Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation

Beneath the surface: Abstract construal mindset increases receptivity to metaphors in health communications

Widespread messages use metaphoric language and imagery to prompt recipients to interpret health-related concepts in terms of dissimilar, familiar concepts (e.g., "fight the war on cancer"). When do these messages work? According to Conceptual Metaphor Theory, thinking metaphorically involves looking past concepts' superficial differences to identify their similarities at a structural level. Thus, we hypothesized that when people's general construal mindset is oriented to focus on information's abstract meaning, not its concrete details, they would process a metaphor's target health concept in ways that correspond to the dissimilar concept. Accordingly, after priming an abstract, but not concrete, construal mindset: framing sun exposure as enemy confrontation (vs. literally) increased cancer risk perceptions and sun-safe intentions (Study 1; N=186); and framing smoking cessation as an arduous journey (vs. literally) increased appreciation of quitting difficulties and interest in cessation tools (Study 2; N=244). We discuss practical and theoretical implications for improving health communication.

Effects of a multi-behavioral health promotion program at worksite on smoking patterns and quit behavior

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is associated with various severe health risks. Therefore, the need to decrease smoking rates is a great public health concern. The workplace has capability as a setting through which large groups of smokers can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate effects of a multi behavioral worksite health promotion intervention. The primary outcome was the change of smoking rate. Secondary outcomes were changes in smoking attitudes and readiness to stop smoking among employees over an intervention period of 12 months.

METHOD

112 and 110 employees were enrolled in the intervention and control arm respectively. The intervention group received a 12-month multicomponent health promotion intervention. One of the main elements of the multicomponent intervention was a smoking cessation and counseling program. During the pilot year, participants completed a self-evaluation questionnaire at baseline and again after 12 months to related outcomes and changes.

RESULTS

Results showed that participants' quit behavior and smoking behavior changed over time in the intervention group (IG). Readiness to quit smoking also increased in the IG compared to the comparison group (CG). Some positive intervention effects were observed for cognitive factors (e.g., changes attitudes towards smoking). Baseline willingness to change smoking behavior was significantly improved over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed initial results of a long-term multicomponent worksite health promotion program with regard to changes in smoking behavior, attitudes towards smoking and readiness to quit smoking. The evaluation suggests that a worksite health promotion program may lead to improvements in smoking behavior for a number of workers.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

The efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To summarize evidence for the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

LMICs as defined by the World Bank.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult current cigarette smokers residing in LMICs.

INTERVENTIONS

Behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy smoking cessation interventions.

MEASUREMENTS

PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), PsycINFO (Ebsco), SciELO, WHO Global Index Medicus and Scopus were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Only studies with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. We used the most rigorous assessment of abstinence reported by each study. Effect sizes were computed from abstracted data. Where possible, a meta-analysis was performed using Mantel-Haenzel random-effect models reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

FINDINGS

Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were included. Six investigated the efficacy of pharmacological agents. Four trials that compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to placebo found NRT improved cessation rates (n : NRT 546, control 684, OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.30-2.77, P < 0.001, I2  = 13%). Eight trials found that behavioral counseling was more effective than minimal interventions (e.g. brief advice); n : Counseling 2941, control 2794, OR = 6.87, 95% CI = 4.18-11.29, P < 0.001, I2  = 67%). There was also evidence of the benefit of brief advice over usual care (n : Brief advice 373, control 355, OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.56-3.88, P < 0.001, I2  = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Nicotine replacement therapy, behavioral counseling and brief advice appear to be effective in aiding smoking cessation in low- and middle-income countries. There is limited rigorous research on other smoking cessation interventions in these regions.

Digital Education for Health Professions on Smoking Cessation Management: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking, one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease, is associated with 7 million deaths every year. This is estimated to rise to more than 8 million deaths per year by 2030, with 80% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Digital education, teaching, and learning using digital technologies have the potential to increase educational opportunities, supplement teaching activities, and decrease distance barriers in health professions education.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education compared with various controls in improving learners' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction to deliver smoking cessation therapy. The secondary objectives were to assess patient-related outcomes, change in health professionals' practice or behavior, self-efficacy or self-rated competence of health professionals in delivering smoking cessation therapy, and cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

METHODS

We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registers for randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and August 2017. We used gold standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and appraise eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies (number of participants, n=2684) were included in the review. All studies found that digital education was at least as effective as traditional or usual learning. There was some suggestion that blended education results in similar or greater improvements in knowledge (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.72), skill (SMD=0.58, 95% CI 0.08-1.08), and satisfaction (SMD=0.62, 95% CI 0.12-1.12) compared with digital education or usual learning alone. There was also some evidence for improved attitude (SMD=0.45, 95% CI 0.18-0.72) following digital education compared with usual learning. Only 1 study reported patient outcomes and the setup cost of blended education but did not compare outcomes among groups. There were insufficient data to investigate what components of the digital education interventions were associated with the greatest improvements in learning outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that digital education is at least as effective as usual learning in improving health professionals' knowledge and skill for delivering smoking cessation therapy. However, limitations in the evidence base mean that these conclusions should be interpreted with some caution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016046815; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=46815.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in February 2018 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (67,285 participants), 15 of which are new to this update. We judged 21 studies to be at high risk of bias, 51 to be at unclear risk of bias, and five studies to be at low risk of bias. Forty-eight studies included abstainers, and 29 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-six studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (18 studies), hospital admission (five studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy.We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I² = 82%; moderate certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I² = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I² = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I² = 66%; low certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I² = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I² = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (4 studies, n = 1300, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11, I² = 0%), and studies in assisted abstainers (10 studies, n = 5408, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13, I² = 56%; moderate certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I² = 1%) from the general population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.

E-cigarette use in England 2014-17 as a function of socio-economic profile

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

E-cigarettes have the potential either to decrease or increase health inequalities, depending on socio-economic differences in their use and effectiveness. This paper estimated the associations between socio-economic status (SES) and e-cigarette use and examined whether these associations changed between 2014 and 2017.

DESIGN

A monthly repeat cross-sectional household survey of adults (16+) between January 2014 and December 2017. This time-period was chosen given that the prevalence of e-cigarette use stabilized in England in late 2013.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants in the Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly household survey of smoking and smoking cessation among adults (n = 81 063; mean age = 48.4 years, 49% were women) in England. Subsets included past year smokers (n = 16 232; mean age = 42.8, 46% women), smokers during a quit attempt (n = 5305, mean age = 40.6, 49% women) and long-term ex-smokers (n = 13 562, mean age = 59.3, 44% women).

MEASUREMENTS

The outcome measure for the analyses was current e-cigarette use. We also included smokers during a quit attempt where use of an e-cigarette during the most recent quit attempt was the outcome measure. Social grade based on occupation was the SES explanatory variable, using the National Readership Survey classification system of AB (higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional), C1 (supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative and professional), C2 (skilled manual workers), D (semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers) and E (state pensioners, casual and lowest-grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only). The analyses were stratified by year to assess the changes in these associations over time.

FINDINGS

Among past-year smokers, lower SES groups had lower overall odds of e-cigarette use compared with the highest SES group AB (D: odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.40-0.71; E: 0.67, 0.50-0.89). These differences in e-cigarette use reduced over time. The use of e-cigarettes during a quit attempt showed no clear temporal or socio-economic patterns. Among long-term ex-smokers, use of e-cigarettes increased from 2014 to 2017 among all groups and use was more likely in SES groups C2 (2.03, 1.08-3.96) and D (2.29, 1.13-4.70) compared with AB.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2014 to 2017 in England, e-cigarette use was greater among smokers from higher compared with lower socio-economic status (SES) groups, but this difference attenuated over time. Use during a quit attempt was similar throughout SES groups. Use by long-term ex-smokers increased over time among all groups and was consistently more common in lower SES groups.

Tobacco smoking and nicotine delivery alternatives: patterns of product use and perceptions in 13 countries

Background: Smoking tobacco products remains a significant public health problem. The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World commissioned a 13-country survey to gain a clearer understanding of the current landscape of smoking behavior and preferences across the world. Methods: Over 17,000 participants in 13 countries, representing different regions and income groups, answered questions on their smoking patterns and product use, their social context, their motivation to smoke, quit, or switch, and their perception of risks of products and substances. Rim weighting was done for each country to align responses with population demographics, and an additional 200 smokers for each country were surveyed to achieve sufficient sample size for sub-analyses of smoker data. Results: The observed prevalence of smoking ranged from an age-adjusted high of 57.5% in Lebanon to 8.4% in New Zealand among men, with lower rates for women. The majority of smokers were between 25-54 years old, had daily routines and social patterns associated with smoking, used boxed cigarettes, and rated their health more poorly compared to never smokers. Among a range of products and substances, smokers tended to give both cigarettes and nicotine the highest harm ratings. Smokers in high income countries were largely familiar with electronic nicotine delivery systems; the most commonly given reasons for using them were to cut down or quit smoking. A majority of smokers had tried to quit at least once, and while many tried without assistance, motivations, intentions, and methods for smoking cessation, including professional help, nicotine replacement therapies or medications, or electronic cigarettes, varied among countries. Conclusions: Smoking is deeply integrated in smokers' lives worldwide. Although a majority of smokers have tried to quit, and are concerned for their health, they do not seek help. Smokers lack understanding of the harmful components of smoking tobacco products and the risk profile of alternatives.

Tobacco smoking and nicotine delivery alternatives: patterns of product use and perceptions in 13 countries

Background: Smoking tobacco products remains a significant public health problem. The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World commissioned a 13-country survey to gain a clearer understanding of the current landscape of smoking behavior and preferences across the world. Methods: Over 17,000 participants in 13 countries, representing different regions and income groups, answered questions on their smoking patterns and product use, their social context, their motivation to smoke, quit, or switch, and their perception of risks of products and substances. Rim weighting was done for each country to align responses with population demographics, and an additional 200 smokers for each country were surveyed to achieve sufficient sample size for sub-analyses of smoker data. Results: The observed prevalence of smoking ranged from an age-adjusted high of 57.5% in Lebanon to 8.4% in New Zealand among men, with lower rates for women. The majority of smokers were between 25-54 years old, had daily routines and social patterns associated with smoking, used boxed cigarettes, and rated their health more poorly compared to never smokers. Among a range of products and substances, smokers tended to give both cigarettes and nicotine the highest harm ratings. Smokers in high income countries were largely familiar with electronic nicotine delivery systems; the most commonly given reasons for using them were to cut down or quit smoking. A majority of smokers had tried to quit at least once, and while many tried without assistance, motivations, intentions, and methods for smoking cessation, including professional help, nicotine replacement therapies or medications, or electronic cigarettes, varied among countries. Conclusions: Smoking is deeply integrated in smokers' lives worldwide. Although a majority of smokers have tried to quit, and are concerned for their health, they do not seek help. Smokers lack understanding of the harmful components of smoking tobacco products and the risk profile of alternatives.

Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of cancer, preventable death, and disability. Smoking cessation can increase life expectancy by nearly a decade if achieved in the third or fourth decades of life. Various stop smoking interventions are available including pharmacotherapies, electronic cigarettes, behavioural support, and alternative therapies. This protocol outlines an evidence review which will evaluate the benefits and harms of stop smoking interventions in adults.

METHODS

The evidence review will consist of two stages. First, an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions delivered in or referred from the primary care setting will be conducted. The second stage will involve updating a systematic review on electronic cigarettes identified in the overview; randomized controlled trials will be considered for outcomes relating to benefits while randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and comparative observational studies will be considered for evaluating harms. Search strategies will be developed and peer-reviewed by medical information specialists. The search strategy for the updated review on e-cigarettes will be developed using that of the candidate systematic review. The MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases will be searched as of 2008 for the overview of reviews and from the last search date of the selected review for the updated review. Organizational websites and trial registries will be searched for unpublished or ongoing reviews/studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements regarding full-text screening and data extraction will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. The methodological quality of systematic reviews, risk of bias of randomized and non-randomized trials, and methodological quality of cohort studies will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool, respectively. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The evidence review will evaluate the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions for adults. Findings will be used to inform a national tobacco cessation guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42018099691, CRD42018099692).

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow may increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies, and to determine the comparative effectiveness of different components and characteristics of print-based self-help, such as computer-generated feedback, additional materials, tailoring of materials to individuals, and targeting of materials at specific groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the most recent search was March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested print-based materials providing self-help compared with minimal print-based self-help (such as a short leaflet) or a lower-intensity control. We defined 'self-help' as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in accordance with standard methodological procedures set out by Cochrane. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each study and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 75 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to allow judgement of risk of bias for some domains. We judged 30 studies (40%) to be at high risk of bias for one or more domains.Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Eleven studies compared self-help materials alone with no intervention and found a small effect in favour of the intervention (n = 13,241; risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.37; I² = 0%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for indirect relevance to populations in low- and middle-income countries because evidence for this comparison came from studies conducted solely in high-income countries and there is reason to believe the intervention might work differently in low- and middle-income countries. This analysis excluded two studies by the same author team with strongly positive outcomes that were clear outliers and introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further studies of structured self-help compared with brief leaflets did not show evidence of an effect of self-help materials on smoking cessation (n = 7023; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; I² = 21%). We found evidence of benefit from standard self-help materials when there was brief contact that did not include smoking cessation advice (4 studies; n = 2822; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; I² = 0%), but not when self-help was provided as an adjunct to face-to-face smoking cessation advice for all participants (11 studies; n = 5365; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28; I² = 32%).Thirty-two studies tested materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving no materials, or stage-matched or non-tailored materials. Most of these studies used more than one mailing. Pooling studies that compared tailored self-help with no self-help, either on its own or compared with advice, or as an adjunct to advice, showed a benefit of providing tailored self-help interventions (12 studies; n = 19,190; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.49; I² = 0%) with little evidence of difference between subgroups (10 studies compared tailored with no materials, n = 14,359; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.51; I² = 0%; two studies compared tailored materials with brief advice, n = 2992; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49; I² = 0%; and two studies evaluated tailored materials as an adjunct to brief advice, n = 1839; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.53; I² = 10%). When studies compared tailored self-help with non-tailored self-help, results favoured tailored interventions when the tailored interventions involved more mailings than the non-tailored interventions (9 studies; n = 14,166; RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.68; I² = 0%), but not when the two conditions were contact-matched (10 studies; n = 11,024; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30; I² = 50%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for risk of bias.Five studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy; pooling three of these provided no evidence of additional benefit (n = 1769; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Four studies evaluating additional written materials favoured the intervention, but the lower confidence interval crossed the line of no effect (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; I² = 73%). A small number of other studies did not detect benefit from using targeted materials, or find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that when no other support is available, written self-help materials help more people to stop smoking than no intervention. When people receive advice from a health professional or are using nicotine replacement therapy, there is no evidence that self-help materials add to their effect. However, small benefits cannot be excluded. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that self-help materials that use data from participants to tailor the nature of the advice or support given are more effective than no intervention. However, when tailored self-help materials, which typically involve repeated assessment and mailing, were compared with untailored materials delivered similarly, there was no evidence of benefit.Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high-income countries, where more intensive support is often available. Further research is needed to investigate effects of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries, where more intensive support may not be available.

Using the Social-Local-Mobile App for Smoking Cessation in the SmokeFreeBrain Project: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Smoking is considered the main cause of preventable illness and early deaths worldwide. The treatment usually prescribed to people who wish to quit smoking is a multidisciplinary intervention, combining both psychological advice and pharmacological therapy, since the application of both strategies significantly increases the chance of success in a quit attempt.

Objective

We present a study protocol of a 12-month randomized open-label parallel-group trial whose primary objective is to analyze the efficacy and efficiency of usual psychopharmacological therapy plus the Social-Local-Mobile app (intervention group) applied to the smoking cessation process compared with usual psychopharmacological therapy alone (control group).

Methods

The target population consists of adult smokers (both male and female) attending the Smoking Cessation Unit at Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Seville, Spain. Social-Local-Mobile is an innovative intervention based on mobile technologies and their capacity to trigger behavioral changes. The app is a complement to pharmacological therapies to quit smoking by providing personalized motivational messages, physical activity monitoring, lifestyle advice, and distractions (minigames) to help overcome cravings. Usual pharmacological therapy consists of bupropion (Zyntabac 150 mg) or varenicline (Champix 0.5 mg or 1 mg). The main outcomes will be (1) the smoking abstinence rate at 1 year measured by means of exhaled carbon monoxide and urinary cotinine tests, and (2) the result of the cost-effectiveness analysis, which will be expressed in terms of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcome measures will be (1) analysis of the safety of pharmacological therapy, (2) analysis of the health-related quality of life of patients, and (3) monitoring of healthy lifestyle and physical exercise habits.

Results

Of 548 patients identified using the hospital’s electronic records system, we excluded 308 patients: 188 declined to participate and 120 did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 240 patients were enrolled: the control group (n=120) will receive usual psychopharmacological therapy, while the intervention group (n=120) will receive usual psychopharmacological therapy plus the So-Lo-Mo app. The project was approved for funding in June 2015. Enrollment started in October 2016 and was completed in October 2017. Data gathering was completed in November 2018, and data analysis is under way. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in early 2019.

Conclusions

Social networks and mobile technologies influence our daily lives and, therefore, may influence our smoking habits as well. As part of the SmokeFreeBrain H2020 European Commission project, this study aims at elucidating the potential role of these technologies when used as an extra aid to quit smoking.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03553173; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03553173 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74DuHypOW).

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/12464

'Secretly, it's a competition': a qualitative study investigating what helped employees quit smoking during a workplace smoking cessation group training programme with incentives

OBJECTIVES

Smoking cessation programmes in combination with financial incentives have shown to increase quit rates in smokers, but it is not clear which elements of this intervention help smokers to succeed in their quit attempt. The aim of this study was to explore the view of successful and unsuccessful quitters about which factors had affected their ability to quit smoking.

DESIGN

Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted and analysed using the Framework method.

SETTING

Interviews were conducted in 2017 with employees from nine different Dutch companies.

PARTICIPANTS

24 successful and unsuccessful quitters from the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) who participated in a workplace smoking cessation group training programme in which smoking abstinence was rewarded with financial incentives.

RESULTS

Themes that emerged were the workplace setting, quitting with colleagues, motivation, family support, strategies and the financial incentives. The interviewees reported that the smoking cessation programme was appreciated in general, was convenient, lowered the threshold to sign up, stimulated peer support and competition and provided strategies to resist smoking. Personal motivation and a mind set to never smoke again were regarded as important factors for quit success. The financial incentives were not considered as a main motivator to quit smoking, which contradicts the results from the RCT. The financial incentives were considered as more attractive to smokers with a low income.

CONCLUSIONS

According to participants, contributors to quitting smoking were the workplace cessation programme, personal motivation and peer support, but not the incentives. More research is needed on the contradiction between the perceived effects of financial incentives on quit success and the actual difference in quit rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5657.

Differences in tobacco use prevalence, behaviors, and cessation services by race/ethnicity: A survey of persons in addiction treatment

BACKGROUND

Disparities in tobacco use prevalence, behaviors, and services have been identified among people of different racial and ethnic groups in the United States general population. Persons in addiction treatment have among the highest smoking prevalence of any population. However, little is known about racial and ethnic disparities in tobacco use prevalence, behaviors, and services among persons in addiction treatment.

METHODS

Survey data were used from 1840 clients from 24 addiction treatment programs from the NIDA Clinical Trials Network. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess associations between race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic) and patterns of tobacco and other tobacco product use, as well as quitting behaviors and receipt of tobacco cessation services among current smokers (n = 1425) while in treatment.

RESULTS

There was no difference in cigarette smoking prevalence across racial/ethnic groups. In the multivariate models, Hispanics and African Americans, compared to Whites, were less likely to be daily smokers, use smokeless tobacco, or use e-cigarettes. African Americans and Hispanics reported more past-year quit attempts and higher use of menthol compared to Whites. Hispanics were more interested in quitting while in treatment than Whites. Contrary to expectations, African Americans reported receiving more tobacco cessation advice and services while in treatment than Whites.

CONCLUSIONS

Some findings reflected broader population patterns (e.g., tobacco use behaviors, other tobacco product use), while others did not (e.g., no difference in tobacco use prevalence by race/ethnicity). The reasons for greater receipt of cessation services among African Americans are unclear. Findings indicate the need for continued engagement of African Americans and Hispanics in cessation services while in addiction treatment, and for addressing heavier tobacco use and lack of interest in cessation during treatment among White clients.

Public health impact of a novel smoking cessation outreach program in Ontario, Canada

Background

Provision of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may contribute to health disparities if barriers to treatment are greater for more disadvantaged groups. We describe and evaluate the public health impact of a novel outreach program to improve access to smoking cessation treatment in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

We partnered with Public Health Units (PHUs) located across the province to deliver single-session workshops providing standardized evidence-based content and 10 weeks (2007–2008) or 5 weeks (2008–2016) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Participants completed a baseline assessment and were followed up by phone or e-mail at 6 months. We used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework to evaluate the public health impact of the program from 2007 to 2016. Given the iterative design and changes in implementation over time, data is presented annually or bi-annually.

Results

There were 26,122 enrollments from 2007 to 2016. Between 31 and 442 workshops were held annually. The annual reach was estimated to be 0.1–0.3% of eligible smokers in Ontario. Participants were older, smoked more heavily, had a lower household income, were more likely to be female and be diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder, and less likely to have a postsecondary degree compared to average Ontario smokers eligible for participation. The intervention was effective; at 6-month follow-up 22–33% of respondents reported abstinence from smoking. Adoption by PHUs was 81% by the second year of operation and remained high (72–97%) thereafter, with the exception of 2009–2010 (33–56%) when the program was temporarily unavailable to PHUs due to lack of funding. Implementation at the organizational level was not tracked; however, at the individual level, approximately half of participants used most or all of the NRT received. On average, maintenance of the program was high, with PHUs conducting workshops for 7 of the 10 years (2007–2016) and 4 of the 5 most recent years (2012–2016).

Conclusions

The smoking cessation program had a high rate of adoption and maintenance, reached smokers over a large geographic area, including individuals more likely to experience disparities, and helped them make successful quit attempts. This novel model can be adopted in other jurisdictions with limited resources.

The moderating effect of perceived social support on the relation between heaviness of smoking and quit attempts among adult homeless smokers

BACKGROUND

Over 70% of homeless adults smoke cigarettes. Despite the desire to quit, this group rarely receives the external support to make or maintain a successful quit attempt (SQA; intentional quit attempt lasting >24 h). The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) is a cigarette dependence measure that independently predicts SQAs among domiciled adults. For homeless adults, social support may be a way to buffer the impact of cigarette dependence on SQAs.

METHODS

The association of the HSI and past-year SQAs, and the potential moderating role of social support, was examined among 445 homeless smokers (Mage = 43.2 + 11.8, 65% male, 57.5% white). Support was measured by the International Support Evaluation List (ISEL-12) and its 3 subscales: tangible, belonging, & appraisal support.

RESULTS

The HSI was negatively correlated with SQAs (r=-.283, p < .01) and in a regression model controlling for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, appraisal support significantly moderated this relationship (p < .05). The HSI was significantly related to SQAs across low, moderate, and high levels of appraisal support [mean, +1 SD; low (β=-.657, p < .001), medium (β=-.457, p < .001), and high (β=-.258, p < .05)]. Neither the ISEL-12 total nor the other subscales were moderators.

CONCLUSION

The perceived availability of someone to talk to about one's problems appeared to attenuate the strength of the inverse relationship between the heaviness of smoking and SQAs. Fostering appraisal support for homeless smokers through group treatment may reduce the impact of cigarette dependence on making quit attempts. Social support coupled with the increased availability of empirically-supported cessation aids may improve dismal quit rates among homeless adults.

Prevention and Treatment of Tobacco Use: JACC Health Promotion Series

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Both prevention of smoking initiation among youth and smoking cessation among established smokers are key for reducing smoking prevalence and the associated negative health consequences. Proven tobacco cessation treatment includes pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, which are most effective when provided together. First-line medications (varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement) are effective and safe for patients with CVD. Clinicians who care for patients with CVD should give as high a priority to treating tobacco use as to managing other CVD risk factors. Broader tobacco control efforts to raise tobacco taxes, adopt smoke-free laws, conduct mass media campaigns, and restrict tobacco marketing enhance clinicians' actions working with individual smokers.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or 'buddies' may encourage abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component.

SEARCH METHODS

We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One of these studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly. We judged one of the included studies to be at high risk of selection bias, but a sensitivity analysis suggests that this did not have an impact on the results. There were also potential issues with detection bias due to a lack of validation of abstinence in five of the 14 studies; however, this is not apparent in the statistically homogeneous results across studies. Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for the two primary outcomes as low. We downgraded due to the risk of bias, as we judged studies with a high weighting in analyses to be at a high risk of detection bias. In addition, a study in both analyses was insufficiently randomised. We also downgraded the quality of the evidence for indirectness, as very few studies provided any evidence that the interventions tested actually increased the amount of partner support received by participants in the relevant intervention group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to enhance partner support appear to have no impact on increasing long-term abstinence from smoking. However, most interventions that assessed partner support showed no evidence that the interventions actually achieved their aim and increased support from partners for smoking cessation. Future research should therefore focus on developing behavioural interventions that actually increase partner support, and test this in small-scale studies, before large trials assessing the impact on smoking cessation can be justified.

Understanding the implications of the biobehavioral basis of nicotine addiction and its impact on the efficacy of treatment

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. There are efficacious behavioral and pharmacological options for smoking cessation including three FDA approved therapies - nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Nevertheless, uptake of smoking cessation treatments continues to be poor and there is a need for novel smoking cessation treatments. Areas covered: This article reviews the biobehavioral basis of nicotine addiction, its implications for smoking cessation treatments, the various neurotransmitter systems involved in nicotine addictive effects, and their potential therapeutic value. Included are discussions around the role of genetic factors in predicting response to pharmacotherapy and what we know about appropriate application of pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions for tobacco use disorder. The evidence for harm reduction measures in individuals who are not willing or able to quit smoking is also reviewed. Expert commentary: Many neurotransmitter system targets have been investigated as a result of our understanding of the underlying neurobiology of tobacco use disorder, and there remain important targets that have yet to be fully explored. rTMS or combination therapies are proposed as possible novel strategies to improve smoking cessation.

Tobacco Cessation in Oncology Care

Globally, tobacco use is a major modifiable risk factor and leading cause of many forms of cancer and cancer death. Tobacco use contributes to poorer prognosis in cancer care. This article reviews the current state of tobacco cessation treatment in oncology. Effective behavioral and pharmacological treatments exist for tobacco cessation, but are not being widely used in oncology treatment settings. Comprehensive tobacco treatment increases success with quitting smoking and can improve oncological and overall health outcomes. This article describes the components of a model treatment program, which includes automatic referrals for all current tobacco users and recent quitters, motivational interviewing during initial and follow-up contacts, combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions for cessation, and systematic follow-up phone calls for relapse prevention.

Impact of Referral Sources and Waiting Times on the Failure to Quit Smoking: One-Year Follow-Up of an Italian Cohort Admitted to a Smoking Cessation Service

In Italy, the National Health Service offers specialized evidence-based support to smokers who would like to quit through smoking cessation (SC) services. We conducted a two-year prospective study, involving all 288 subjects treated for smoking cessation at the SC service of Reggio Emilia, to assess the association of referral sources and waiting times with the risk of treatment failure, by following participants up to one year after the quit date. We performed Cox-regression analysis, including demographic and smoking-related characteristics as confounding variables. The treatment failure rate at 12 months was 59.4% (171/288), including only 12 subjects lost to follow-up. The main mode of entry was self-referral (42.4%), followed by 32.6% from general practice, 17.4% from hospital and 7.6% from other sources. Only 27.8% participants were involved in the SC-program within 60 days of the first contact, as the guidelines suggest. The risk of treatment failure at 12 months showed little association with the type of referral source, while it correlated with waiting times ≥ 60 days (hazard ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval 1.10⁻2.29). This study provides evidence of long-term high quit rates from a SC service, with few subjects lost to follow-up and biochemical verification of almost all abstinent subjects. Timeliness in care provision could further improve the outcome.

Estimates of effectiveness and reach for 'return on investment' modelling of smoking cessation interventions using data from England

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Estimating 'return on investment' (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires reach and effectiveness parameters for interventions for use in economic models such as the EQUIPT ROI tool (http://roi.equipt.eu). This paper describes the derivation of these parameter estimates for England that can be adapted to create ROI models for use by other countries.

METHODS

Estimates were derived for interventions in terms of their reach and effectiveness in: (1) promoting quit attempts and (2) improving the success of quit attempts (abstinence for at least 12 months). The sources were systematic reviews of efficacy supplemented by individual effectiveness evaluations and national surveys.

FINDINGS

Quit attempt rates were estimated to be increased by the following percentages (with reach in parentheses): 20% by tax increases raising the cost of smoking 5% above the cost of living index (100%); 10% by enforced comprehensive indoor public smoking bans (100%); 3% by mass media campaigns achieving 400 gross rating points (100%); 40% by brief opportunistic physician advice (21%); and 110% by use of a licensed nicotine product to reduce cigarette consumption (12%). Quit success rates were estimated to be increased by the following ratios: 60% by single-form nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (5%); 114% by NRT patch plus a faster-acting NRT (2%);124% by prescribed varenicline (5%); 60% by bupropion (1%); 100% by nortriptyline (0%), 10) 298% by cytisine (0%); 40% by individual face-to-face behavioural support (2%); 37% by telephone support (0.5%); 88% by group behavioural support (1%); 63% by text messaging (0.5%); and 19% by printed self-help materials (1%). There was insufficient evidence to obtain reliable, country-specific estimates for interventions such as websites, smartphone applications and e-cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tax increases, indoor smoking bans, brief opportunistic physician advice and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking reduction can all increase population quit attempt rates. Quit success rates can be increased by provision of NRT, varenicline, bupropion, nortriptyline, cytisine and behavioural support delivered through a variety of modalities. Parameter estimates for the effectiveness and reach of these interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk of future stroke and other cardiovascular events. Stroke services need to be configured to maximise the adoption of evidence-based strategies for secondary stroke prevention. Smoking-related interventions were examined in a separate review so were not considered in this review. This is an update of our 2014 review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stroke service interventions for implementing secondary stroke prevention strategies on modifiable risk factor control, including patient adherence to prescribed medications, and the occurrence of secondary cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), Embase (1981 to April 2017) and 10 additional databases including clinical trials registers. We located further studies by searching reference lists of articles and contacting authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of organisational or educational and behavioural interventions (compared with usual care) on modifiable risk factor control for secondary stroke prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors selected studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. The quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach (GRADEpro GDT).Three review authors assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We sought missing data from trialists.The results are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated review included 16 new studies involving 25,819 participants, resulting in a total of 42 studies including 33,840 participants. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed three studies at high risk of bias; the remainder were considered to have a low risk of bias. We included 26 studies that predominantly evaluated organisational interventions and 16 that evaluated educational and behavioural interventions for participants. We pooled results where appropriate, although some clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present.Educational and behavioural interventions showed no clear differences on any of the review outcomes, which include mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean body mass index, achievement of HbA1c target, lipid profile, mean HbA1c level, medication adherence, or recurrent cardiovascular events. There was moderate-quality evidence that organisational interventions resulted in improved blood pressure control, in particular an improvement in achieving target blood pressure (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to1.90; 13 studies; 23,631 participants). However, there were no significant changes in mean systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD), -1.58 mmHg 95% CI -4.66 to 1.51; 16 studies; 17,490 participants) and mean diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.91 mmHg 95% CI -2.75 to 0.93; 14 studies; 17,178 participants). There were no significant changes in the remaining review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that organisational interventions may be associated with an improvement in achieving blood pressure target but we did not find any clear evidence that these interventions improve other modifiable risk factors (lipid profile, HbA1c, medication adherence) or reduce the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events. Interventions, including patient education alone, did not lead to improvements in modifiable risk factor control or the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events.

Avaliação dos resultados obtidos nos grupos de controle do tabagismo realizados numa unidade de saúde de Curitiba-PR

Introdução: O tabagismo é fator de risco para diversas doenças, sendo responsável por seis óbitos a cada segundo. No Brasil, sua prevalência é de 14,7%. A terapia cognitivo comportamental é alicerce principal para esta abordagem. Objetivo: Avaliar os resultados obtidos nos grupos do programa nacional de controle do tabagismo (PNCT) desenvolvidos numa unidade municipal de saúde (UMS) de Curitiba – Paraná (PR), com ênfase na avaliação da taxa de cessação da dependência nicotínica e análise do perfil clínico epidemiológico dos pacientes. Métodos: Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, observacional e retrospectivo. Foram analisados dados da população participantes dos grupos do PNCT através das fichas da avaliação inicial e das planilhas de consolidação de informações do Ministério da Saúde. Resultados: Foram realizados 8 grupos, totalizando 160 tabagistas. 68% eram do sexo feminino, 38% eram casados e 32,5% tinham ensino fundamental incompleto. A média de idade foi de 47,2 anos e de início do tabagismo, de 15 anos. A porcentagem de cessação do uso do tabaco variou de 12,5 até 72,7 ao final do primeiro mês. A taxa de desistência do tratamento chegou a 62,5% nos grupos. Conclusão: Os Grupos do Programa de Controle ao Tabagismo apresentam resultados a curto prazo, porém alto índice de abandono do tratamento. Houve baixa adesão à manutenção da abstinêcia no decorrer do tempo. Maiores esforços devem ser destinados visando uma abstinência duradoura.

Changes in smoking prevalence and cessation support, and factors associated with successful smoking cessation in Swedish patients with asthma and COPD

Introduction: Our aim was to investigate changes in smoking prevalence, smoking cessation support and factors associated with successful smoking cessation in patients with asthma and COPD. Methods: Questionnaires about available smoking cessation resources were completed by 54 primary health-care centers and 14 hospitals in central Sweden in 2005 and 2012. Patient data were collected using record reviews and patients questionnaires for two cohorts of randomly selected asthma and COPD patients in 2005 (n = 2306; with a follow up in 2012), and in 2014/2015 (n = 2620). Smoking prevalence, available individual and group smoking cessation support, and factors associated with successful smoking cessation were explored. Results: Smoking prevalence decreased from 11% to 6% (p < 0.0001) in patients with asthma but was almost unchanged in patients with COPD (28 to 26%, p = 0.37). Smoking cessation support increased from 53% to 74% (p = 0.01). A high cardiovascular risk factor level, including diabetes mellitus and hypertension was associated with improved smoking cessation in patients with asthma (OR (95% CI) 3.87 (1.04-14.4), p = 0.04). A higher magnitude success was observed in men with asthma (OR (95% CI) 27.9 (1.73-449), p = 0.02). More highly educated women with asthma had successful greater smoking cessation (4.76 (1.22-18.7), p = 0.04). No significant associations were found in COPD. Conclusions: The smoking prevalence in patients with asthma but not in COPD has almost halved in Sweden during a 7-year period. The availability of smoking cessation support has increased. Suggested factors related to successful smoking cessation are higher level of education in women with asthma and cardiovascular risk factors in men and women with asthma.

Quitting activity and use of cessation assistance reported by smokers in eight European countries: Findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys

INTRODUCTION

There is clear evidence that the use of cessation aids significantly increases the likelihood of successful smoking cessation. The aim of this study was to examine quitting activity and use of cessation aids among smokers from various European countries. Subgroup differences were also examined for sex, income, education, and age in each country.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data were collected in 2016 from 10,683 smokers in eight European countries participating in the ITC Project: England (n=3,536), Germany (n=1,003), Greece (n=1,000), Hungary (n=1,000), the Netherlands (n=1,136), Poland (n=1,006), Romania (n=1,001), and Spain (n=1,001). We measured quitting activity, including quit attempts in the previous 12 months and intention to quit, use of cessation aids (i.e., medication, quitlines, internet, local services, and e-cigarettes), and whether respondents had received advice about quitting and e-cigarettes from health professionals.

RESULTS

Quit attempts were most common in England (46.3%) and least common in Hungary (10.4%). Quit intention was highest in England and lowest in Greece. Use of e-cigarettes to quit was highest in England (51.6%) and lowest in Spain (5.0%). Use of cessation aids was generally low across all countries; in particular this was true for quitlines, internet-based support, and local services. Receiving health professional advice to quit was highest in Romania (56.5%), and lowest in Poland (20.8%); few smokers received advice about e-cigarettes from health professionals. No clear differences were found for sex and income groups. Across countries, smokers with lower education reported less quitting activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Quitting activity and use of cessation methods were low in most countries. Greater quit attempts and use of cessation aids were found in England, where large investments in tobacco control and smoking cessation have been made. Health professionals are important for motivating smokers to quit and promoting the effectiveness of various methods, but overall, few smokers get advice to quit.

Tobacco cessation interventions for young people

BACKGROUND

Most tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are effective for adults can also help adolescents to quit. This is the update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register in June 2017. This includes reports for trials identified in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individually and cluster-randomized controlled trials recruiting young people, aged under 20 years, who were regular tobacco smokers. We included any interventions for smoking cessation; these could include pharmacotherapy, psycho-social interventions and complex programmes targeting families, schools or communities. We excluded programmes primarily aimed at prevention of uptake. The primary outcome was smoking status after at least six months' follow-up among those who smoked at baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of candidate trials and extracted data. We evaluated included studies for risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodology and grouped them by intervention type and by the theoretical basis of the intervention. Where meta-analysis was appropriate, we estimated pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, based on the quit rates at six months' follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials involving more than 13,000 young people met our inclusion criteria (26 individually randomized controlled trials and 15 cluster-randomized trials). We judged the majority of studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Interventions were varied, with the majority adopting forms of individual or group counselling, with or without additional self-help materials to form complex interventions. Eight studies used primarily computer or messaging interventions, and four small studies used pharmacological interventions (nicotine patch or gum, or bupropion). There was evidence of an intervention effect for group counselling (9 studies, risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77), but not for individual counselling (7 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39), mixed delivery methods (8 studies, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66) or the computer or messaging interventions (pooled RRs between 0.79 and 1.18, 9 studies in total). There was no clear evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, although confidence intervals were wide (nicotine replacement therapy 3 studies, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.58; bupropion 1 study RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.02). No subgroup precluded the possibility of a clinically important effect. Studies of pharmacotherapies reported some adverse events considered related to study treatment, though most were mild, whereas no adverse events were reported in studies of behavioural interventions. Our certainty in the findings for all comparisons is low or very low, mainly because of the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions, imprecision in the effect size estimates, and issues with risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence that either behavioural support or smoking cessation medication increases the proportion of young people that stop smoking in the long-term. Findings are most promising for group-based behavioural interventions, but evidence remains limited for all intervention types. There continues to be a need for well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials of interventions for this population of smokers.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.

Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is estimated to kill 7 million people a year. Nicotine is highly addictive, but surveys indicate that almost 70% of US and UK smokers would like to stop smoking. Although many smokers attempt to give up on their own, advice from a health professional increases the chances of quitting. As of 2016 there were 3.5 billion Internet users worldwide, making the Internet a potential platform to help people quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation, whether intervention effectiveness is altered by tailoring or interactive features, and if there is a difference in effectiveness between adolescents, young adults, and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which included searches of MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (through OVID). There were no restrictions placed on language, publication status or publication date. The most recent search was conducted in August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were people who smoked, with no exclusions based on age, gender, ethnicity, language or health status. Any type of Internet intervention was eligible. The comparison condition could be a no-intervention control, a different Internet intervention, or a non-Internet intervention. To be included, studies must have measured smoking cessation at four weeks or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed and extracted data. We extracted and, where appropriate, pooled smoking cessation outcomes of six-month follow-up or more, reporting short-term outcomes narratively where longer-term outcomes were not available. We reported study effects as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).We grouped studies according to whether they (1) compared an Internet intervention with a non-active control arm (e.g. printed self-help guides), (2) compared an Internet intervention with an active control arm (e.g. face-to-face counselling), (3) evaluated the addition of behavioural support to an Internet programme, or (4) compared one Internet intervention with another. Where appropriate we grouped studies by age.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 67 RCTs, including data from over 110,000 participants. We pooled data from 35,969 participants.There were only four RCTs conducted in adolescence or young adults that were eligible for meta-analysis.Results for trials in adults: Eight trials compared a tailored and interactive Internet intervention to a non-active control. Pooled results demonstrated an effect in favour of the intervention (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30, n = 6786). However, statistical heterogeneity was high (I2 = 58%) and was unexplained, and the overall quality of evidence was low according to GRADE. Five trials compared an Internet intervention to an active control. The pooled effect estimate favoured the control group, but crossed the null (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, n = 3806, I2 = 0%); GRADE quality rating was moderate. Five studies evaluated an Internet programme plus behavioural support compared to a non-active control (n = 2334). Pooled, these studies indicated a positive effect of the intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.18). Although statistical heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 60%) and was unexplained, the GRADE rating was moderate. Four studies evaluated the Internet plus behavioural support compared to active control. None of the studies detected a difference between trial arms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18, n = 2769, I2 = 0%); GRADE rating was moderate. Seven studies compared an interactive or tailored Internet intervention, or both, to an Internet intervention that was not tailored/interactive. Pooled results favoured the interactive or tailored programme, but the estimate crossed the null (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.22, n = 14,623, I2 = 0%); GRADE rating was moderate. Three studies compared tailored with non-tailored Internet-based messages, compared to non-tailored messages. The tailored messages produced higher cessation rates compared to control, but the estimate was not precise (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41, n = 4040), and there was evidence of unexplained substantial statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 57%); GRADE rating was low.Results should be interpreted with caution as we judged some of the included studies to be at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials in adults suggests that interactive and tailored Internet-based interventions with or without additional behavioural support are moderately more effective than non-active controls at six months or longer, but there was no evidence that these interventions were better than other active smoking treatments. However some of the studies were at high risk of bias, and there was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity. Treatment effectiveness in younger people is unknown.

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I2 = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I2 = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I2 = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.

Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Group therapy offers individuals the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques for smoking cessation, and to provide each other with mutual support.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of group-delivered behavioural interventions in achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, using the terms 'behavior therapy', 'cognitive therapy', 'psychotherapy' or 'group therapy', in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials that compared group therapy with self-help, individual counselling, another intervention or no intervention (including usual care or a waiting-list control). We also considered trials that compared more than one group programme. We included those trials with a minimum of two group meetings, and follow-up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. We excluded trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies, unless they had a factorial design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the interventions provided to the groups and the controls, including programme length, intensity and main components, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in participants smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. We analysed participants lost to follow-up as continuing smokers. We expressed effects as a risk ratio for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study and comparison, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six trials met our inclusion criteria for one or more of the comparisons in the review. Thirteen trials compared a group programme with a self-help programme; there was an increase in cessation with the use of a group programme (N = 4395, risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.33, I2 = 0%). We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be moderate, downgraded due to there being few studies at low risk of bias. Fourteen trials compared a group programme with brief support from a health care provider. There was a small increase in cessation (N = 7286, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.43, I2 = 59%). We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to inconsistency in addition to risk of bias. There was also low quality evidence of benefit of a group programme compared to no-intervention controls, (9 trials, N = 1098, RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.76 I2 = 55%). We did not detect evidence that group therapy was more effective than a similar intensity of individual counselling (6 trials, N = 980, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28, I2 = 9%). Programmes which included components for increasing cognitive and behavioural skills were not shown to be more effective than same-length or shorter programmes without these components.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group therapy is better for helping people stop smoking than self-help, and other less intensive interventions. There is not enough evidence to evaluate whether groups are more effective, or cost-effective, than intensive individual counselling. There is not enough evidence to support the use of particular psychological components in a programme beyond the support and skills training normally included.

Using Bayes factors for testing hypotheses about intervention effectiveness in addictions research

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It has been proposed that more use should be made of Bayes factors in hypothesis testing in addiction research. Bayes factors are the ratios of the likelihood of a specified hypothesis (e.g. an intervention effect within a given range) to another hypothesis (e.g. no effect). They are particularly important for differentiating lack of strong evidence for an effect and evidence for lack of an effect. This paper reviewed randomized trials reported in Addiction between January and June 2013 to assess how far Bayes factors might improve the interpretation of the data.

METHODS

Seventy-five effect sizes and their standard errors were extracted from 12 trials. Seventy-three per cent (n = 55) of these were non-significant (i.e. P > 0.05). For each non-significant finding a Bayes factor was calculated using a population effect derived from previous research. In sensitivity analyses, a further two Bayes factors were calculated assuming clinically meaningful and plausible ranges around this population effect.

RESULTS

Twenty per cent (n = 11) of the non-significant Bayes factors were < ⅓ and 3.6% (n = 2) were > 3. The other 76.4% (n = 42) of Bayes factors were between ⅓ and 3. Of these, 26 were in the direction of there being an effect (Bayes factor > 1 and < 3); 12 tended to favour the hypothesis of no effect (Bayes factor < 1 and > ⅓); and for four there was no evidence either way (Bayes factor = 1). In sensitivity analyses, 13.3% of Bayes Factors were < ⅓ (n = 20), 62.7% (n = 94) were between ⅓ and 3 and 24.0% (n = 36) were > 3, showing good concordance with the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of Bayes factors when analysing data from randomized trials of interventions in addiction research can provide important information that would lead to more precise conclusions than are obtained typically using currently prevailing methods.

Supporting pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women to quit smoking: views of antenatal care providers and pregnant indigenous women

To assess support for 12 potential smoking cessation strategies among pregnant Australian Indigenous women and their antenatal care providers. Cross-sectional surveys of staff and women in antenatal services providing care for Indigenous women in the Northern Territory and New South Wales, Australia. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of a list of possible strategies would be helpful in supporting pregnant Indigenous women to quit smoking. Current smokers (n = 121) were less positive about the potential effectiveness of most of the 12 strategies than the providers (n = 127). For example, family support was considered helpful by 64 % of smokers and 91 % of providers; between 56 and 62 % of smokers considered advice and support from midwives, doctors or Aboriginal Health Workers likely to be helpful, compared to 85-90 % of providers. Rewards for quitting were considered helpful by 63 % of smokers and 56 % of providers, with smokers rating them more highly and providers rating them lower, than most other strategies. Quitline was least popular for both. This study is the first to explore views of pregnant Australian Indigenous women and their antenatal care providers on strategies to support smoking cessation. It has identified strategies which are acceptable to both providers and Indigenous women, and therefore have potential for implementation in routine care. Further research to explore their feasibility in real world settings, uptake by pregnant women and actual impact on smoking outcomes is urgently needed given the high prevalence of smoking among pregnant Indigenous women.

Effective behaviour change techniques in smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that are associated with greater effectiveness in smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were searched from the earliest date available to December 2012. Data were extracted and weighted average effect sizes calculated; BCTs used were coded according to an existing smoking cessation-specific BCT taxonomy.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that involved a total sample of 7446 people with COPD. The sample-weighted mean quit rate for all RCTs was 13.19%, and the overall sample-weighted effect size was d+ = 0.33. Thirty-seven BCTs were each used in at least three interventions. Four techniques were associated with significantly larger effect sizes: Facilitate action planning/develop treatment plan, Prompt self-recording, Advise on methods of weight control, and Advise on/facilitate use of social support. Three new COPD-specific BCTs were identified, and Linking COPD and smoking was found to result in significantly larger effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions aimed at people with COPD appear to benefit from using techniques focussed on forming detailed plans and self-monitoring. Additional RCTs that use standardized reporting of intervention components and BCTs would be valuable to corroborate findings from the present meta-analysis.

General practitioners' beliefs about effectiveness and intentions to recommend smoking cessation services: qualitative and quantitative studies

BACKGROUND

General practitioners' (GPs) negative beliefs about smoking cessation services may act as barriers to them recommending such services to smokers motivated to stop smoking.

METHODS

In Study 1, 25 GPs from 16 practices across London were interviewed in this qualitative study. Framework analysis was used to identify key themes in GPs' beliefs about smoking cessation services. In Study 2, a convenience sample of 367 GPs completed an internet-based survey. Path-analysis was used to examine relationships between beliefs identified in Study 1 and intentions to recommend smoking cessation services.

RESULTS

In Study 1, GPs felt that smoking cessation assistance was best provided by others. GPs favoured local services (i.e. practice nurses offering stop smoking support) over central services (i.e. offered through the Primary Care Trust), mainly because these were seen as more personalised and accessible for patients. These beliefs appeared to influence GPs' beliefs about the effectiveness of services. In Study 2, GPs' beliefs had a large effect on their intentions to recommend both central services, (f2 = .79) and local services, (f2 = 1.04). GPs' beliefs about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were key predictors their intentions to recommend central services and local services. Beliefs about the level of personalisation offered and smokers' likelihood of attending services had indirect effects on intentions to recommend services operating via beliefs about effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

GPs vary in their perceptions of the effectiveness of smoking cessation services and their intentions to recommend these services vary in line with these beliefs. Interventions aimed at increasing the likelihood with which GPs recommend these services may therefore be more effective if they addressed these beliefs.