Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

[Tobacco cessation: one of the most effective medical measures]

Tobacco smoking is widespread in Germany. An increase in the number of teenagers and young adults that smoke has recently been a cause for concern. The high prevalence in Germany is contrasted by inadequate preventive measures compared to international standards. Smoking behavior should always be inquired about and documented in the same way as vital signs. All smokers, regardless of the reason for contact and motivation, should receive short, low-threshold advice, e.g. using the ABC approach (ask, brief advice, cessation). In addition to repeated advice and referral to further services, the use of nicotine replacement or drug therapy is essential for the success of quitting. The combination of long- and short-acting nicotine replacement products doubles the success rate. Electronic nicotine delivery systems are not recommended for smoking cessation.

Exploring gender disparities in the disease and economic tobacco-attributable burden in Latin America

Introduction

Tobacco use has significant health consequences in Latin America, and while studies have examined the overall impact, the gender-specific effects have not been thoroughly researched. Understanding these differences is crucial for effective tobacco control policies. The objective of this study was to explore the differences in tobacco-attributable disease and economic burden between men and women in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru.

Methods

We used a previously validated economic model to quantify the impact of tobacco-related illnesses, including morbidity, mortality, healthcare costs, productivity losses, informal care expenses, and DALYs, by gender and age. We utilized data from national surveys, records, studies, and expert opinions to populate the model.

Results

In 2020, there were 351,000 smoking-attributable deaths. Men accounted for 69% and women 31%. Ecuador and Mexico had the highest male-to-female death ratio, while Peru and Chile had the smallest disparities. 2.3 million tobacco-related disease events occurred, with 65% in men and 35% in women. Ecuador and Mexico had higher disease rates among men, while Peru had a more balanced ratio. Regarding DALYs, men lost 6.3 million due to tobacco, while women lost 3.3 million, primarily from COPD, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Brazil and Mexico had the highest DALY losses for both genders. Costa Rica had a lower male-to-female tobacco use prevalence ratio but ranked second in deaths, disease events, and DALYs attributed to tobacco. Colombia had a unique pattern with a male-to-female death ratio of 2.08 but a higher ratio for disease events. The health systems spent $22.8 billion to treat tobacco-attributable diseases, with a male-to-female cost ratio 2.15. Ecuador showed the greatest gender cost difference, while Peru had the lowest. Productivity loss due to tobacco was $16.2 billion, with Ecuador and Mexico exhibiting the highest gender disparities and Peru the lowest. Informal care costs amounted to $10.8 billion, with men incurring higher costs in Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Mexico.

Discussion

Tobacco causes significant health and economic burdens in Latin America, with gender-based differences. There is a need for gender-disaggregated data to improve tobacco control policies.

Prevalence, Knowledge and Perceptions of Smoking and Tobacco Products and Vape Among SEPAR Members

Introduction

The professional dedicated to respiratory health has an exemplary role in tobacco control, promoting smoking cessation in their patients. However, multiple circumstances cause a low implementation. Therefore, the objective of the study is to identify the consumption, knowledge and perception of tobacco and its emerging products in a representative sample of professionals involved in the treatment of respiratory patients integrated into the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR).

Methods

Descriptive analysis of a structured online interview addressed to 5340 SEPAR members.

Results

In a sample of 802 respondents, more than 33% have smoked at some time and 6.6% continue to smoke. More than 66% consider smoking as a chronic disease. More than 90% consider their role model important and advise their patients to quit smoking, but less than half carry out a smoking intervention. Only 35% of them believe that the ban on smoking in health centers is always complied. More than 75% do not consider nicotine delivery devices an option for smoking cessation or harm reduction. 22% are unaware of water pipes and 29% of heated tobacco.

Conclusions

Professionals specialized in respiratory diseases are highly sensitized to smoking. Despite this, there are still weak points such as the insufficient implementation of smoking cessation interventions or the scant training in smoking and in new emerging products.

Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.

RESULTS

A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.

CONCLUSIONS

The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

[Smoking cessation in hospitalised patients - Initiate among inpatients, continue when outpatients - A Position Paper by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) Taskforce for Smoking Cessation]

Tobacco smoking is the greatest preventable health risk. The effects are serious, both individually and societal. Nevertheless, the current prevalence of tobacco smokers in Germany is still high at around 35 %. A recent strong increase in actively smoking adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 16 %) and young adults (18- to 24-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 41 %) is also a cause for concern. About a third of all inpatients continue smoking while being treated. The hospitalization of active smokers in acute and rehabilitation hospitals serves as a "teachable moment" for initiation of cessation offers. An intervention that begins in hospital and continues for at least a month after discharge results in about 40 % additional smokefree patients. It is scientifically well-researched, effective and cost-efficient. After initiation in hospital these measures can be continued via ambulatory cessation programs, rehabilitation facilities, an Internet or telephone service. In Germany, there are structured and quality-assured cessation offers, both for the inpatient and for the outpatient area. The biggest obstacle to broad establishment of such offers is the lack of reimbursement. Two feasible ways to change this would be the remuneration of the existing OPS 9-501 "Multimodal inpatient treatment for smoking cessation" and the establishment of quality contracts according to § 110a SGB V. An expansion of tobacco cessation measures in healthcare facilities would reduce smoking prevalence, associated burden of disease and consecutive costs.

Engaging Patients in Smoking Cessation Treatment within the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: Lessons Learned from an NCI SCALE Trial

Offering smoking cessation treatment at lung cancer screening (LCS) will maximize mortality reduction associated with screening, but predictors of treatment engagement are not well understood. We examined participant characteristics of engagement in an NCI SCALE cessation trial. Eligible LCS patients (N = 818) were randomized to the Intensive arm (8 phone counseling sessions +8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)) vs. Minimal arm (3 sessions + 2 weeks of NRT). Engagement was measured by number of sessions completed (none, some, or all) and NRT mailed (none vs. any) in each arm. In the Intensive arm, those with ≥some college (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 4.0) and undergoing an annual scan (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 4.2) engaged in some counseling vs. none. Individuals with higher nicotine dependence were more likely (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.3, 6.2) to request NRT. In the Minimal arm, those with higher education (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.9) and undergoing an annual scan (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.04, 3.8) completed some sessions vs. none. Requesting NRT was associated with more pack-years (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.5). Regardless of treatment intensity, additional strategies are needed to engage those with lower education, less intensive smoking histories, and undergoing a first scan. These efforts will be important given the broader 2021 LCS guidelines.

Evaluating the feasibility of pharmacist-facilitated tobacco cessation interventions in independent community pharmacies in rural Appalachia

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in the United States are the highest in underserved rural regions. Thus, more points of contact are needed to link smokers to evidence-based cessation programs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to conduct an evaluation to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and interest among rural pharmacists in implementing a pharmacist-facilitated smoking cessation program in independent community pharmacies in rural Appalachian communities in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

METHODS

This study utilized a complementary sequential mixed-methods approach to explore independent community pharmacists and technicians' experiences and beliefs about implementing a tobacco cessation program in their pharmacy.

RESULTS

There were 49 pharmacists or technicians who completed the survey and 7 pharmacists who participated in the interviews. Four main findings emerged from the data: 1) pharmacies can help fill the gap in tobacco cessation services in rural communities, 2) under current practice, tobacco cessation resources when offered by independent community pharmacies are not always formalized, 3) there are known barriers, such as reimbursing for services, that need to be addressed to provide tobacco cessation in an independent pharmacy setting, and 4) the Ask-Advise-Connect model is a feasible tobacco cessation approach in a pharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Although pharmacists may be ideally situated to build capacity for smoking cessation in rural areas, smoking cessation interventions need to use existing approaches that compensate pharmacists for their time spent counseling patients. Furthermore, simple documentation and billing systems are needed to maximize utilization of tobacco cessation products and services provided in the pharmacy.

Efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, ENDS) in helping people who smoke to achieve abstinence compared with electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS, no nicotine) or any smoking cessation comparator treatment or combination of treatments at 24–26 weeks and at 52 weeks.

METHODS

Systematic review techniques involved searches of three databases in February 2020 with update searches run on 14 May 2021, two-person independent screening, two-person independent assessment of bias, formal extraction of data with verification by a second person, a feasibility assessment to decide if meta-analysis was appropriate, and network meta-analysis (NMA) of data at 24–26 weeks. Data at 52 weeks were narratively summarized.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs met the inclusion criteria, eight for efficacy and ten for safety. Eight of the nine RCTs were assessed as at high risk of bias. The sample sizes of the RCTs were 30–2012. Using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as the reference treatment, the incidences of smoking cessation at 24–26 weeks were comparable between ENDS and NRT groups (RR=1.17; 95% CrI: 0.66–1.86). Three sensitivity analyses were carried out indicating the main findings for 24–26 weeks were robust to assumptions. The findings at 52 weeks were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and NMA indicates that there is no clear evidence of a difference in effect between nicotine containing e-cigarettes and NRT on incidences of smoking cessation at 24–26 weeks, and substantial uncertainty remains.

The INITIATE trial protocol: a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a "quit card" intervention on long-term abstinence among tobacco smokers presenting to the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation interventions implemented in emergency department (ED) settings have resulted in limited success, owing to factors such as lack of time, motivation, and incentives. A dynamic yet simple and effective approach that addresses the fast-paced nature of acute-care ED settings is needed. This study proposes a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effectiveness of an easy to deliver proactive, multi-component tobacco treatment intervention to usual care in the ED setting.

METHODS

This will be a prospective four-site, single-blind, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) RCT. Participants will be recruited directly in the ED and will be approached strictly in order of arrival time. Those randomized to the Quit Card Intervention (QCI) group will receive a "quit kit" which will include: a "Quit Card" worth $300 that can be used at any Canadian pharmacy to purchase any form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); a self-help booklet; and proactive enrolment in 6 months of telephone follow-up counseling. The usual care (UC) group will receive a "quit kit" which will include a brochure for a local smoking cessation program. Quit kits for both groups will be delivered in opaque, sealed envelopes, and identical in size and weight so to conceal group allocation from the blinded research coordinator. Randomization will be stratified by site and by the Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS), a value assigned to each ED patient based on the severity of the condition. An equal number of quit kits will be prepared for each CTAS level. The primary outcome will be bio-chemically verified smoking abstinence at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes include smoking behavior at weeks 4, 52, and 104 as well as mortality and health care utilization outcomes. Investigators, outcome assessors, and data analysts will be blinded to group allocation until after primary analyses are completed. It is hypothesized that the QCI group will have higher a abstinence rate, improved health outcomes, and decreased healthcare utilization.

DISCUSSION

There are few examples of hospital EDs in Canada that systematically initiate tobacco cessation interventions for patients who smoke. Given the high smoking prevalence among ED patients and the relation of tobacco smoking to the majority of ambulatory care sensitive conditions, EDs are a missed opportunity in the initiation of tobacco treatment interventions. We have designed and will test an evidence-based tobacco treatment intervention that is simple and highly scalable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04163081 . Registered on November 14, 2019.

Implementation of a proactive referral tool for child healthcare professionals to encourage and facilitate parental smoking cessation in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study

Background

Recently, the parent-tailored telephone based smoking cessation counseling program ‘Smoke-free Parents’ was shown to be effective in helping parents to quit smoking. To implement this program in child healthcare settings in the Netherlands, the research team developed a proactive referral tool to refer parents to Smoke-free Parents. The aim of the present implementation study was to explore the facilitators, barriers, and suggestions for improvement in the implementation of this referral tool.

Methods

Child healthcare professionals (N = 68) were recruited via multiple strategies (e.g., social media, mailings, and word of mouth among healthcare professionals) and invited to complete two online (quantitative and qualitative) questionnaires and to participate in a telephone semi-structured qualitative interview between April 2017 and February 2019. In total, 65 child healthcare professionals were included in the analyses. After inductive coding, thematic analyses were performed on the qualitative data. Descriptive analyses were performed on the quantitative data.

Results

The data from both questionnaires and the telephone interview revealed that the majority of the child healthcare professionals (92.3 % female; average years of working as a healthcare professional: 23.0) found the Smoke-free Parents referral tool accessible and convenient to use. Yet there were several barriers that limited their use of the tool. The data revealed that one of the main barriers that healthcare professionals experienced was parental resistance to smoking cessation assistance. In addition, healthcare professionals noted that they experienced tension when motivating parents to quit smoking, as they were not the parent’s, but the child’s healthcare provider. Additionally, healthcare professionals reported being concerned about the lack of information about the costs of Smoke-free Parents, which limited professionals referring parents to the service.

Conclusions

Although healthcare professionals reported rather positive experiences with the Smoke-free Parents referral tool, the use of the tool was limited due to barriers. To increase the impact of the Smoke-free Parents telephone-based smoking cessation counseling program via child healthcare settings, it is important to overcome these barriers. Suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the referral tool in child healthcare settings are discussed.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

Active referral plus a small financial incentive upon cessation services use on smoking abstinence: a community-based, cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many smokers do not use existing free or low-cost smoking cessation services, cost-effective interventions to increase use are needed.

METHODS

We did a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in Hong Kong, China, to evaluate the effectiveness of active referral plus a small financial incentive on abstinence. Chinese adult smokers who smoked at least 1 cigarette per day were proactively recruited from 70 community sites (clusters). Random allocation was concealed until the recruitment started. The intervention group received an offer of active referral to cessation services at baseline plus an incentive (HK$300/US$38) after using any cessation services within 3 months. The control group received general brief cessation advice. The primary outcomes were biochemically validated abstinence at 3 and 6 months. Operating costs in real-world implementation was calculated. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03565796.

FINDINGS

Between June and September 2018, 1093 participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=563) and control (n=530) groups. By intention-to-treat, the intervention group showed higher validated abstinence than the control group at 3 months (8.4% vs. 4.5%, risk ratio [RR] 1.88, 95% CI 1.01-3.51, P=0.046) and 6 months (7.5% vs. 4.5%, RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01-2.93, P=0.046). Average cost per validated abstinence was lower in the intervention (US$ 421) than control (US$ 548) group.

INTERPRETATION

This cRCT has first shown that a simple, brief, and low-cost intervention with active referral plus a small monetary incentive was effective in increasing smoking abstinence and smoking cessation service use in community smokers.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health.

Quit attempts and tobacco abstinence in primary care patients: follow-up of a pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial on brief stop-smoking advice - ABC versus 5As

We developed a 3.5-h training for general practitioners (GPs) in delivering brief stop-smoking advice according to different methods (ABC, 5As). In a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial our training proved effective in increasing GP-delivered rates of such advice (from 13% to 33%). In this follow-up analysis we examined the effect of the training and compared ABC versus 5As on patient-reported quit attempts and point prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12 and 26 following GP consultation. Follow-up data were collected in 1937 smoking patients - independently of the receipt of GP advice - recruited before or after the training of 69 GPs. At week 26, ∼70% of the patients were lost to follow-up. All 1937 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis; missing outcome data were imputed. Quit attempts and abstinence rates did not differ significantly from pre- to post-training or between patients from the ABC versus the 5As group. However, ancillary analyses showed that patients who received GP advice compared to those who did not had two times higher odds of reporting a quit attempt at all follow-ups and abstinence at week 26. We reported that our training increases GP-delivered rates of stop-smoking advice, and the present analysis confirms that advice is associated with increased quit attempts and abstinence rates in patients. However, our training did not further improve these rates, which might be related to patients' loss to follow-up or to contextual factors, e.g. access to free evidence-based cessation treatment, which can hamper the transfer of GPs' advice into patients' behaviour change.

Comparative assessment of outcomes of smoking cessation therapies and role of free medications in successful long-term abstinence

INTRODUCTION

Long-term outcomes of smoking cessation treatments are crucial to optimize standards of cessation services, which are known to prevent excess morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of a smoking cessation program, to compare the success rates of interventions, to assess relapse rates after quitting, and to determine the duration until relapse.

METHODS

Patients admitted for smoking cessation between 2010–2018 were contacted to evaluate short- and long-term treatment outcomes. The patients were asked whether they were currently smoking, and whether they quit after smoking cessation treatment and the duration of abstinence.

RESULTS

The study included 579 patients (341 males) with a mean age of 50±12 years. The median time from the date of visit to the smoking cessation clinic to analysis was 5 years (range: 2–10). Of the patient, 436 used medications, including varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The overall quit rate was 31.8% by the primary intervention (varenicline: 45.5%, bupropion: 38.2%, NRT: 33%, psychosocial support: 4.2%), and quit rate was similar in the intervention groups (p=0.073). In the long-term, the quit rates were 19.6, 22.5, 25.9, and 21.7%, respectively (p=0.405). About 9% of the patients failed to quit smoking initially but succeeded for a while after the first intervention at the cessation clinic. The relapse rate after initial cessation was 19%. The longest period of abstinence was in patients using NRT (14±17 months), followed by the patients using varenicline (9.5±12.7 months) and bupropion (8.2±14.8 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Both short- and long-term quit rates with varenicline, bupropion, and NRT, were similar. The long-term quit rates among patients who did not use medication and received psychosocial support initially were comparable to those who used a smoking cessation drug.

[Smoking cessation - achievable and effective]

In hospital, effective smoking cessation can be organized through counselling, pharmacological aids and, above all, continuous care in outpatient structures following discharge. Pharmacological treatment has proven to be effective and safe with nicotine replacement therapy as well as varenicline. Counselling plus pharmacotherapy is more effective in combination than either therapy is on its own. To better implement structures medical societies in Germany are seeking adequate funding e. g. in the DRG system for hospitalised patients.There are obvious and relevant benefits in smoking cessation. Not only for the main tobacco-related diseases such as coronary heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), positive effects of quitting on morbidity and mortality have been confirmed by high-quality meta-analyses. Furthermore, quality of life is increasing following cessation. Presently, smoking is found to be a significant risk factor for severe disease and mortality following coronavirus infection.Do e-cigarettes offer an alternative in smoking cessation? No. Animal and human data are suggesting toxic effects especially following longer use. The long-term effectiveness of e-cigarettes in tobacco cessation is still uncertain and epidemiologic data clearly point toward ineffectiveness. Furthermore, dual use with potentiation of the toxic effects is common. Therefore, e-cigarettes cannot be recommended for tobacco cessation.

Program uptake of a parent-tailored telephone smoking cessation counselling: An examination of recruitment approaches

INTRODUCTION

Recently, a Dutch proactive parent-tailored telephone smoking cessation counselling program, Smoke-free Parents (SFP), was demonstrated to be effective in helping parents to quit smoking. This study aimed to examine the program’s uptake and the costs of two recruitment approaches (i.e. healthcare vs mass media) for SFP. In addition, parent’s barriers to participating in SFP and the characteristics of participating parents were assessed.

METHODS

As part of an effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial, 402 smoking parents were recruited via healthcare settings and mass media for an informal, proactive, and free phone call with a smoking cessation counsellor about SFP (the Netherlands, September 2016 – September 2018). Parents were asked whether they wanted to participate in SFP. If parents refused, reasons for decline and additional information (e.g. educational level) were collected.

RESULTS

Results revealed that 26.4% of the recruited parents participated in SFP. Although the program uptake of parents recruited via mass media was slightly, but not significantly, higher than via healthcare (27.3% vs 26.8%, p=0.92), the healthcare approach resulted in lower costs per participant (€99.62 vs €205.72). Smoking cessation counsellors were unable to reach almost one-third (32.7%) of the parents after they had agreed to be called about SFP.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that more than a quarter of all recruited parents participated in SFP and that the mass media approach and healthcare approach can be used to recruit parents for SFP. To increase the number of parents participating in SFP, it is important to overcome the identified barriers that prevent parents from participating.

Acceptance of smoking cessation support and quitting behaviours of women attending Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Services for antenatal care

BACKGROUND

Acceptance of smoking cessation support during antenatal care and associated quitting behaviours of pregnant Aboriginal women or women having an Aboriginal baby has not been investigated. This study aimed to determine, among pregnant women who smoke and attended AMIHS for their antenatal care: 1. The acceptance of smoking cessation support, factors associated with acceptance and barriers to acceptance; 2. The prevalence of quitting behaviours and factors associated with quitting behaviours.

METHODS

A cross-sectional telephone survey of women who attended 11 AMIHSs for their antenatal care during a 12 month period in the Hunter New England Local Health District of New South Wales.

RESULTS

One hundred women contacted consented to complete the survey (76%). Of those offered cessation support, 68% accepted NRT, 56% accepted follow-up support and 35% accepted a Quitline referral. Participants accepting NRT had greater odds of quitting smoking at least twice during the antenatal period [OR = 6.90 (CI: 1.59-29.7)] and those reporting using NRT for greater than eight weeks had six times the odds of quitting smoking for one day or more [OR = 6.07 (CI: 1.14-32.4)].

CONCLUSIONS

Aboriginal women or women having an Aboriginal baby who smoke make multiple attempts to quit during pregnancy and most women accept smoking cessation support when offered by their antenatal care providers. Acceptance of care and quitting success may be improved with increased focus on culturally appropriate care and enhanced training of antenatal care providers to increase skills in treating nicotine addiction and supporting women to use NRT as recommended by treatment guidelines.

Government's subsidisation policy and utilisation of smoking cessation treatments: a population-based cross-sectional study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the associations between the Second-Generation Cessation Payment Scheme (SCPS) and the use of smoking cessation treatments. Furthermore, these associations were compared between light and heavy smokers in Taiwan.

DESIGN

This study had a cross-sectional design.

SETTING

Data were obtained from the Taiwan Adult Smoking Behaviour Surveillance System 2010-2011 and 2013-2014; data for each year consisted of a nationally representative sample of adults aged 18 years and older.

PARTICIPANTS

Current smokers who had either quit or made a serious attempt to quit smoking were selected for the analysis.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was the use of a smoking cessation clinic or pharmacy in a twice daily to quit smoking.

RESULTS

According to multivariate analysis, the SCPS was positively associated with the combined use of a smoking cessation clinic and a pharmacy (OR=3.947; 95% CI: 1.359 to 11.463) when individual-level predictors (gender, age, education level, marital status, monthly household income, daily cigarette consumption, smoking status and self-reported health) were controlled. Heavy smokers showed a significant increase in the sole use of a pharmacy (OR=1.676; 95% CI: 1.094 to 2.569) and combined use of a smoking cessation clinic and pharmacy (OR=8.984; 95% CI: 1.914 to 42.173) after the SCPS was introduced. In addition, when related factors were controlled, the use of smoking cessation services was more frequent among heavy smokers than light smokers, including any treatment (OR=1.594; 95% CI: 1.308 to 1.942), a smoking cessation clinic (OR=1.539; 95% CI: 1.232 to 1.922), a pharmacy (OR=1.632; 95% CI: 1.157 to 2.302) and the combination of a smoking cessation clinic and pharmacy (OR=4.608; 95% CI: 1.331 to 15.949) .

CONCLUSIONS

The SCPS subsidisation policy increased the use of smoking cessation treatments, particularly among heavy smokers.

How Financial Incentives Increase Smoking Cessation: A Two-Level Path Analysis

Introduction

Financial incentives effectively increase smoking cessation rates, but it is unclear via which psychological mechanisms incentives influence quit behavior. The current study examines how receiving financial incentives for smoking cessation leads to quitting smoking and investigates several mediators and moderators of that relationship.

Aims and Methods

The study sample consisted of 604 tobacco-smoking employees from 61 companies in the Netherlands who completed a baseline and follow-up questionnaire. The current study is a secondary analysis from a cluster randomized trial where employees received smoking cessation group counseling at the workplace. Participants in the intervention group additionally received financial incentives of €350 in total for 12-month continuous smoking abstinence. We used a two-level path analysis to test a model that assesses the effects of financial incentives through smoking cessation program evaluation, medication use, nicotine replacement use, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social influences on quit success. We additionally tested whether an individual’s reward responsiveness moderated the influence of incentives on quit success.

Results

The effect of financial incentives on quit success was mediated by a higher self-efficacy. Financial incentives were also associated with a higher use of cessation medication. A more positive program evaluation was related to higher self-efficacy, more social influence to quit, and more positive attitudes about quitting. The results did not differ significantly by individual reward responsiveness.

Conclusions

The results of the current study suggest that financial incentives may be used to increase medication use and self-efficacy for quitting smoking, which offers an indirect way to increase successful smoking cessation.

Implications

(1) This is the first study investigating via which psychological pathways financial incentives for quitting smoking can lead to long-term quit success. (2) The results showed a path between financial incentives and a higher likelihood of medication use. Incentives may encourage smokers to use medication in order to increase their chance of quitting smoking and receive the reward. (3) There was a path from financial incentives to quit success via a higher self-efficacy. (4) The effects of financial incentives did not depend on individual reward responsiveness.

The Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions Tailored to Smoking Parents of Children Aged 0–18 Years: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions tailored to parents of children aged 0-18 years.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in PsycInfo, Embase, and PubMed in March 2020. A manual search of the reference lists of the included studies and systematic reviews related to the topic was also performed. Two authors independently screened the studies based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) effect studies with control groups that examine smoking cessation interventions tailored to parents of children (0-18 years), and (2) full-text original articles written in English and published between January 1990 and February 2020. In total, 18 studies were included in the analyses. The TiDieR checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 were used to extract data and to assess the risk of bias. Consensus among authors was reached at each stage.

RESULTS

Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. With a total number of 8,560 parents, the pooled relative risk was 1.62 (95% CI 1.38-1.90; p < 0.00001), showing a modest effect of the interventions on smoking cessation. Overall, 13.1% of the parents in the intervention conditions reported abstinence versus 8.4% of the parents in the control conditions.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation interventions tailored to parents are modestly effective. To increase the effectiveness and the impact of these interventions in terms of controlling tobacco use and public health, it is crucial for further research to explore how these interventions can be improved.

Enhancing employer coverage of smoking cessation treatment: A randomized trial of the Partners in Helping You Quit (PiHQ) program

The workplace is a key channel for delivering tobacco cessation treatment to a population. Employers can provide workplace-based programs and/or financial incentives such as health insurance benefits that cover the cost of treatment accessed outside the workplace. Little is known about the effect of combining these strategies. We tested the benefit of adding a workplace cessation program, Partners in Helping You Quit (PiHQ), to comprehensive health insurance coverage of smoking cessation medications by Partners HealthCare, a large Boston-based healthcare delivery system. PiHQ offers biweekly telephone-based behavioral support, additional automated calls, and medication care coordination for 3 months then monthly telephone monitoring for 9 months. In a pragmatic randomized trial, employees who smoked were informed about the insurance benefit, then randomly assigned (2:1) to PiHQ or to active referral to a free 3-month phone-based community program, Massachusetts Quitline (QL). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. During 2015-2018, 106 smokers (n = 73 PiHQ, n = 33 QL) enrolled (64% female; 75% white, 21% black; mean age 46 years, mean cigarettes/day = 13). More PiHQ than QL participants made a quit attempt by 3 months (82 vs. 61%, p < .02) and achieved the primary outcome, verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence at 6 months (31 vs. 12%, odds ratio 3.34, 95% CI, 1.05-10.60). Among participants using behavioral support, PiHQ participants completed more scheduled calls and rated counseling helpfulness higher than did QL participants. These results suggest that employers can enhance the impact of providing comprehensive health insurance coverage of smoking cessation medication by adding a phone-based worksite cessation program.

Effects of active referral combined with a small financial incentive on smoking cessation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based smoking cessation treatments are effective but underutilised, accentuating the need for novel approaches to increase use. This trial investigates the effects of active referral combined with a financial incentive to use smoking cessation services on smoking abstinence among community smokers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This ongoing study is a two-arm, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months after randomisation. We aim to enrol 1134 daily smokers from 70 community sites (clusters) in Hong Kong. All participants receive Ask, Warn, Advise, Refer, Do-it-again (AWARD) guided advice and a self-help booklet at baseline. Additionally, participants in the intervention group receive an offer of referral to smoking cessation services at baseline and a small financial incentive (HK$300≈US$38) contingent on using any of such services within 3 months. The primary outcomes are bioverified abstinence (exhaled carbon monoxide <4 ppm and salivary cotinine <10 ng/mL) at 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported 7-day point prevalence of abstinence, smoking reduction rate, quit attempts and the use of smoking cessation services at 3 and 6 months. Intention-to-treat approach and regression models will be used in primary analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (IRB reference number: UW 18-318). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and the key findings will be presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT03565796.

Development of an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) of interventions to increase smoking cessation: A study protocol

Smoking remains one of the leading risk factors contributing to the global burden of disease. Sub-optimal implementation of evidence-based tobacco control and smoking cessation practice is a major challenge despite a substantial evidence base for interventions to increase smoking cessation globally. We aim to develop an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) to collate the existing evidence and identify the gap in research on interventions to increase smoking cessation worldwide. A conceptual framework was developed followed by the formulation of a search strategy with key search terms and search period (1970 – date of search). The search will be conducted in relevant bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS), systematic reviews databases (e.g. Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs systematic reviews, EPPI-Reviewer) and impact evaluation databases (e.g. 3ie Impact Evaluation repository and Cochrane tobacco addiction group specialized register) with support from a research librarian. Subsequently, two coders will screen and retrieve systematic reviews and individual impact evaluation studies. The adapted SURE (Supporting the Use of Research Evidence) checklist will be used to evaluate the quality of the included systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis from the systematic review findings and line listing of the impact evaluations will form the basis of this EGM. The EGM report will be presented in an interactive visual format. The proposed EGM will organise the pieces of evidence generated in systematic reviews and impact evaluations on smoking cessation interventions and identify the current research gaps, if any. The findings will inform evidence-based practice and future research.

Variability in patient sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and healthcare service utilization among 107,302 treatment seeking smokers in Ontario: A cross-sectional comparison

Background

Since 2005, the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients (STOP) program has provided smoking cessation treatment of varying form and intensity to smokers through 11 distinct treatment models, either in-person at partnering healthcare organizations or remotely via web or telephone. We aimed to characterize the patient populations reached by different treatment models.

Methods

We linked self-report data to health administrative databases to describe sociodemographics, physical and mental health comorbidity, healthcare utilization and costs. Our sample consisted of 107,302 patients who enrolled between 18Oct2005 and 31Mar2016, across 11 models operational during different time periods.

Results

Patient populations varied on sociodemographics, comorbidity burden, and healthcare usage. Enrollees in the Web-based model were youngest (median age: 39; IQR: 29–49), and enrollees in primary care-based Family Health Teams were oldest (median: 51; IQR: 40–60). Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and hypertension were the most common physical health comorbidities, twice as prevalent in Family Health Teams (32.3% and 30.8%) than in the direct-to-smoker (Web and Telephone) and Pharmacy models (13.5%-16.7% and 14.7%-17.7%). Depression, the most prevalent mental health diagnosis, was twice as prevalent in the Addiction Agency (52.1%) versus the Telephone model (25.3%). Median healthcare costs in the two years up to enrollment ranged from $1,787 in the Telephone model to $9,393 in the Addiction Agency model.

Discussion

While practitioner-mediated models in specialized and primary care settings reached smokers with more complex healthcare needs, alternative settings appear better suited to reach younger smokers before such comorbidities develop. Although Web and Telephone models were expected to have fewer barriers to access, they reached a lower proportion of patients in rural areas and of lower socioeconomic status. Findings suggest that in addition to population-based strategies, embedding smoking cessation treatment into existing healthcare settings that reach patient populations with varying disparities may enhance equitable access to treatment.

Smoking Cessation Attempts and Common Strategies Employed

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines on smoking cessation contain recommendations for various evidence-based methods. The goal of this study was to provide a represen- tative analysis for Germany of the percentage of smokers who try to quit smoking at least once per year, the use of evidence-based methods and other methods of smoking cessation, and potential associations of the use of such methods with the degree of tobacco dependence and with socioeconomic features.

METHODS

Data from 19 waves of the German Smoking Behavior Questionnaire (Deutsche Befragung zum Rauchverhalten, DEBRA), from the time period June/July 2016 to June/July 2019, were analyzed. Current smokers and recent ex-smokers (<12 months without smoking) were asked about their smoking cessation attempts in the past year and the methods they used during the last attempt (naming more than one method was permitted). The degree of tobacco dependence in current smokers was assessed with the Heaviness of Smoking Index.

RESULTS

Out of 11 109 current smokers and 407 recent ex-smokers, 19.9% (95% confidence interval: [19.1; 20.6]) had tried to quit smoking at least once in the preceding year. 13.0% of them [11.6; 14.5] had used at least one evidence-based method during their last attempt. The stronger the tobacco dependence, the more likely the use of an evidence-based method (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27 [1.16; 1.40]). Pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy, medication) was used more com- monly by persons with higher incomes (OR = 1.44 per 1000 euro/month [1.28; 1.62]). Electronic cigarettes were the most commonly used single type of smoking cessation support (10.2 % [9.0; 11.6]).

CONCLUSION

In Germany, only one in five smokers tries to quit smoking at least once per year. Such attempts are only rarely supported by evidence-based methods and are thus likely to fail. The high cost of treatment must be borne by the individual and thus fall disproportionately on poorer smokers. It follows that there is an urgent need for vered by health insurance pro- viders, in order to give all smokers fair and equal access to the medical care they need.

Subsidized pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation by the Spanish public health system: A randomized, pragmatic, clinical trial by clusters

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that financing drug therapy increases smoking abstinence rates, although most of these studies have been carried out in the private healthcare setting. The aim of this work is to assess the effect of subsidized pharmacological treatment on smoking cessation rates by the Spanish public healthcare system.

METHODS

A pragmatic, randomized, clinical trial was performed by clusters. Randomization unit was the primary healthcare center and the analysis unit was the patient. Smokers consuming ≥10 cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to an intervention group that received financed pharmacological treatment or to a control group that followed usual care. The main outcome was self-reported or CO-confirmed continuous abstinence at 12 months. The main outcome, continuous abstinence rates (%), were compared between groups at 12 months post-intervention. A model was adjusted using mixed-effect logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1154 patients were included from 23 healthcare centers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, self-reported abstinence after 12 months in the control and intervention groups, respectively, was 9.6% (37/387) and 15.4% (118/767) (gender-adjusted OR=1.75; 95% CI: 1.1–2.8); for CO-confirmed abstinence the corresponding values were 3.1% (12/387) and 6.4% (49/767) (gender-adjusted OR=1.72; 95% CI: 0.7–4.0). Pharmacological treatment use was 35.1% (136/387) in the control group, and 58.3% (447/767) in the intervention group (adjusted OR=4.25; 95% CI: 1.8–9.9)

CONCLUSIONS

Subsidizing pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation increases self-reported or CO-confirmed abstinence rates under realistic conditions in the primary care setting of the Spanish public health system.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta-analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician-centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Meta-analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate-certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant-centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician-centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864).Five studies assessed short-term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long-term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta-analyses resulted in low-certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self-efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate-certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low-certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer-term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.

Incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives, monetary or vouchers, are widely used in an attempt to precipitate, reinforce and sustain behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been used in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and within community programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term effect of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The most recent searches were conducted in July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to smoking cessation incentive schemes or control conditions. We included studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community, work-, clinic- or institution-based), and also studies in pregnant smokers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up (at least six months from the start of the intervention). In the trials of pregnant women we used abstinence measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. Where available, we pooled outcome data using a Mantel-Haenzel random-effects model, with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using adjusted estimates for cluster-randomised trials. We analysed studies carried out in mixed populations separately from those carried out in pregnant populations.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 21,600 participants; 16 of these are new to this version of the review. Studies were set in varying locations, including community settings, clinics or health centres, workplaces, and outpatient drug clinics. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias, and 10 to be at high risk of bias, with the rest at unclear risk. Twenty-four of the trials were run in the USA, two in Thailand and one in the Phillipines. The rest were European. Incentives offered included cash payments or vouchers for goods and groceries, offered directly or collected and redeemable online. The pooled RR for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.49 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.73; 31 RCTs, adjusted N = 20,097; I² = 33%). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of six studies where an incentive for cessation was offered at long-term follow up (result excluding those studies: RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69; 25 RCTs; adjusted N = 17,058; I² = 36%), suggesting the impact of incentives continues for at least some time after incentives cease.Although not always clearly reported, the total financial amount of incentives varied considerably between trials, from zero (self-deposits), to a range of between USD 45 and USD 1185. There was no clear direction of effect between trials offering low or high total value of incentives, nor those encouraging redeemable self-deposits.We included 10 studies of 2571 pregnant women. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, one at high risk of bias, and seven at unclear risk. When pooled, the nine trials with usable data (eight conducted in the USA and one in the UK), delivered an RR at longest follow-up (up to 24 weeks post-partum) of 2.38 (95% CI 1.54 to 3.69; N = 2273; I² = 41%), in favour of incentives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall there is high-certainty evidence that incentives improve smoking cessation rates at long-term follow-up in mixed population studies. The effectiveness of incentives appears to be sustained even when the last follow-up occurs after the withdrawal of incentives. There is also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by some concerns about risks of bias, that incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improve smoking cessation rates, both at the end of pregnancy and post-partum. Current and future research might explore more precisely differences between trials offering low or high cash incentives and self-incentives (deposits), within a variety of smoking populations.

Competitions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Competitions might encourage people to undertake and/or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. Competitions involve individuals or groups having the opportunity to win a prize following successful cessation, either through direct competition or by entry into a lottery or raffle.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions lead to higher long-term smoking quit rates. We also aimed to examine the impact on the population, the costs, and the unintended consequences of smoking cessation competitions.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has merged two previous Cochrane reviews. Here we include studies testing competitions from the reviews 'Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation' and 'Quit & Win interventions for smoking cessation'. We updated the evidence by searching the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures in which participants were assigned to interventions by the investigators. Participants were smokers, of any age and gender, in any setting. Eligible interventions were contests, competitions, lotteries, and raffles, to reward cessation and continuous abstinence in smoking cessation programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, data from new studies were extracted independently by two review authors. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We performed meta-analyses to pool study effects where suitable data were available and where the effect of the competition component could be separated from that of other intervention components, and report other findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Five investigated performance-based reward, where groups of smokers competed against each other to win a prize (N = 915). The remaining 15 used performance-based eligibility, where cessation resulted in entry into a prize draw (N = 10,580). Five of these used Quit & Win contests (N = 4282), of which three were population-level interventions. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and the remainder quasi-randomized or controlled trials. Six had suitable abstinence data for a meta-analysis, which did not show evidence of effectiveness of performance-based eligibility interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.74, N = 3201, I2 = 57%). No trials that used performance-based rewards found a beneficial effect of the intervention on long-term quit rates.The three population-level Quit & Win studies found higher smoking cessation rates in the intervention group (4% to 16.9%) than the control group at long-term follow-up, but none were RCTs and all had important between-group differences in baseline characteristics. These studies suggested that fewer than one in 500 smokers would quit because of the contest.Reported unintended consequences in all sets of studies generally related to discrepancies between self-reported smoking status and biochemically-verified smoking status. More serious adverse events were not attributed to the competition intervention.Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for smoking cessation as 'very low', because of the high and unclear risk of bias associated with the included studies, substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the limited population investigated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness, or a lack of it, of smoking cessation competitions. This is due to a lack of well-designed comparative studies. Smoking cessation competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. The limited evidence suggesting that population-based Quit & Win contests at local and regional level might deliver quit rates above baseline community rates has not been tested adequately using rigorous study designs. It is also unclear whether the value or frequency of possible cash reward schedules influence the success of competitions. Future studies should be designed to compensate for the substantial biases in the current evidence base.

How does reimbursement status affect smoking cessation interventions? A real-life experience from the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, outpatient smoking cessation clinics (SCCs) in Turkey have been extended countrywide. Initially, only counseling was covered under health insurance. In 2011 and 2015, free varenicline and bupropion preparations were distributed to SCCs, periodically. In the current study we aimed to compare outcomes between the free and paid medication periods.

METHODS

Patients applied to the local SCC in a secondary health care unit between June 2014 and June 2017. They were evaluated for SC interventions and had phone visits after their third month; these records were included in the study. Patients were grouped and evaluated according to medication’s reimbursement status: free medication period (FP) and paid medication period (PMP).

RESULTS

In total, 733 patients applied to the SCC, 77.7% of them had applied during the FP. Analyses were made involving 417 patients who had records of third-month phone visit. Mean age of the patients was 44.0±13.7 years with the majority of patients (65%) being male. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients in both groups were not statistically different, while the percentage of patients with comorbid diseases was lower in the FP group (p<0.05). Treatment choices were different— the bupropion-prescribed group’s rate was similar in both periods (53.5% in PMP vs 52.0% in FP), however varenicline was mostly prescribed in the FP (35.8% vs 14.1%) while nicotine replacement therapy was mostly prescribed in the PMP (32.4% vs 12.1%) (p<0.05). Patients who used the advised treatment for at least 30 days (treatment adherent) and the rate of quitters at the third month were higher in FP (p<0.05) from univariate analysis, however these differences were not statistically significant when a multivariate analysis was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the free medication period increased the quit attempts but the increased in treatment adherence and quit success of the participating smokers was not obvious.

'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.

Does free or lower cost smoking cessation medication stimulate quitting? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands and UK Surveys

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether mentioning free or lower cost smoking cessation medication as a trigger for thinking about quitting is related to higher medication use, more quit attempts and quit success, and whether these associations are modified by education and income.

METHODS

Data were derived from the 2013 and 2014 surveys of the International Tobacco Control Netherlands (n=1164) and UK (n=768) cohort. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between mentioning in 2013 that free/lower cost smoking cessation medication was a trigger for thinking about quitting smoking and the use of medication, quit attempts and smoking cessation in 2014.

RESULTS

37.0% of smokers in the UK and 24.9% of smokers in the Netherlands mentioned free/lower cost medication as a trigger for thinking about quitting. Smokers who mentioned this trigger were more likely to have used cessation medication during a quit attempt both in the UK (OR=4.19, p<0.001) and in the Netherlands (OR=2.14, p=0.033). The association between mentioning free/lower cost medication as a trigger for thinking about quitting and actual quit attempts was significant in the UK (OR=1.45, p=0.030), but not in the Netherlands (OR=1.10, p=0.587). There was no significant association with quit success. Associations did not differ across income and education groups.

CONCLUSION

Free/lower cost smoking cessation medication may increase the use of cessation medication and stimulate quit attempts among smokers with low, moderate and high education and income.

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.