Effectiveness of pharmacist counseling combined with nicotine replacement therapy: a pragmatic randomized trial with 6,987 smokers

Factors influencing the uptake of public health interventions delivery by community pharmacists: A systematic review of global evidence

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacies are the first point of contact for most people seeking treatment for minor illnesses globally. In recent years, the role of community pharmacists has evolved, and they play a significant role in the delivery of public health interventions (PHIs) aimed at health promotion and prevention such as smoking cessation services, weight management services, HIV prevention, and vaccination. This review aims to explore the evidence on the factors that influence community pharmacists to take up the role of delivery of such interventions.

METHODS

Three electronic databases namely, Embase (1947-December 2023), Medline (1975-December 2023), and Scopus (1823-December 2023) were searched for relevant literature from the inception of the database to December 2023. Reference lists of included articles were also searched for relevant articles. A total of 22 articles were included in the review based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed and synthesized using a thematic approach to identify the factors that influence the community pharmacist's decision to take up the role of PHI delivery. Reporting of the findings was done according to the PRISMA checklist.

FINDINGS

The search identified 10,927 articles of which 22 were included in the review. The main factors that drive the delivery of PHIs by community pharmacists were identified as; training and continuous education, remuneration and collaboration with other healthcare professionals. Other factors included structural and workflow adjustments and support from the government and regulatory bodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review indicates that the decision to expand the scope of practice of community pharmacists is influenced by various factors. Incorporating these factors into the design of policies and public health programs is critical for the successful integration of community pharmacists in the delivery of broader public health to meet the rising demand for health care across health systems.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive and abbreviated individualized smoking cessation program delivered by pharmacists: A pragmatic, mixed-method, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada. Smoking cessation programs (SCPs) that are effective, cost-effective and widely available are needed to help smokers quit. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide such services. This study compares the abstinence rates between 2 pharmacist-led SCPs and the cost-effectiveness between these and a comparator group. The study was conducted in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

METHODS

This pragmatic, mixed-method trial randomized smokers to either an existing intensive SCP or a new abbreviated SCP designed for community pharmacies. The primary outcome was 6-month abstinence rates. Cost-effectiveness was determined using abstinence rates for the SCPs and a comparator group. Incremental costs per additional quit were calculated for the trial duration, and incremental costs per life-year gained were estimated over a lifetime.

RESULTS

Quit rates for the SCPs were 36% (intensive) and 22% (abbreviated) (p = 0.199). Incremental costs per life-year gained for the SCPs were $1576 (intensive) and $1836 (abbreviated). The incremental costs per additional quit, relative to the comparator group, for the SCPs were $1217 (intensive) and $1420 (abbreviated).

DISCUSSION

Both SCPs helped smokers quit, and quit rates exceeded those reported for a comparator group that included a general population of adult smokers (~7%). The incremental costs per additional quit for both SCPs compare favourably to those reported for other initiatives such as quit lines and hospital-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led smoking cessation programs are effective and highly cost-effective. Widespread implementation, facilitated by remuneration, has potential to lower smoking prevalence and associated costs and harms.

A digital solution to streamline access to smoking cessation interventions in England; findings from a primary care pilot (STOPNOW study)

Objectives

Despite the proven efficacy of several smoking cessation medications that have been shown to improve long-term abstinence rates, approximately two-thirds of smokers report not having used medication in their most recent quit attempt. A main barrier could be delayed access to pharmacological interventions. This study investigated the utility of a primary care linked online portal to streamline timely access to pharmacological support to patients who want to quit smoking by making an asynchronous request for treatment to their general practitioner.

Study design

Prospective cohort study.

Methods

An online portal with added functionality was developed, which allowed patients with a unique link to make an asynchronous request for treatment. Two GP practices identified a total of 4337 eligible patients who received an SMS or email invite to engage with an online portal including an electronic survey to capture information about smoking behaviours and to request treatment. Portal informatics and patient level data were analysed to measure the efficacy of the online system in reducing the time between making a formal request to treatment and access to pharmacological support. The primary outcome measure was the time between making a formal request for treatment and access to pharmacological support from a designated community pharmacy.

Results

323 patients (7.4%) initiated the survey, but only 56 patients completed the survey and made a formal request for treatment. 94% of participants did not return to use the portal to make a second or follow-up request for treatment. Only 3 participants completed the 12-week pathway. A total of 75 medication items were prescribed and collected by 56 patients. The time difference between the formal request to treatment and GP review ranged between 20 h and 1 week. The time difference between approval of prescription by the GP and access to medication was 5 days ± 2.1 days (range = 1.9–7.0 days).

Conclusion

The widespread adoption and diffusion of an IT enabled and asynchronous primary care led remote consultation pathway can streamline timely access to smoking cessation support without the need for the patient to see a GP or an independent prescriber in the first instance.

•

Traditional face-to-face smoking cessation interventions may result in significant delays between the patient's decision to quit and access to effective pharmacological support or behavioural therapies.

•

This was the first attempt in the UK where a GP-led online portal with added functionality was used to streamline timely access to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation using an asynchronous formal request for treatment.

•

We evaluated the findings of a primary care pilot from two general practices in West London where 4337 patients who are registered as smokers were contacted with unique link to access the portal.

•

The pervasive use of a primary care-led online portal could enablie patients to make an asynchronous request for treatment without the need to visit the general practice.

Smoking Cessation at the Community Pharmacy: Determinants of Success from a Real-Life Practice

The objectives of this study are to report the contribution of pharmacists to smoking cessation and study the determinants of smoking cessation success in eight pharmacies in Portugal (south) between 2009 and 2019. A real-life study was conducted with a sample of smokers who participated in pharmacist consultations. The sample included 135 smokers (average age of 47.9 ± 1.21 years), 79 (58.5%) of whom were male. In parallel with the motivation and behavioral approach, 116 (85.9%) smokers received pharmacological therapies: 108 (80.0%) were treated with nicotine replacement products and eight (5.9%) with non-nicotine medications. The interventions resulted in 70 (51.9%) smokers complying with the quit day, of whom 59 (43.7%) were smoking-abstinent at the end of the first month. Success rates were reduced to 32.6%, 28.1%, and 20.7% at the end of the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months, respectively. Smoking cessation was more successful for the participants receiving pharmacological therapies (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001) and those who participated in more pharmacist consultations (χ² = 59.994, p < 0.001) and more telephone sessions (χ² = 17.845, p < 0.001). Pharmacists can contribute significantly to the promotion of smoking cessation. Smokers who are more thoroughly followed up by pharmacists showed increased success rates when compared with smokers having fewer sessions with pharmacists.

Systematic review of pragmatic randomised control trials assessing the effectiveness of professional pharmacy services in community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Implementation of Professional Pharmacy Services (PPSs) requires a demonstration of the service's impact (efficacy) and its effectiveness. Several systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) have shown the efficacy of PPSs in patient's outcomes in community pharmacy. There is, however, a need to determine the level of evidence on the effectiveness of PPSs in daily practice by means of pragmatic trials. To identify and analyse pragmatic RCTs that measure the effectiveness of PPSs in clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes in the community pharmacy setting.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and SCIELO. The search was performed on January 31, 2020. Papers were assessed against the following inclusion criteria (1) The intervention could be defined as a PPS; (2) Undertaken in a community pharmacy setting; (3) Was an original paper; (4) Reported quantitative measures of at least one health outcome indicator (ECHO model); (5) The design was considered as a pragmatic RCT, that is, it fulfilled 3 predefined attributes. External validity was analyzed with PRECIS- 2 tool.

RESULTS

The search strategy retrieved 1,587 papers. A total of 12 pragmatic RCTs assessing 5 different types of PPSs were included. Nine out of the 12 papers showed positive statistically significant differences in one or more of the primary outcomes (clinical, economic or humanistic) that could be associated with the following PPS: Smoking cessation, Dispensing/Adherence service, Independent prescribing and MTM. No paper reported on cost-effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited available evidence on the effectiveness of community-based PPS. Pragmatic RCTs to evaluate clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of PPS are needed.

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.

Consumer perceptions of community pharmacy-based promotion of mental health and well-being

ISSUE ADDRESSED

With nearly half of all Australians likely to experience a mental illness, increasing community-based mental health promotion is warranted. Community pharmacies are accessible health care destinations that effectively provide a range of public health services. This study explored consumer opinions of mental health promotion in the community pharmacy setting, the activities they have observed and the perceived role/s of pharmacy staff in this area.

METHODS

A survey was informed by five interviews with pharmacy consumers and a literature review. Adult pharmacy consumers were recruited nationwide via a Research Panel company between December 2018 and January 2019. Survey data were descriptively analysed and associations confirmed by chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

Data were analysed from 537 of the 577 respondents; 34.3% of participants had a lived experience of mental illness. Just under a quarter of participants (23.3%) had observed mental health promotion in community pharmacy. Pharmacy was viewed as a suitable environment for this promotion by most respondents (n = 446/516), particularly those with lived experience, with a preference for in-store leaflets, posters and linking with existing national mental health organisations/campaigns. Lack of privacy and the busy pharmacy environment were identified as barriers for promotion in this setting.

CONCLUSION

There is a clear potential for mental health promotion within community pharmacies, although the uptake and impact of such activities require further investigation. SO WHAT?: These findings highlight a missed opportunity for pharmacists to engage with consumers about mental health and well-being, even though community pharmacies are accessible health care destinations.

Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacists could provide effective smoking cessation treatment because they offer easy access to members of the community. They are well placed to provide both advice on the correct use of smoking cessation products and behavioural support to aid smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to assist people to stop smoking, with or without concurrent use of pharmacotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP, for smoking cessation studies conducted in a community pharmacy setting, using the search terms pharmacist* or pharmacy or pharmacies. Date of the most recent search: January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to promote smoking cessation amongst their clients who were smokers, compared with usual pharmacy support or any less intensive programme. The main outcome measure was smoking cessation rates at six months or more after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study screening, data extraction and management. We conducted a meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to generate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies including 1774 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias and four to be at unclear risk. Each study provided face-to-face behavioural support delivered by pharmacy staff, and required pharmacy personnel training. Typically such programmes comprised support starting before quit day and continuing with weekly appointments for several weeks afterwards. Comparators were either minimal or less intensive behavioural support for smoking cessation, typically comprising a few minutes of one-off advice on how to quit. Participants in both intervention and control arms received equivalent smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in all but one study. All studies took place in high-income countries, and recruited participants visiting pharmacies. We pooled six studies of 1614 participants and detected a benefit of more intensive behavioural smoking cessation interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel compared with less intensive cessation interventions at longest follow-up (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.97; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Community pharmacists can provide effective behavioural support to people trying to stop smoking. However, this conclusion is based on low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Further research could change this conclusion.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Implementation of a Novel Electronic Patient-Directed Smoking Cessation Platform for Cancer Patients: Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Background

Continued smoking in cancer patients undergoing treatment results in significantly higher rates of treatment toxicities and persistent effects, increased risk of recurrence and second malignancy, and increased all-cause mortality. Despite this, routine tobacco use screening and the provision of smoking cessation treatment has yet to be implemented widely in the cancer setting.

Objective

The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate the adoption and impact of an innovative Smoking Cessation e-referral System (CEASE) to promote referrals to smoking cessation programs in cancer patients.

Methods

A patient-directed electronic smoking cessation platform (CEASE) was developed to promote smoking screening and referral and implemented at 1 of Canada’s largest cancer centers. The implementation and evaluation were guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use. An interrupted time series design was used to examine the impact of CEASE on screening rates, referrals offered, and referrals accepted compared with a previous paper-based screening program. A subsample of smokers or recent quitters was also assessed and compared pre- and postimplementation to examine the effect of CEASE on subsequent contact with smoking cessation programs and quit attempts.

Results

A total of 17,842 new patients attended clinics over the 20-month study period. The CEASE platform was successfully implemented across all disease sites. Screening rates increased from 44.28% (2366/5343) using the paper-based approach to 65.72% (3538/5383) using CEASE (P<.01), and referrals offered to smokers who indicated interest in quitting increased from 18.6% (58/311) to 98.8% (421/426; P<.01). Accepted referrals decreased from 41% (24/58) to 20.4% (86/421), though the overall proportion of referrals generated from total current/recent tobacco users willing to quit increased from 5.8% (24/414) to 20.2% (86/426) due to the increase in referrals offered. At 1-month postscreening, there was no significant difference in the proportion that was currently using tobacco and had not changed use in the past 4 weeks (pre: 28.9% [24/83] and post: 28.8% [83/288]). However, contact with the referral program increased from 0% to 78% in the postCEASE cohort (P<.001).

Conclusions

CEASE is an innovative tool to improve smoking screening and can be implemented in both a time- and cost-effective manner which promotes sustainability. CEASE was successfully implemented across all clinics and resulted in improvements in overall screening and referral rates and engagement with referral services.

Smoking cessation and the general practice pharmacist

Introduction

Roles for pharmacists in general practice are developing in Australia. It is known that pharmacists can provide effective smoking cessation services in other settings but evidence in general practice is lacking.

Aim

To determine whether a pharmacist can provide effective smoking cessation services within general practice.

Method

Data from smoking cessation consultations were obtained for 66 consecutive patients seen by one practice pharmacist. The pharmacist tailored interventions to the individual. Medication was offered in collaboration with community pharmacists and general practitioners. Quit coaching, based on motivational interviewing, was conducted. Smoking status was ascertained at least 6 months after the intended quit date and verified by a carbon monoxide breath test where possible.

Results

The patients’ median age was 43 years (range 19–74 years); 42 were females (64%). At baseline, the median (i) number of pack years smoked was 20 (range: 1–75); (ii) Fagerstrom Test of dependence score was 6 (1–10); and (iii) number of previous quit attempts was 3 (0–10). Follow-up after at least 6 months determined a self-reported point prevalence abstinence rate of 30% (20/66). Of all patients who reported to be abstinent, 65% (13/20) were tested for carbon monoxide breath levels and were all below 7 ppm. The biochemically verified smoking abstinence rate was therefore 20% overall (13/66). Successful quit attempts were associated with varenicline recommendation (69% v 25%), increased median number of practice pharmacist consultations (4 v 2 per patient) and mental health diagnosis (85% v 51%).

Conclusion

Our observed abstinence rate was comparable or better than those obtained by practice nurses, community pharmacists and outpatient pharmacists, indicating the general practice pharmacist provided an effective smoking cessation intervention. A larger randomised trial is warranted.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes) as a smoking cessation aid: A survey among pharmacy staff in Queensland, Australia

OBJECTIVES

This study examined views of pharmacy staff regarding the safety of e-cigarettes compared to nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) and conventional cigarettes, as well as views on their regulation in Australia.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among pharmacy staff (64 pharmacists and 76 pharmacy assistants) from the greater Brisbane region, Queensland, Australia. The self-administered questionnaire included closed- and open-ended questions that explores pharmacy staff perception on harms of e-cigarettes versus NRT and traditional cigarettes, knowledge of current e-cigarette regulations, views on how they should be regulated and information needs regarding e-cigarettes. Pearson's chi-square test was employed for computing differences between variables. A content analysis of responses to open-ended questions was also performed.

RESULTS

Over 90% of pharmacy staff regarded e-cigarettes without nicotine and NRTs as less harmful than regular tobacco cigarettes. This reduced to 72% for e-cigarettes containing nicotine, with 24% of respondents believing they are equally as harmful as conventional cigarettes. Moreover, few respondents were confident about the short and long term safety of e-cigarettes containing nicotine (36% and 15% respectively) whereas pharmacy staff were more comfortable with the safety of NRTs for short (88%) and long term (35%) use. The majority of respondents believed that e-cigarettes with nicotine should be regulated as a medicine, either requiring a prescription (24%) or sold only by pharmacies (22%), though many believed that they should be regulated in the same way as regular tobacco cigarettes (27%). Some pharmacy staff (39%) reported having been asked about e-cigarettes by customers and 75% believed that their customers would be interested in using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to provide evidence-based and customised education for pharmacists regarding e-cigarettes to help them guide their clients.

Varenicline and Bupropion for Long-Term Smoking Cessation (the MATCH Study): Protocol for a Real-World, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and bupropion are efficacious, prescription-only pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation; however, their real-world impact is limited by prescriber knowledge, affordability, and accessibility.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the MATCH (Medication Aids for Tobacco Cessation Health) study was to evaluate the real-world, long-term effectiveness of mailed bupropion and varenicline in a sample of interested smokers with the utilization of Web-based recruitment and follow-up. In addition, the study aims to investigate the genotypic and phenotypic predictors of cessation.

METHODS

This is a two-group, parallel block, randomized (1:1) open-label clinical trial. This study will be conducted online with the baseline enrollment through the study's website and follow-up by emails. In addition, medication prescriptions will be filled by the study contract pharmacy and couriered to participants. Individuals who smoke ≥10 cigarettes per day and intend to quit within the next 30 days will be recruited through Public Health Units and Tobacco Control Area Networks throughout Ontario by word-of-mouth and the internet. Eligible participants will receive an email with a prescription for 12-week assigned medication and a letter to take to their physician. The recruitment and randomization will continue until 500 participants per arm have received medication. All participants will receive weekly motivational emails during the treatment phase. The primary outcome measure is the smoking status after 6 months, biochemically confirmed by mailed-in salivary cotinine. Follow-ups will be conducted through emails after 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks of starting the treatment to assess the smoking prevalence and continuous smoking abstinence. In addition, mailed-in saliva samples will be used for genetic and nicotine metabolism analyses. Furthermore, personality characteristics will be assessed using the Big Five Aspect Scales.

RESULTS

The project was funded in 2014 and enrollment was completed in January 2017. Data analysis is currently underway.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to mass distribute prescription medications for smoking cessation. We expect this method to be logistically feasible and cost effective with quit outcomes that are comparable to published clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02146911; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02146911 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72CZ6AvXZ).

REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER

RR1-10.2196/10826.

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.

Smoking cessation at the pharmacy: feasibility and benefits based on a French observational study with six-month follow-up

Background

In comparison to other European countries, the number of smokers remains high in France. Approximately five million smokers wish to quit within the year and need support that is local, easily accessible, and efficient. As public health actors, pharmacists could provide this service. The Sevrage Tabagique à l’Officine: Smoking Cessation Program at the Pharmacy (STOP) study was carried out to explore the feasibility of a smoking cessation program provided at pharmacies.

Materials and methods

Pharmacists participating in the study were trained to provide a smoking cessation program to smokers recruited at the pharmacy, which included five pharmaceutical interviews in six months, along with counseling and support, in addition to nicotine replacement therapy. This observational, longitudinal, prospective study assessed the feasibility of the program by measuring the percentage of participants remaining at the six-month visit, the proportion of invited pharmacies that actually participated in the program, and the benefits to the participants.

Results

Ninety pharmacies were invited to participate, 79 (88%) pharmacies entered the study, and 49 (54%) included study participants and treated 227 subjects with a mean age of 45.4 years. At six months, 23.3% of participants attended their follow-up visit, among which 75% had been abstinent since their last visit and more than half for 90 days. From the second follow-up visit, their Short Form 12 physical and mental health composite scores were improved in comparison with baseline. Participants and pharmacists all reported being highly satisfied with the program; however, the attrition rate was substantial, possibly due to some study limitations.

Conclusion

The provision of support for smoking cessation by pharmacies is feasible despite some barriers such as lack of awareness and difficulty to change habits for the smokers or lack of time and training for the pharmacists. The conditions necessary for this program to be implemented on a large scale include training of pharmacists, access to a private space in the pharmacy, remuneration for the pharmaceutical interviews, collaboration with other health care professionals, and an effective communications program regarding the service, both inside and outside of pharmacies. The relatively low number of participants at the end of the study could be improved by increasing awareness of the program, involving health authorities, and enlarging the number of pharmacies engaged in the program.

Design of effective interventions for smoking cessation through financial and non-financial incentives

Smoking has a tremendous negative impact on the Canadian economy and contributes to growing costs in the healthcare system. Efforts to reduce smoking rates may therefore reduce strain on the healthcare system and free up scarce resources. Academic literature on economic smoking cessation incentives presents a countless variety of interventions that have met with varying degrees of success. This study reviews six different variables used in the design of incentives in smoking cessation interventions: direction, form, magnitude, certainty, recipient grouping, and target demographic. The purpose of this study is to provide analysis and recommendations about the contribution of each variable into the overall effectiveness of smoking cessation programs and help health leaders design better interventions according to their specific needs.

Levels of exhaled carbon monoxide measured during an intervention program predict 1-year smoking cessation: a retrospective observational cohort study

Life-long smoking cessation is a critical public health objective, but it is difficult for numerous people. This study aimed to identify the independent predictors of 1-year abstinence in smokers motivated to quit and participating in an intervention program. This 6-year retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in smokers who participated in an intervention program. The exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) was sequentially measured on day 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the intervention program. The primary outcome measure was smoking status at 1 year of follow-up. A total of 162 participants were enrolled and divided into a successful quit group (n = 52) and unsuccessful quit group (n = 110). Using a multivariate logistic regression analysis, we reported that the intention to quit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.475, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.169-1.862, P-value = 0.001), varenicline use (AOR = 3.199, 95% CI = 1.290-7.934, P -value = 0.012) and the exhaled CO level on day 8 (AOR = 0.937, 95% CI = 0.885-0.992, P-value = 0.025) independently predicted 1-year smoking cessation. Moreover, the level of exhaled CO < 4.5 parts per million on day 8 significantly predict successful 1-year smoking cessation (area under curve 0.761, sensitivity 88.2%, and specificity 57.8%, P-value < 0.001). These independent predictors including intention to quit, varenicline use, and exhaled CO level on day 8, may help primary care physicians rearrange resources and refine the strategies for intervention programs to achieve a higher rate of long-term smoking cessation.

QUITTING SMOKING

IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS: Researchers in Korea identify key predictors that pinpoint people most likely to quit smoking successfully during intervention programs. Millions are spent each year supporting people to quit smoking. However, successful quitters remain in the minority, with only 9-35 per cent of those in intervention programs abstaining for at least a year. Hsin-Kuo Ko at Taipei Veterans General Hospital and co-workers identified key independent indicators of successful abstinence in 162 smokers attending an intervention program. Alongside having a high intention to quit and using varenicline medication, a potential predictor is having an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) level of less than 4.5 parts-per-million by day 8 of the course. Exhaled CO is higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Measuring CO levels one week into courses may be a useful biomarker to identify those fully committed to quit.

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.

What works for whom in pharmacist-led smoking cessation support: realist review

BACKGROUND

New models of primary care are needed to address funding and staffing pressures. We addressed the research question "what works for whom in what circumstances in relation to the role of community pharmacies in providing lifestyle interventions to support smoking cessation?"

METHODS

This is a realist review conducted according to RAMESES standards. We began with a sample of 103 papers included in a quantitative review of community pharmacy intervention trials identified through systematic searching of seven databases. We supplemented this with additional papers: studies that had been excluded from the quantitative review but which provided rigorous and relevant additional data for realist theorising; citation chaining (pursuing reference lists and Google Scholar forward tracking of key papers); the 'search similar citations' function on PubMed. After mapping what research questions had been addressed by these studies and how, we undertook a realist analysis to identify and refine candidate theories about context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

RESULTS

Our final sample consisted of 66 papers describing 74 studies (12 systematic reviews, 6 narrative reviews, 18 RCTs, 1 process detail of a RCT, 1 cost-effectiveness study, 12 evaluations of training, 10 surveys, 8 qualitative studies, 2 case studies, 2 business models, 1 development of complex intervention). Most studies had been undertaken in the field of pharmacy practice (pharmacists studying what pharmacists do) and demonstrated the success of pharmacist training in improving confidence, knowledge and (in many but not all studies) patient outcomes. Whilst a few empirical studies had applied psychological theories to account for behaviour change in pharmacists or people attempting to quit, we found no studies that had either developed or tested specific theoretical models to explore how pharmacists' behaviour may be affected by organisational context. Because of the nature of the empirical data, only a provisional realist analysis was possible, consisting of five mechanisms (pharmacist identity, pharmacist capability, pharmacist motivation and clinician confidence and public trust). We offer hypotheses about how these mechanisms might play out differently in different contexts to account for the success, failure or partial success of pharmacy-based smoking cessation efforts.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation support from community pharmacists and their staff has been extensively studied, but few policy-relevant conclusions are possible. We recommend that further research should avoid duplicating existing literature on individual behaviour change; seek to study the organisational and system context and how this may shape, enable and constrain pharmacists' extended role; and develop and test theory.

'Making the invisible visible' through alcohol screening and brief intervention in community pharmacies: an Australian feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Screening and brief interventions (SBI) for alcohol related problems have been shown to be effective in health settings such as general practice or emergency departments. Recent data from the United Kingdom and New Zealand suggest that SBI can be delivered through community pharmacies, but this approach has not been tested in Australia. This study assesses the feasibility of delivering alcohol SBI via community pharmacists.

METHOD

We recruited five pharmacies and developed an SBI training package to be delivered by pharmacy staff, who screened consumers and delivered the brief intervention where appropriate. Consumers also completed a questionnaire on the process. At three months consumers were telephoned to enable 'retention' to be quantified. After completing recruitment, a semi-structured interview was conducted with pharmacists on the process of delivering the intervention, potential improvements and sustainability.

RESULTS

Fifty consumer participants were screened, ten from each pharmacy. There were 28 (57 %) men and 21 (43 %) women with one not responding. Most (67 %) were aged 25-55 years. Their AUDIT scores had a range of 0 to 39 (mean 10.9, SD 9.8) with 11 categorised as 'hazardous (8-15)', four as 'harmful (16-19)' and eight as 'probably dependent (20+)' consumers of alcohol. Reactions to the process of SBI were generally favourable: for example 75 % agreed that it was either appropriate or very appropriate being asked about their alcohol consumption. With respect to follow-up interviews, 23 (46 %) agreed that they could be contacted, including five from the highest AUDIT category. Subsequently 11 (48 %) were contactable at three months. Three of the five non-low risk drinkers had reduced their level of risk over the three months. Ten pharmacists participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Overall these pharmacists were positive about the intervention and five main themes emerged from the interviews: 1) flexibility applied in recruitment of participants, 2) easiness in use of AUDIT score to facilitate discussions, 3) perceived positive intervention impact, 4) enhanced role of community pharmacists and 5) facilitators and challenges experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy-based SBI appears to be acceptable to consumers and feasible for pharmacy staff to deliver. Challenges remain in translating this potential into actual services.

Assessment of Assistance in Smoking Cessation Therapy by Pharmacies in Collaboration with Medical Institutions- Implementation of a Collaborative Drug Therapy Management Protocol Based on a Written Agreement between Physicians and Pharmacists

This study built a protocol for drug therapy management (hereinafter "the protocol") that would enable continuous support from the decision making of smoking cessation therapy to the completion of therapy through the collaboration of physicians and community pharmacists, after which we evaluated whether the use of this protocol would be helpful to smoking cessation therapy. This study utilized the "On the Promotion of Team-Based Medical Care", a Notification by the Health Policy Bureau as one of the resources for judgment, and referred to collaborative drug therapy management (CDTM) in the United States. After the implementation of this protocol, the success rate of smoking cessation at the participating medical institutions rose to approximately 70%, approximately 28-point improvement compared to the rate before the implementation. In addition to the benefits of the standard smoking cessation program, this result may have been affected by the intervention of pharmacists, who assisted in continuing cessation by advising to reduce drug dosage as necessary approximately one week after the smoking cessation, when side effects and the urge to smoke tend to occur. Additionally, the awareness survey for the intervention group revealed that all respondents, including patients who failed to quit smoking, answered that they were satisfied to the question on general satisfaction. The question about the reason for successful cessation revealed that the support by pharmacists was as important as, or more important than, that by physicians and nurses. This infers that the pharmacists' active engagement in drug therapy for individual patients was favorably acknowledged.

Quit rates at 6 months in a pharmacist-led smoking cessation service in Malaysia

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation clinics have been established in Malaysia since 2004, but wide variations in success rates have been observed. This study aimed to evaluate the proposed pharmacist-led Integrated Quit Smoking Service (IQSS) in Sabah, Malaysia, and identify factors associated with successful smoking cessation.

METHODS

Data from 176 participants were collected from one of the quit-smoking centres in Sabah, Malaysia. Pharmacists, doctors and nurses were involved throughout the study. Any health care provider can refer patients for smoking cessation, and free pharmacotherapy and counselling was provided during the cessation period for up to 3 months. Information on demographic characteristics, smoking behaviours, follow-up and pharmacotherapy were collected. The main outcome measure was the abstinence from smoking, which was verified through carbon monoxide in expired air during the 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A 42.6% success rate was achieved in IQSS. Smoking behaviour such as lower cigarette intake and lower Fagerström score were identified as factors associated with success. On top of that, a longer duration of follow-up and more frequent visits were significantly associated with success in quitting smoking.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration among health care practitioners should be the main focus, and we need a combination of proven effective modalities in order to create an ideal smoking cessation module.

Reasons for electronic cigarette use beyond cigarette smoking cessation: A concept mapping approach

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) continue to grow in popularity, however, limited research has examined reasons for ECIG use.

METHODS

This study used an integrated, mixed-method participatory research approach called concept mapping (CM) to characterize and describe adults' reasons for using ECIGs. A total of 108 adults completed a multi-module online CM study that consisted of brainstorming statements about their reasons for ECIG use, sorting each statement into conceptually similar categories, and then rating each statement based on whether it represented a reason why they have used an ECIG in the past month.

RESULTS

Participants brainstormed a total of 125 unique statements related to their reasons for ECIG use. Multivariate analyses generated a map revealing 11, interrelated components or domains that characterized their reasons for use. Importantly, reasons related to Cessation Methods, Perceived Health Benefits, Private Regard, Convenience and Conscientiousness were rated significantly higher than other categories/types of reasons related to ECIG use (p<.05). There also were significant model differences in participants' endorsement of reasons based on their demography and ECIG behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that ECIG users are motivated to use ECIGs for many reasons. ECIG regulations should address these reasons for ECIG use in addition to smoking cessation.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Community pharmacy interventions for public health priorities: a systematic review of community pharmacy-delivered smoking, alcohol and weight management interventions

Background

The Department of Health has identified interventions to manage alcohol misuse, smoking and overweight, delivered by community pharmacists, as public health priorities.

Objectives

To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy interventions to manage alcohol misuse, smoking cessation and weight loss; to explore if and how age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status moderate effectiveness; and to describe how the interventions have been organised, implemented and delivered.

Data sources

Ten electronic databases were searched: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; EMBASE; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; MEDLINE; NHS Economic Evaluation Database; PsycINFO; Social Science Citation Index; Scopus; and the Sociological Abstracts from inception to May 2014. There was no restriction on language or country. Supplementary searches included website, grey literature, study registers, bibliographies and contacting experts.

Review methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Any type of intervention of any duration based in any country and in people of any age was included. The review included interventions set in a community pharmacy and delivered by the pharmacist or the wider pharmacy team. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently for each study by two reviewers. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were also conducted.

Results

The searches identified over 14,000 records, of which 24 studies were included. There were two alcohol, 12 smoking cessation, five weight loss and five multicomponent interventions that included pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes in participants with diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia or hypertension. Nine of the studies were UK based; seven of the studies were rated ‘strong’ for quality. All studies were of adults. Pharmacy-based smoking cessation interventions including behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective in helping adults to stop smoking, particularly when compared with usual care. The pooled odds ratio of the intervention effects for smoking cessation was 1.85 (95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.75). It is currently unknown which specific types of smoking cessation interventions are the most effective. There was insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of community pharmacy-based brief alcohol interventions. Evidence suggests that pharmacy-based weight-loss interventions are as effective as similar interventions in other primary care settings, but not as effective or cost-effective as commercially provided weight management services based in community settings. None of the five multicomponent studies demonstrated an improvement compared with control for anthropometric outcomes in participants with comorbidities, but they did show improvement in measures associated with the comorbidities. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated the effect of interventions. In two studies based in areas of high deprivation, where participants chose the intervention, the sociodemographic characteristics of participants differed between intervention settings. There were also differences in recruitment, attendance and retention of participants by type of setting. The evidence suggests that a distinct group of people might access pharmacies compared with other settings for alcohol management, smoking cessation and weight loss. There is insufficient evidence to examine the relationship between behaviour change strategies and effectiveness; or evidence of consistent implementation factors or training components that underpin effective interventions.

Limitations

The information reported in the publications of included studies did not allow us to assess in detail if and how age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status moderate effectiveness, or to describe how the interventions had been organised, implemented and delivered.

Conclusions

Community pharmacy interventions are effective for smoking cessation. Evaluations of interventions to manage alcohol misuse and obesity, set within the community pharmacy, are needed. The effect of community pharmacy interventions on health inequalities is unclear. Future research in this area is warranted, and trials should include the assessment of age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and contextual factors, and present analysis of how these factors moderate effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005943.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Community pharmacy-delivered interventions for public health priorities: a systematic review of interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management, including meta-analysis for smoking cessation

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

STUDY DESIGN

randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series.

INTERVENTION

any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language.

RESULTS

19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 'strong', 4 'moderate' and 9 'weak'. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacy-based weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Empowering smokers with a web-assisted tobacco intervention to use prescription smoking cessation medications: a feasibility trial

Background

Varenicline and bupropion, efficacious smoking cessation medications, have had suboptimal impact due to barriers at the patient, practitioner and system level. This study explored the feasibility of a web-assisted tobacco intervention offering free prescription smoking cessation medication by mail if the smoker visited a physician for authorization.

Methods

Adult Ontarians, smoking at least 10 cigarettes daily, intending to quit within 30 days, with no contraindications to bupropion or varenicline were eligible. After an online assessment, eligible participants received an electronic personalized printable prescription form for a 12-week course of varenicline or bupropion to bring to a physician within 3 weeks for authorization, if appropriate. The physician’s office faxed prescriptions to an online pharmacy that couriered medication to the patient following medication counselling by telephone. Weekly motivational emails were sent during treatment. Participants were asked to complete follow-up questionnaires online at 7, 11, 15 and 41 weeks after enrollment.

Results

In total, 1214 individuals submitted an online assessment from April to September 2010 and 73.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 71.1–76.1 %; n = 893) were eligible. At least 65.8 % (95 % CI = 62.7–68.9 %; n = 588) of eligible participants subsequently visited a physician and 58.7 % (95 % CI = 55.5–61.9 %; n = 524) received medication (50.6 % varenicline [n = 265] and 49.4 % bupropion [n = 259]). Reasons for not filling a prescription were failure to visit a physician (80.1 %; 95 % CI = 73.8–86.5 %; n = 121), physician not prescribing the medication (15.9 %; 95 % CI = 10.1–21.7 %; n = 24) or other reasons (4.0 %; 95 % CI = 0.9–7.1 %; n = 6). Follow-up response rate was 66.7 % (95 % CI = 63.7–69.8 %; n = 596). Minimal issues were encountered with printing the prescription or medication delivery.

Conclusions

This study establishes the feasibility of using the Internet and free medication to enable smokers to engage physicians to treat this addiction. Implementation of this intervention can be scaled up by leveraging existing healthcare systems to treat smokers on a population level. Further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial is necessary.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01023659

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0329-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Smoking cessation interventions for adults aged 50 or older: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The older population size has increased substantially, and a considerable proportion of older adults are cigarette smokers. Quitting smoking is associated with reduced health risk. This review is among the first to quantitatively assess the relative efficacy of types of cessation interventions for smokers aged ≥50 years.

METHODS

We conducted searches of the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO to identify smoking cessation studies on adults aged ≥50 years. Twenty-nine randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Three main types of interventions were identified. We analyzed relative cessation rates or Risk Ratios (RRs) between the type of intervention groups and the control group by fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses at the study level. We conducted a weighted least squares meta-regression of cessation rates on trial and sample characteristics to determine sources of outcome heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fixed-effects analysis showed significant treatment effects for pharmacological (RR=3.18, 95% CI: 1.89-5.36), non-pharmacological (RR=1.80, 95% CI: 1.67-1.94), and multimodal interventions (RR=1.61, 95% CI: 1.41-1.84) compared with control group. Estimations based on meta-regression suggested that pharmacological intervention (mean point prevalence abstinence rate (PPA)=26.10%, CI: 15.20-37.00) resembled non-pharmacological (27.97%, CI: 24.00-31.94), and multimodal interventions (36.64%, CI: 31.66-41.62); and non-pharmacological and multimodal interventions had higher PPAs than the control group (18.80%, CI: 14.48-23.12), after adjusting for a number of trial and sample characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

A small number of smoking cessation studies examined smokers aged ≥50 years. Additional research is recommended to determine smoking cessation efficacy for diverse older population groups (e.g., ethnic minorities).

Assessment of pharmacist-led patient counseling in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Background Pharmacists' counseling has improved health-related outcomes in many acute and chronic conditions. Several studies have shown how pharmacists have been contributing to reduce morbidity and mortality related to drug-therapy (MMRDT). However, there still is a lack of reviews that assemble evidence-based clinical pharmacists' counseling. Equally, there is also a need to understand structure characteristics, processes and technical contents of these clinical services. Aim of the review To review the structure, processes and technical contents of pharmacist counseling or education reported in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had positive health-related outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic search in specialized databases to identify RCT published between 1990 and 2013 that have evaluated pharmacists' counseling or educational interventions to patients. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. Pharmacists' interventions with positive clinical outcomes (p < 0.05) were evaluated according to patients' characteristics, setting and timing of intervention, reported written and verbal counseling. Results 753 studies were found and 101 RCT matched inclusion criteria. Most of the included RCTs showed a Jadad score between two (37 studies) and three (32 studies). Pharmacists were more likely to provide counseling at ambulatories (60 %) and hospital discharge (25 %); on the other hand pharmacists intervention were less likely to happen when dispensing a medication. Teaching back and explanations about the drug therapy purposes and precautions related to its use were often reported in RCT, whereas few studies used reminder charts, diaries, group or electronic counseling. Most of studies reported the provision of a printed material (letter, leaflet or medication record card), regarding accessible contents and cultural-concerned informations about drug therapy and disease. Conclusion Pharmacist counseling is an intervention directed to patients' health-related needs that improve inter-professional and inter-institutional communication, by collaborating to integrate health services. In spite of reducing MMRDT, we found that pharmacists' counseling reported in RCT should be better explored and described in details, hence collaborating to improve medication-counseling practice among other countries and settings.

Assessment of pharmacist-led patient counseling in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Background Pharmacists' counseling has improved health-related outcomes in many acute and chronic conditions. Several studies have shown how pharmacists have been contributing to reduce morbidity and mortality related to drug-therapy (MMRDT). However, there still is a lack of reviews that assemble evidence-based clinical pharmacists' counseling. Equally, there is also a need to understand structure characteristics, processes and technical contents of these clinical services. Aim of the review To review the structure, processes and technical contents of pharmacist counseling or education reported in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had positive health-related outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic search in specialized databases to identify RCT published between 1990 and 2013 that have evaluated pharmacists' counseling or educational interventions to patients. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. Pharmacists' interventions with positive clinical outcomes (p < 0.05) were evaluated according to patients' characteristics, setting and timing of intervention, reported written and verbal counseling. Results 753 studies were found and 101 RCT matched inclusion criteria. Most of the included RCTs showed a Jadad score between two (37 studies) and three (32 studies). Pharmacists were more likely to provide counseling at ambulatories (60 %) and hospital discharge (25 %); on the other hand pharmacists intervention were less likely to happen when dispensing a medication. Teaching back and explanations about the drug therapy purposes and precautions related to its use were often reported in RCT, whereas few studies used reminder charts, diaries, group or electronic counseling. Most of studies reported the provision of a printed material (letter, leaflet or medication record card), regarding accessible contents and cultural-concerned informations about drug therapy and disease. Conclusion Pharmacist counseling is an intervention directed to patients' health-related needs that improve inter-professional and inter-institutional communication, by collaborating to integrate health services. In spite of reducing MMRDT, we found that pharmacists' counseling reported in RCT should be better explored and described in details, hence collaborating to improve medication-counseling practice among other countries and settings.

Antismoking Centers in Milan's Communal Pharmacies: Analysis of the 2010–2011 Campaign

Aims and background

According to recent assessments from the Italian Istituto Superiore della Sanità, information and assistance to smokers are still far from satisfactory. We evaluated the impact of a new smoking cessation service located in pharmacies. Smokers' individual characteristics were also considered.

Material and Methods

A 1-year pilot study was carried out from October 2010 to September 2011. Five pharmacies in Milan were selected. A psychologist with experience in smoking cessation was present in each pharmacy one afternoon per week, and pharmacists were trained by a team from the Antismoking Center of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori. Each pharmacy was equipped with informative material, carbon monoxide analyzers, and motivational and nicotine dependence questionnaires, in addition to a clinical briefcase. Counseling sessions were also arranged upon request.

Results

In the first 12 months of activity, 216 persons asked for a consultation. The sample, aged 15–79 years, reported the following median values: 30 pack/years, 14 ppm CO, and a Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence score of 5. More than one-third of the sample (40.3%) had one pathology and 25% had more than one. In some cases (15.7%), people just wanted information about what the service offered. For those who tried to quit, smoking cessation rates were 33.3% at 3 months, 28% at 6 months, and 24.6% at 1 year. Three kinds of pharmacologic therapies were suggested to smokers: nicotine replacement therapy (75.5%), varenicline (17.5%), and bupropion (7%).

Conclusions

The results show that an accessible and free smoking cessation service is considered useful by smokers as demonstrated by the large number of requests compared with other smoking centers in Italy. Increased involvement of pharmacists in supporting smoking cessation makes this a promising initiative for the near future.

Effectiveness of tobacco use cessation interventions delivered by pharmacy personnel: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Implementation of tobacco use cessation interventions however requires strategies that reach large proportions of the population. Pharmacy personnel are therefore a potential human resource for delivering tobacco use cessation interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to identify, describe and synthesis currently available evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco use cessation interventions delivered by pharmacy personnel.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched for studies published until May 2012: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge and the Current Controlled Trials Register. This review considered controlled clinical trials and randomized controlled trials, which were comparing any pharmacy personnel delivered tobacco use cessation intervention to no treatment, usual care or other active treatments. The outcomes of interest were: abstinence (e.g., point prevalence; continuous abstinence) and relapse (e.g., time to relapse) as measured by the respective studies. The results were not pooled due to high levels of clinical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten eligible studies with a total of 20,133 participants were identified. Results suggest pharmacy personnel delivered non-pharmacological interventions offering behavioral counseling or support for tobacco use cessation could be beneficial, particularly from 6 months follow-up onwards. Combining these non-pharmacological with pharmacological interventions could also be beneficial. The results for the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were mixed with some findings suggesting intervention benefits, and others suggesting no clear benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy personnel-delivered non-pharmacological tobacco use cessation interventions offering behavioral counseling or support, and those combining these non-pharmacological interventions with NRT/pharmacological approaches, are potentially effective. No clear benefit has been demonstrated on pharmacy personnel-delivered NRT interventions. However, these findings are based on a very limited number of studies and hence more evidence is needed before more robust conclusions can be made.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Changing practitioner behavior and building capacity in tobacco cessation treatment: the TEACH project

OBJECTIVE

To facilitate interprofessional knowledge transfer to practice by increasing treatment capacity of health care practitioners to deliver evidence-informed smoking cessation counseling.

METHODS

TEACH (Training Enhancement in Applied Cessation Counseling and Health) combines diffusion of innovations with principles of adult learning to address the lack of system capacity to implement evidence-based smoking cessation treatments. Participants were professionals from 15 disciplines with commitment from their supervisor to implement the intervention. Pre- and post-training course evaluation surveys assessed the extent to which learning objectives were achieved and guided a continuous quality improvement process.

RESULTS

Evaluation of 741 participants that attended the three-day Core Course from June 2007 to January 2009 revealed significant increases in pre- to post-training ratings of feasibility, importance, and confidence in using the intervention. In addition to attitudinal changes, practitioners made changes to practice behavior. At six months post-training, 55% of professionals were implementing the intervention and 91% engaged in knowledge transfer activities in their organizations/communities.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that TEACH impacted clinical practice and may serve as a model for knowledge translation initiatives in other health behavior domains.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These data demonstrate that it is feasible to operationalize interprofessional knowledge translation models to transfer research findings into practice.