% and 63% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. The intervention group had more days abstinent in the previous 90 days at the 12 months (n = 54.5) versus control (n = 41.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this feasibility trial indicate that with the appropriate modifications, a full multicentred trial would be possible to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pre-habilitation approach such as the SPADe group intervention in addition to usual care against usual care only.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of registry: ISRCTN; Trial Registration Number: 14621127 ; Date of Registration: 22/02/2017.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the UK: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to explore how people adapted to these measures over time.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods investigation comprising a national online longitudinal survey and embedded qualitative study.

SETTING

UK online survey and interviews with community-dwelling individuals in the East of England.

PARTICIPANTS

People in the UK with RMDs were invited to participate in an online survey. A subsection of respondents were invited to participate in the embedded qualitative study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The online survey, completed fortnightly over 10 weeks from April 2020 to August 2020, investigated changes in symptoms, social isolation and loneliness, resilience and optimism. Qualitative interviews were undertaken assessing participant's perspectives on changes in symptoms, exercising, managing instrumental tasks such a shopping, medication and treatment regimens and how they experienced changes in their social networks.

RESULTS

703 people with RMDs completed the online survey. These people frequently reported a deterioration in symptoms as a result of COVID-19 pandemic social restrictions (52% reported increase vs 6% reported a decrease). This was significantly worse for those aged 18-60 years compared with older participants (p=0.017). The qualitative findings from 26 individuals with RMDs suggest that the greatest change in daily life was experienced by those in employment. Although some retired people reported reduced opportunity for exercise outside their homes, they did not face the many competing demands experienced by employed people and people with children at home.

CONCLUSIONS

People with RMDs reported a deterioration in symptoms when COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures were enforced. This was worse for working-aged people. Consideration of this at-risk group, specifically for the promotion of physical activity, changing home-working practices and awareness of healthcare provision is important, as social restrictions continue in the UK.

Are researchers getting the terms used to denote different types of recreational cannabis right?-a user perspective

BACKGROUND

While current cannabis research has advanced our understanding into the effects of its individual components, there is a pressing need to identify simple terminology that is understood in the same way by researchers and users of cannabis. Current categorisation in research focuses on the two main cannabinoids: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD); and two different species of cannabis: indica and sativa. Recreational cannabis has also been categorised by researchers as 'skunk' or 'hash'. Focusing on individuals who use cannabis frequently, this study aimed to identify views on current terms used to denote different types of cannabis and to identify terms validated by participants. These views were extracted from responses of the Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), a widely used instrument in the literature.

METHODS

We qualitatively analysed 236 free-text responses from Question 23 of the CEQ survey (using Iterative Categorisation) relating to categorization and consumption methods. Data was used from a previous study (Sami et al., Psychol Med 49:103-12, 2019), which recruited a convenience sample of 1231 participants aged 18 years and above who had previously used cannabis.

RESULTS

Regarding type of cannabis used, specific strain names (n = 130), concentrates (n = 37), indica/sativa (n = 22) and THC/CBD terms (n = 22) were mentioned. Other terms used were hybrids (n = 10), origins of specific strains (n = 17), edibles (n = 8), and herbal cannabis (n = 7). Regarding problems with specific terms, participants were skeptical about terms such as skunk and super skunk (n = 78) preferring terms like THC/CBD, indica/sativa, specific marketed strains and references to preparation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a disparity between the common terms used by researchers in academia and those used by cannabis consumers. While there are advantages and limitations of using these terms to bridge views of researchers and individuals who use cannabis, this study underscores the importance of formally assessing chemical constituents rather than relying on self-report data and of incorporating cannabis user views on current terms used in research, potentially also incorporating descriptors of preparation and consumption methods.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Randomised controlled trial of a just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) smoking cessation smartphone app: the Quit Sense feasibility trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

A lapse (any smoking) early in a smoking cessation attempt is strongly associated with reduced success. A substantial proportion of lapses are due to urges to smoke triggered by situational cues. Currently, no available interventions proactively respond to such cues in real time. Quit Sense is a theory-guided just-in-time adaptive intervention smartphone app that uses a learning tool and smartphone sensing to provide in-the-moment tailored support to help smokers manage cue-induced urges to smoke. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to assess the feasibility of delivering a definitive online efficacy trial of Quit Sense.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

A two-arm parallel-group RCT allocating smokers willing to make a quit attempt, recruited via online adverts, to usual care (referral to the NHS SmokeFree website) or usual care plus Quit Sense. Randomisation will be stratified by smoking rate (<16 vs ≥16 cigarettes/day) and socioeconomic status (low vs high). Recruitment, enrolment, baseline data collection, allocation and intervention delivery will be automated through the study website. Outcomes will be collected at 6 weeks and 6 months follow-up via the study website or telephone, and during app usage. The study aims to recruit 200 smokers to estimate key feasibility outcomes, the preliminary impact of Quit Sense and potential cost-effectiveness, in addition to gaining insights on user views of the app through qualitative interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Wales NHS Research Ethics Committee 7 (19/WA/0361). The findings will be disseminated to the public, the funders, relevant practice and policy representatives and other researchers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12326962.

User pathways of e-cigarette use to support long term tobacco smoking relapse prevention: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

E-cigarettes are the most popular consumer choice for support with smoking cessation in the United Kingdom. However, there are concerns that long-term e-cigarette use may sustain concurrent tobacco smoking or lead to relapse to smoking in ex-smokers. We aimed to explore vaping trajectories, establishing e-cigarette users' perspectives on continued e-cigarette use in relation to smoking relapse or abstinence.

DESIGN

Qualitative longitudinal study collecting detailed subjective data at baseline and ~12 months later.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

E-cigarette users (n = 37) who self-reported that they had used e-cigarettes to stop smoking at baseline.

MEASUREMENTS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews (face-to-face or telephone) collected self-reported patterns of e-cigarette use. Thematic analysis of transcripts and a mapping approach of individual pathways enabled exploration of self-reported experiences, motives, resources, and environmental and social influences on vaping and any concurrent tobacco smoking.

FINDINGS

Three broad participant pathways were identified: 'maintainer' (e-cigarette use and not smoking), 'abstainer' (neither smoking nor using e-cigarettes), and 'relapser' (dual-using, or relapsed back to tobacco smoking only). In each pathway, individual experiences with vaping nicotine appeared to play an important role and appeared to be related to psychological and social factors. A social context supportive of vaping was important for the maintainers, as was a belief in the need to overcome nicotine addiction for the abstainers, and dislike of the 'vaping culture' expressed by some in the relapser group. Dual-users held beliefs such as a need for cigarettes at time of acute stress that affirmed dependence on tobacco.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of UK e-cigarette users who report having used e-cigarettes to quit smoking, a social context that supports continued vaping was perceived to be helpful in preventing relapse to smoking.

Healthcare Professionals' Beliefs, Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Around Vaping in Pregnancy and Postpartum: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Finding effective ways to help pregnant women quit smoking and maintain long-term abstinence is a public health priority. Electronic cigarettes (ie, vaping) could be a suitable cessation tool in pregnancy for those who struggle to quit; however, healthcare professionals (HCP) must be informed about these devices to offer appropriate advice. This study used the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore HCP attitudes towards vaping in pregnancy and postpartum; beliefs about the health risks of vaping; perceived barriers and facilitators of vaping in pregnancy; knowledge of current guidelines and policies; and training needs.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 60) were conducted with midwives (n = 17), health visitors (n = 10), general practitioners (n = 15) and stop smoking specialists (n = 18) across the United Kingdom. Interview transcriptions were analyzed thematically using the framework approach and the COM-B.

RESULTS

Discussing vaping as a tool for quitting smoking in pregnancy was prevented by a lack of capability (limited knowledge of vaping, lack of training in smoking cessation); lack of opportunity (restricted by organizational policies and guidelines, lack of time and financial issues impacting on training), and negative social influences (sensationalist media and stigma associated with vaping in pregnancy); and lack of motivation (fear of future litigation and comebacks should adverse effects from vaping arise).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors related to capability, opportunity, and motivation were identified that influence HCPs attitudes and behaviors towards vaping in pregnancy. Gaps in knowledge and training needs were identified, which could inform the development of targeted vaping training.

IMPLICATIONS

Vaping could be suitable in pregnancy for those struggling to quit smoking. However, HCPs must be informed about these devices to offer appropriate advice. These data extend our knowledge of factors influencing HCP attitudes and behaviors towards vaping in pregnancy. Generally, vaping was perceived as safer than cigarettes, but a perceived lack of evidence, health and safety risks, dependency, and regulation issues were concerning. Considering our findings, greater efforts are needed to ensure HCPs are sufficiently informed about vaping and guidelines available. More importance should be placed on training for all HCPs who have contact with pregnant women.

Combined individual and family therapy in comparison to treatment as usual for people at-risk of psychosis: A feasibility study (IF CBT): Trial rationale, methodology and baseline characteristics

AIMS

Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for psychosis recommend psychological therapy with or without family intervention for individuals at-risk of developing psychosis. NICE guidelines have a specific research recommendation to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of combined individual and family intervention. We report the rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a feasibility study which aimed to investigate combined Individual and Family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (IFCBT) for those at-risk of developing psychosis.

METHODS

The IFCBT study was a single blind, pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare a combined individual and family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) intervention to treatment as usual. Participants were assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of the At-risk Mental State (CAARMS) and randomly allocated to either therapy or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). All participants were followed up at 6 and 12 months. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention of participants. Secondary outcomes included transition to psychosis and assessment of mood, anxiety and the relationship of the individual and nominated family member.

RESULTS

We report data showing entry into the study from initial enquiry to randomization. We report the characteristics of the recruited sample of individuals (n = 70) and family members (n = 70) at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The study recruited to 92% of target demonstrating it is feasible to identify and recruit participants. Our study aimed to add to the current evidence base regarding the utility of family interventions for people at-risk of psychosis.

Responsibility, normalisation and negotiations of harm: E-cigarette users' opinions and experiences of vaping around children

BACKGROUND

Concern about youth uptake of vaping is widespread. Regulation and education campaigns aim to protect children from initiating use, yet it is likely that children will be primarily influenced by the behaviour of people in their immediate environment. This is the first known study exploring e-cigarette users' views and reported experiences of vaping around children.

METHODS

Following informed consent, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 adults who had attempted to give up smoking by vaping. Participants were recruited from England as part of a wider study into e-cigarette use trajectories and smoking relapse (ECtra study). Data were extracted from 28 interviews where participants had spontaneously discussed vaping around children. Extracted data were analysed thematically and situated in previous analysis of vaping identity which distinguished between recreational and medicinal vapers.

RESULTS

Vaping behaviour around children was in part a habituated replication of smoking norms but also guided by broad vaping identity; recreational users were more permissive and medicinal users more secretive. Vaping in the home appeared to be determined by caregivers' need to reconcile vaping behaviour so that it was congruent with parental identity as a responsible caregiver. Participant perspectives reflected existing moral discourses applied to e-cigarettes around the use of "harm reduction for smokers" and "potential for youth harm".

CONCLUSION

Vaping is likely to be role modelled within the community and home despite attempts by e-cigarette users to conceal the behaviour. The ambivalent contextualisation of e-cigarettes means that e-cigarette users may lack a clear narrative to draw on when discussing vaping with children. Public health guidance for vaping around children could be helpful, but to be most effective, should take into consideration users' vaping identity.

Review: Delivering mental health support within schools and colleges - a thematic synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation of indicated psychological interventions for adolescents

BACKGROUND

Increasing the role of schools and colleges in the provision of mental health services for young people has the potential to improve early intervention and access to treatment. We aimed to understand what factors influence the successful implementation of indicated psychological interventions within schools and colleges to help guide increased provision of mental health support within education settings.

METHODS

Systematic search for studies that have reported barriers or facilitators to the implementation of indicated interventions for adolescent emotional disorders delivered within schools and further education/sixth form colleges (CRD42018102830). Databases searched were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, ASSIA, ERIC and British Education Index. A thematic synthesis of factors reported to impact implementation was conducted.

RESULTS

Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine records and 177 full texts were screened. Fifty studies were identified for inclusion, all of which were of school-based interventions. Eleven analytic themes were developed encompassing intervention characteristics, organisational capacity, training and technical assistance, provider characteristics and community-level factors. Findings indicate the need to select appropriate interventions, consider logistical challenges of the school context and provide training and supervision to enable staff to deliver interventions with fidelity. However, structural and environmental support is required for these facilitators to have the greatest impact on successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing indicated school-based mental health interventions is challenging. Those involved in planning school-based mental health initiatives must be alert to the impact of factors on multiple interacting levels. There is a lack of research on implementing mental health support within further education and sixth form colleges.

KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE

Increased utilisation of schools and colleges as a setting for early intervention has been proposed as a means of improving access to mental health treatment, but successful implementation of mental health interventions within educational settings is challenging. Based on a synthesis of current evidence, we recommend that young people and education professionals should be involved in the selection of school-based interventions to ensure they are acceptable and practical to deliver within the logistical constraints of the school environment. Those delivering interventions within schools, as well as staff involved in identifying young people who might benefit from these interventions, must receive high-quality ongoing training and support. Senior school leaders play an important role in championing mental health interventions and developing a school culture that prioritises mental well-being. Health and education policy should be designed to promote a cross-sector focus on the emotional health of young people. There is a lack of evidence on the implementation of indicated psychological interventions within sixth form and further education colleges.

Health behaviour change during the UK COVID‐19 lockdown: Findings from the first wave of the C‐19 health behaviour and well‐being daily tracker study

Objectives

To provide baseline cohort descriptives and assess change in health behaviours since the UK COVID‐19 lockdown.

Design

A prospective cohort (N = 1,044) of people recruited online, purposively targeting vulnerable populations.

Methods

After a baseline survey (April 2020), participants completed 3 months of daily ecological momentary assessments (EMA). Dietary, physical activity, alcohol, smoking, vaping and substance use behaviours collected retrospectively for the pre‐COVID‐19 period were compared with daily EMA surveys over the first 30 days during early lockdown. Predictors of behaviour change were assessed using multivariable regression models.

Results

30% of the cohort had a COVID‐19 at risk health condition, 37% were classed as deprived and 6% self‐reported a mental health condition. Relative to pre‐pandemic levels, participants ate almost one portion of fruit and vegetables less per day (vegetables mean difference −0.33, 95% CI −0.40, −0.25; fruit −0.57, 95% CI −0.64, −0.50), but showed no change in high sugar portions per day (−0.03, 95% CI −0.12, 0.06). Participants spent half a day less per week doing ≥30 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity (−0.57, 95% CI −0.73, −0.40) but slightly increased days of strength training (0.21, 95% CI 0.09, 0.34), increased alcohol intake (AUDIT‐C score change 0.25, 95% CI 0.13, 0.37), though did not change smoking, vaping or substance use behaviour. Worsening health behaviour change was associated with being younger, female and higher body mass index.

Conclusions

The cohort reported worsening health behaviours during early lockdown. Longer term changes will be investigated using further waves of data collection.

Negotiating cancer preventative health behaviours and adapting to motherhood: the role of technology in supporting positive health behaviours

PURPOSE

Across the UK and USA, postpartum smoking relapse rates are high, and rates of breastfeeding and physical activity are low. This project aimed to explore these interrelated health behaviours and technology use, for intervention development to support postpartum cancer prevention.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews with 26 purposively selected women (15 in Vermont, USA and 11 in Norfolk, UK). Recruitment was from deprived areas experiencing multiple disadvantage. Qualitative data were thematically analysed from dual cultural perspectives, underpinned by the social ecological model.

RESULTS

Women negotiate interrelated lifestyle behaviours as part of managing an identity in transition, moving through stages of disturbance, adaptation, acceptance and integration towards "becoming" a new Mother. Technology was integral to women's process of engagement with mothering identities. Intersectionality underpins complex patterns of interrelated behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scope to improve electronic/digital support for postpartum women cross-nationally to promote interrelated cancer-preventative lifestyle behaviours. Abbreviations CDC: Center for Disease Control, US; PA: Physical activity; SES: Socioeconomic status; SVI: Social Vulnerability Index; UK: UK; US: USA; WIC: Women infants and children office.