Effects of physician counseling on the smoking behavior of asbestos-exposed workers

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I² = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I² = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking.2. To collect and evaluate data on costs and cost effectiveness associated with workplace interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (July 2013), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2013), EMBASE (1985 - June 2013), and PsycINFO (to June 2013), amongst others. We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces, or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author extracted information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the studies, and a second author checked them. For this update we have conducted meta-analyses of the main interventions, using the generic inverse variance method to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 57 studies (61 comparisons) in this updated review. We found 31 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and social support, and 30 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole, i.e. environmental cues, incentives, and comprehensive programmes. The trials were generally of moderate to high quality, with results that were consistent with those found in other settings. Group therapy programmes (odds ratio (OR) for cessation 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants), individual counselling (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants), pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.11; five trials, 1092 participants), and multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.82; six trials, 1906 participants), and two relapse prevention programmes (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term abstinence. Incentives did not appear to improve the odds of quitting, apart from one study which found a sustained positive benefit. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors reduced the prevalence of smoking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that some interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling, pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction, and multiple interventions targeting smoking cessation as the primary or only outcome. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors in reducing the prevalence of smoking, although this finding was not based on meta-analysed data. 3. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer, although one trial demonstrated a sustained effect of financial rewards for attending a smoking cessation course and for long-term quitting. Further research is needed to establish which components of this trial contributed to the improvement in success rates.4. Further research would be valuable in low-income and developing countries, where high rates of smoking prevail and smoke-free legislation is not widely accepted or enforced.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in January 2013 for trials of interventions involving physicians. We also searched Latin American databases through BVS (Virtual Library in Health) in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomisation and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. People lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2012, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, participants were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics.Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in January 2013 for trials of interventions involving physicians. We also searched Latin American databases through BVS (Virtual Library in Health) in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomisation and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. People lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2012, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, participants were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics.Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Tobacco use cessation and weight management among motor freight workers: results of the gear up for health study

OBJECTIVES

To present the results of a study of a worksite-based intervention to promote tobacco use cessation and improve weight management among motor freight workers.

METHODS

This study used a pre-test/post-test, non-randomized design to assess the effectiveness of a four-month intervention that addressed the social context of the work setting. We evaluated 7-day tobacco quit prevalence among baseline tobacco users, and successful weight management, defined as no weight gain in workers with BMI <25 at baseline and any weight loss among overweight and obese workers.

RESULTS

At baseline, 40% were current tobacco users, and 88% had a BMI of 25 or greater. Of 542 workers invited to participate, 227 agreed to participate and received at least the first telephone call (42%). Ten-month post-baseline, baseline tobacco users who participated in the intervention were more likely to have quit using tobacco than non-participants: 23.8% vs. 9.1% (p = 0.02). There was no significant improvement in weight management.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating work experiences and job conditions into messages of health behavior change resulted in significant tobacco use cessation among participating motor freight workers.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2008, MEDLINE (1966 - April 2008), EMBASE (1985 - Feb 2008) and PsycINFO (to March 2008). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by another. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 51 studies covering 53 interventions in this updated review. We found 37 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy and social support. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective. We also found 16 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Incentive schemes increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer.3. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes in reducing the prevalence of smoking.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. Date of the most recent search: September 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, 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. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2007, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, subjects were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics. Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2004) and EMBASE (1980-2004).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Scarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in October 2004, MEDLINE (1966 - October 2004), EMBASE (1985 - October 2004) and PsycINFO (to October 2004). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and we checked the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We categorized interventions into two groups: a) Interventions aimed at the individual to promote smoking cessation and b) interventions aimed at the workplace as a whole. We applied different inclusion criteria for the different types of study. For interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking, we included only randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions. For studies of smoking restrictions and bans in the workplace, we also included controlled trials with baseline and post-intervention outcomes and interrupted times series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by two others. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Workplace interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking included ten studies of group therapy, seven studies of individual counselling, nine studies of self-help materials and five studies of nicotine replacement therapy. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective.Workplace interventions aimed at the workforce as a whole included 14 studies of tobacco bans, two studies of social support, four studies of environmental support, five studies of incentives, and eight studies of comprehensive (multi-component) programmes. Tobacco bans decreased cigarette consumption during the working day but their effect on total consumption was less certain. We failed to detect an increase in quit rates from adding social and environmental support to these programmes. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Competitions and incentives increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found: 1. Strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include advice from a health professional, individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. Self-help interventions are less effective. All these interventions are effective whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low. 2. Limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer. 3. Consistent evidence that workplace tobacco policies and bans can decrease cigarette consumption during the working day by smokers and exposure of non-smoking employees to environmental tobacco smoke at work, but conflicting evidence about whether they decrease prevalence of smoking or overall consumption of tobacco by smokers. 4. A lack of evidence that comprehensive approaches reduce the prevalence of smoking, despite the strong theoretical rationale for their use. 5. A lack of evidence about the cost-effectiveness of workplace programmes.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Date of the most recent searches: March 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomization and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up and mortality. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were counted as smokers. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 39 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2003, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, subjects were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics. Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) revealed a small but significant increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 2.05). This equates to an absolute difference in the cessation rate of about 2.5%. There was insufficient evidence, from indirect comparisons, to establish a significant difference in the effectiveness of physician advice according to the intensity of the intervention, the amount of follow up provided, and whether or not various aids were used at the time of the consultation in addition to providing advice. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.67). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. It found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow up.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Additional manoeuvres appear to have only a small effect, though more intensive interventions are marginally more effective than minimal interventions.

Change in smoking status after spiral chest computed tomography scan screening

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening may provide a "teachable moment" for the reduction of high-risk behaviors. The current study evaluated smoking behavior changes in current and former smokers after low-dose, fast spiral chest computed tomography scan (CT) screening for lung carcinoma.

METHODS

The study was comprised of 901 current smokers and 574 former smokers who participated in a low-dose, fast spiral chest CT scan screening study for lung carcinoma. Demographic, pulmonary function, screening recommendations, and smoking history variables were evaluated as predictors of self-reported point prevalence smoking abstinence 1 year after screening.

RESULTS

Of the current smokers at baseline, 14% reported smoking abstinence at follow-up. Older age and poorer lung function were associated with smoking abstinence. Ninety percent of former smokers reported smoking abstinence at a 1-year of follow-up. A longer duration of smoking abstinence at baseline was found to be predictive of abstinence in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 14% smoking abstinence rate was higher than would be expected for spontaneous rates of smoking cessation. Therefore, screening may provide a teachable moment for smokers. Low-dose, fast spiral chest CT scan screening recommendations were not found to be associated with smoking behavior change in either group. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential avenues through which lung carcinoma screening can be used as an opportunity for providing effective nicotine interventions.

A pilot study of telephone-based smoking cessation intervention in asbestos workers

Smoking markedly increases the risk of asbestos-related lung cancer. We conducted a randomized pilot trial of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention in asbestos workers. Fifty-nine smokers were assigned to either a control or telephone-based smoking cessation treatment group and were followed-up at 6 months. Intent-to-treat analysis revealed a 16.7% quit rate at 6 months for the intervention group compared to 6.9% for the control group (P = 0.25). Treatment-received quit-rates were 33% for the intervention group and 6.9% for the control group (P = 0.05). The intervention group was twice as likely to use smoking cessation medicines and progressed further along the stage of change continuum compared with the control group. Incorporating telephone-based smoking cessation treatment into medical screening activities for asbestos workers is feasible and the intervention is effective in increasing quit rates at 6 months.

Smoking cessation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is the most important treatment for smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions for this particular group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in people with COPD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches were undertaken on MEDLINE (from 1966 to March 2002), EMBASE (from 1989 to March 2002) and Psyclit (from 1971 to March 2002), and CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which smoking cessation was assessed in participants with confirmed COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted the data and performed the methodological quality assessment independently for each study, with disagreements resolved by consensus. High-quality was defined, based on pre-set criteria according to the DelphiList.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included in this systematic review, two of which were of high-quality. The high-quality studies show the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacological intervention compared to no treatment: psychosocial interventions combined with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and a bronchodilator versus no treatment at a 5 year follow-up (RD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.18), (RR = 4.0, 95% CI 3.25 to 4.93), psychosocial interventions combined with NRT and placebo versus no treatment at a 5 year follow-up (RD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.19), (RR = 4.19, 95% CI 3.41 to 5.15). Furthermore the results show the effectiveness of various combinations of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions at a 6 months follow-up (RD = 0.07, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.13), (RR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.0). Unfortunately, none of the included studies compared psychosocial interventions with no treatment. Therefore we found no evidence with regard to the effectiveness of these interventions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review, the authors found evidence that a combination of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions is superior to no treatment or to psychosocial interventions alone. Furthermore we conclude that there is no clear or convincing evidence for the effectiveness of any psychosocial intervention for patients with COPD due to lack of a sufficient number of high-quality studies.

Are biomarkers a useful aid in smoking cessation? A review and analysis of the literature

Healthcare providers' ability to motivate people to try to quit smoking or to remain abstinent is limited. Even with our best treatments, most smokers relapse within 1 year. Therefore it is important that we constantly strive to develop and test new, effective smoking interventions. Providing feedback on one's biomarkers (e.g., biological indices of smoking-related harm, harm exposure, or genetic susceptibility to disease) have been suggested as potentially useful for increasing smokers' motivation or ability to quit smoking. In fact, variations of this strategy are commonly incorporated into behavioral smoking-cessation interventions, but little empirical evidence has specifically addressed whether this approach is effective. In this article, the author reviews the theoretical rationale and empirical evidence regarding this practice. Although the preliminary evidence is promising, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of using biomarkers and the limits of the strategy's effectiveness. Future investigations should address these issues.

Improved smoking cessation in smokers given ultrasound photographs of their own atherosclerotic plaques

BACKGROUND

We examined whether making smokers aware that they had developed peripheral atherosclerosis would improve smoking cessation.

METHODS

Smokers selected from the general population were randomly allocated to undergo high-resolution B-mode ultrasonography of their carotid and femoral arteries. All smokers received quit-smoking counseling. Smokers with > or =1 atherosclerotic plaque were given two photographs of a plaque with a relevant explanation. Quit rates were assessed by telephone 6 months later.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine smokers did not undergo ultrasonography (A). Among the 74 smokers submitted to ultrasonography, 20 had no plaque (B) and 54 had > or =1 plaque (C). Quit rates were, respectively, 6.3, 5.0, and 22.2% in groups A, B, and C. Quit rates were higher in smokers submitted to ultrasonography (B + C vs A; P = 0.031) and in those receiving photographs (C vs A + B; P = 0.003). Smoking cessation was independently associated with intervention C (OR = 6.2; 95% CI = 1.8-21) and a white-collar job but not with age or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing smokers with photographs demonstrating atherosclerosis on their own person was an effective adjunct to physician's advice to quit smoking. Since ultrasonography is used increasingly often in clinical practice for cardiovascular risk stratification, this can provide an additional opportunity and means to deter smokers from smoking.

Smoking characteristics: differences in attitudes and dependence between healthy smokers and smokers with COPD

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the differences in smoking characteristics between a group of smokers with COPD and another group of healthy smokers, both of which were identified in a population-based epidemiologic study.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This is an epidemiologic, multicenter, population-based study conducted in seven areas of SPAIN: A total of 4,035 individuals, men and women aged 40 to 69 years, who were selected randomly from a target population of 236,412 subjects, participated in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible subjects answered the European Commission for Steel and Coal questionnaire. Spirometry was performed followed by a bronchodilator test when bronchial obstruction was present. The Fagerström questionnaire was used for study of the degree of physical nicotine dependence, and the Prochazka model was followed for analysis of the smoking cessation phase.

RESULTS

Of 1,023 active smokers, 153 (15%) met the criteria for COPD. Smokers with COPD were more frequently men (odds ratio [OR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 3.95), were > or = 46 years of age (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.31), had a lower educational level (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.14), and had smoked > 30 pack-years (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 2.42 to 5.65). Smokers with COPD showed a higher dependence on nicotine than healthy smokers (mean [+/- SD] Fagerström test score, 4.77 +/- 2.45 vs 3.15 +/- 2.38, respectively; p < 0.001) and higher concentrations of CO in exhaled air (mean concentration, 19.7 +/- 16.3 vs 15.4 +/- 12.1 ppm, respectively; p < 0.0001). Thirty-four percent of smokers with COPD and 38.5% of smokers without COPD had never tried to stop smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with COPD have higher tobacco consumption, higher dependence on nicotine, and higher concentrations of CO in exhaled air, suggesting a different pattern of cigarette smoking. Cases of COPD among smokers predominate in men and in individuals with lower educational levels. A significant proportion of smokers have never tried to stop smoking; thus, advice on cessation should be reinforced in both groups of smokers.

Medical examination for asbestos-related disease

There are millions of workers whose exposure to asbestos dust prior to the implementation of asbestos regulation and improved control measures places them at risk of asbestos-related disease today. In addition, workers are still being exposed to significant amounts of asbestos, when asbestos materials in place are disturbed during renovation, repair, or demolition. Given the continued presence of asbestos-containing materials in industrial, commercial, and residential settings throughout the U.S., a sizeable population remains at risk of asbestos-related disease. This article reviews the health effects associated with exposure to asbestos and delineates the steps necessary for the comprehensive screening and clinical assessment for asbestos-related disease, in order to assist physicians in identifying and preventing illness associated with exposure to asbestos among their patients.

A review of the health impact of smoking control at the workplace

PURPOSE

To summarize and provide a critical review of worksite health promotion program evaluations published between 1968 and 1994 that addressed the health impact of worksite smoking cessation programs and smoking policies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search conducted under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified 53 smoking cessation program evaluation reports, of which 41 covered worksite single-topic cessation programs. Nine additional reports were located through manual search of citations from published reports and reviews. These 50 reports covered 52 original data-based studies of cessation programs. The search produced 19 reports for tobacco policy evaluations, of which 12 addressed health impact. An additional 17 reports were located by the authors. These 29 reports covered 29 studies of policy impact.

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FINDINGS

Smoking cessation group programs were found to be more effective than minimal treatment programs, although less intensive treatment, when combined with high participation rates, can influence the total population. Tobacco policies were found to reduce cigarette consumption at work and worksite environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature is rated suggestive for group and incentive interventions; indicative for minimal interventions, competitions, and medical interventions; and acceptable for the testing of incremental effects. Because of the lack of experimental control, the smoking policy literature is rated as weak, although there is strong consistency in results for reduced cigarette consumption and decreased exposure to ETS at work.

Is screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease justified?

BACKGROUND

Many experts recommend spirometry to screen for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asymptomatic patients; however, evidence for this recommendation has not been systematically reviewed.

METHODS

We examined whether screening spirometry meets standard criteria for effective screening. We performed structured searches of MEDLINE, followed by a selective search of the CITATION index, to locate randomized trials of interventions for asymptomatic patients with COPD. In regard to smoking cessation, we included all controlled trials of smoking cessation programs that used spirometry. We also included all studies that assessed the ability of spirometry to predict successful smoking cessation by comparing baseline lung function in smokers who subsequently quit versus those who did not.

RESULTS

With the exception of smoking cessation, all interventions for COPD have only been proven effective in symptomatic patients. Two studies found that multifaceted smoking cessation programs that included spirometry were efficacious. There was no effect in a third study that isolated the role of spirometry. Smokers with abnormal spirometric results are less likely than other smokers to quit over the ensuing year.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that spirometry, as an isolated intervention, aids smoking cessation.

Evaluation issues in the Drake Chemical Workers Notification and Health Registry Study

The Drake Chemical Workers' Health Registry combined notification of workers about bladder cancer risk with access to a free program for screening and diagnosis. Evaluation of the project has given rise to several findings and new research questions. Findings in this article illustrate the following evaluation issues: 1) studying the combination of strategies that are most effective and cost effective to notify workers of their disease risks, 2) determining the realistic yield from strategies to gain participation in health screening and other protective services for notified workers, 3) identifying the notification strategies that were most effective for different kinds of participants, 4) using process evaluation to identify key activities for ensuring continued participation of cohort members in screening, and 5) examining the extent to which participants are willing to quit smoking to protect their health.

The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians' patient care behavior

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency with which patients are incorrectly used as the unit of analysis among statistical calculations in published studies of physicians' patient care behavior.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of studies published during 1980-1990. ARTICLES: 54 articles retrieved by a computerized search using medical subject headings for physicians and study characteristics. Article selection criteria included the requirement that the physician should have been the correct unit of analysis.

INTERVENTION

Presence of the error was determined by consensus using published criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The error was present in 38 articles (70%). The number of study physicians was reported in 35 articles (65%). The error was found in 57% of articles that reported the number of study physicians and in 95% of those that did not. The error rate was not lower among articles published more recently nor among those published in journals with higher rates of article citations in the medical literature.

CONCLUSION

The unit of analysis error occurs frequently and can generate artificially low p values. Failure to report the number of study physicians can be a clue that this type of error has been made.

Predictors of smoking behavior change 6 and 18 months after individual counseling during periodic health examinations

Predictors of smoking behavior change were examined in a randomized controlled trial of individualized smoking cessation counseling delivered by a smoking cessation counselor during periodic health examination. Self-reports of not smoking at 6 and 18 months and attempts to quit were greater, but not significantly so, in the intervention group compared with the usual care group. There was no difference between the intervention group and the usual care group in reported continuous abstinence. Multivariate analysis showed that longer periods of abstinence in the past and having smoking identified as the main problem were important predictors of subsequent quitting. Having fewer other smokers in the household, stronger intentions to stop smoking in the next month, and being in the intervention group were also significant predictors of abstinence at 6 months, but not at 18 months. Those who had tried to quit by 6 months and 18 months were more likely to be in the intervention group, to have greater motivation to stop smoking, and to have more problems of daily living. Supplementing physician's advice with individualized smoking cessation counseling during health maintenance examinations was associated with a greater short-term quit rate and more quit attempts over 18 months than physician advice alone, but did not influence continuous abstinence from cigarettes over this time.

Smoking cessation in the workplace: evaluation of relapse factors

Relapse factors associated with a well-supported worksite smoking cessation program were examined in a prospective study. Of 104 employee-participants, 81 (78%) were confirmed as abstinent at 8 days after quit day. Forty-six employees (44%) continued to report total abstinence at 1 year. Stepwise regression analysis of baseline variables found two significant, but weak, predictors of 1-year smoking status: Fagerstrom score and number of other smokers residing in the home. Analysis of tobacco withdrawal symptom data of confirmed abstainers found only self-reported anxiety scores to be predictive of smoking status at 1 year. Early abstainers with elevated anxiety scores appear to be at high risk for smoking relapse.

Adding spirometry, carbon monoxide, and pulmonary symptom results to smoking cessation counseling: a randomized trial

Smokers are often advised to quit in a discussion of future health risks. The authors tested whether adding information about personal effects of smoking would motivate hospital outpatients to stop smoking more than advice about potential hazards would. Ninety smokers in a general screening clinic were randomized to receive education alone or education plus an additional motivational intervention that contained immediate feedback about the smoker's exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) values, spirometry results, and pulmonary symptoms. A self-report of smoking status was obtained one, four, and 12 months after the intervention. In addition, at 12 months, exhaled CO measurements were made. Smokers who received the additional motivational intervention were more than twice as likely to report quitting some time during the 12-month follow-up (40% vs. 16%, p = 0.015). At 12 months, 33% of the intervention group and 10% of the control group smokers tested had achieved CO-validated cessation (p = 0.03). Counting all patients not contacted as continuing to smoke, the percentages were 20% vs. 7% (p = 0.06). These practical feedback methods to motivate cessation deserve testing in other settings.

Smoking intervention in the workplace using videotapes and nicotine chewing gum

This article reports a series of randomized controlled studies in four companies in the United Kingdom which were designed to evaluate minimal smoking intervention programs based on the use of motivational videotapes or nicotine chewing gum. In the videotape studies, groups of smokers (N = 603) were randomly assigned to watch one of several different videotapes. They were followed-up, along with nonparticipants (N = 1,015), at 3 months and again at 1 year, and a biochemical validation of abstinence was performed. There were significant differences between the videotape conditions with regard to attitudes assessed immediately after exposure (intention and fear) and the proportion of smokers who tried to stop, but there were no significant differences in cessation, even in the short term. Using a strict definition of abstinence, long-term abstinence rates were under 10% in all four studies. In one company, we also investigated the effect of offering brief individual treatment based on nicotine chewing gum to a randomly chosen 50% sample of the videotape group (N = 161) still smoking at the 3-month follow-up. The treatment course was administered by occupational health nurses and consisted of four short consultations over a 12-week period. The results were encouraging: 16% of those who took the offer stopped during treatment and were still abstinent 1 year after the start of treatment compared with only 2% of the randomized no-intervention control group and 0% of those who were invited but did not attend.

Smoking cessation practices in dental offices

We have surveyed the health promotion efforts of dentists and dental hygienists in general dental practice in Chittenden County, Vermont, in relation to smoking. The response rate was 61 percent. Smoking issues were addressed by 76 percent of dentists and 81 percent of dental hygienists in approximately one quarter of their smoking patients. Although the majority of both dentists and dental hygienists advised their patients to change their smoking behavior, their advice was usually to cut down rather than to quit. Most of the respondents--78 percent of dentists and 93 percent of dental hygienists--considered it appropriate to give advice about smoking during visits for routine dental care and 68 percent and 89 percent, respectively, were willing to learn brief methods of advising their patients about smoking. Experience with giving advice about smoking and agreement that it was appropriate to give such advice were both strongly related to willingness to learn brief methods of giving such advice. In individual dental practices, there were virtually no correlations between the dentist's and the dental hygienist's behaviors as far as the proportion of patients from whom a smoking history was taken, the proportion of smokers advised about smoking, the content of the advice, or the nature of the advice. Only nine percent of dentists and 11 percent of dental hygienists were current smokers.

Smoking intervention in the workplace: review and recommendations

Growing interest has been expressed by the business community concerning intervention against smoking in the workplace. As most adult smokers are unlikely to have access to smokers' clinics or other treatment facilities outside the workplace, the workplace itself could be an ideal location for the provision of treatment programs. If the interest of the business community can be translated into action, large populations of smokers would become accessible to workplace treatment programs. Despite this possibility, the potential of the workplace for smoking intervention remains largely unexplored. In this review, the main reasons for workplace smoking intervention are discussed, and the available evidence for the main strategies (prohibition, incentives, treatment, and multicomponent) is reviewed and critically evaluated. The current emphasis in treatment studies is still on physician counseling, and the quality of reported work uneven. Many published studies not intended as evaluations, and many of those which are, have severe procedural or methodological flaws. The particular problems of evaluating workplace studies are discussed and the current research position is summarized. Because the number of evaluative studies is small, the recommendations that can be based on them are fairly limited. In conclusion, it is argued that a body of well-controlled evaluations is needed before the unique characteristics of the workplace can be assessed and exploited in smoking interventions.

Smoking cessation with young women in public family planning clinics: the impact of physician messages and waiting room media

This study evaluated the impact of a media program and a physician-delivered message in encouraging smoking cessation among young black women in public family planning clinics. Incorporated into the clinic visit, the 3- to 5-min physician message was intended to elicit a commitment from participants to take steps toward quitting, namely, to think about quitting, set a target date, enlist the help of family and friends, throw away matches and cigarettes, and to then quit "cold turkey." The media program consisted of specially designed posters in waiting rooms showing models of people in the process of quitting and a continuously run movie dealing with women and smoking. A total of 1,179 female smokers were recruited into the study when they came to three separate clinics in Baltimore, Maryland, to receive gynecological examinations and/or contraceptive services. Four separate interventions were tested: (I) a baseline questionnaire about smoking habits and related information; (II) baseline questionnaire plus media program; (III) baseline questionnaire plus physician message; and (IV) baseline questionnaire plus media program plus physician message. Conditions I and II were administered in Clinic A on alternating weeks, Condition III was administered in Clinic B, and Condition IV was administered in Clinic C. Follow-up was conducted at 3 and 12 months. Follow-up rates were 88.1% at 3 months, 79.9% at 12 months, and 84.1% for both 3 and 12 months. Among women receiving the physician message (Conditions III and IV), 9.9% reported not smoking at 12 months; the lowest selfreported cessation rate was 3.1% in Condition I. When verified through analyzing cotinine in saliva, quit rates were 0.09% in Condition I, 2.4% in Condition II, 3.7% in Condition III, and 2.1% in Condition IV. The fact that participants receiving the physician message quit smoking at a significantly greater rate than those who did not indicates the need for further study of the impact of physician-delivered smoking cessation messages and ways to increase their effectiveness.