Support person intervention to promote smoker utilization of the QUITPLAN Helpline

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Share2Quit: Web-Based Peer-Driven Referrals for Smoking Cessation

Background

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the United States. Effective Web-assisted tobacco interventions are often underutilized and require new and innovative engagement approaches. Web-based peer-driven chain referrals successfully used outside health care have the potential for increasing the reach of Internet interventions.

Objective

The objective of our study was to describe the protocol for the development and testing of proactive Web-based chain-referral tools for increasing the access to Decide2Quit.org, a Web-assisted tobacco intervention system.

Methods

We will build and refine proactive chain-referral tools, including email and Facebook referrals. In addition, we will implement respondent-driven sampling (RDS), a controlled chain-referral sampling technique designed to remove inherent biases in chain referrals and obtain a representative sample. We will begin our chain referrals with an initial recruitment of former and current smokers as seeds (initial participants) who will be trained to refer current smokers from their social network using the developed tools. In turn, these newly referred smokers will also be provided the tools to refer other smokers from their social networks. We will model predictors of referral success using sample weights from the RDS to estimate the success of the system in the targeted population.

Results

This protocol describes the evaluation of proactive Web-based chain-referral tools, which can be used in tobacco interventions to increase the access to hard-to-reach populations, for promoting smoking cessation.

Conclusions

Share2Quit represents an innovative advancement by capitalizing on naturally occurring technology trends to recruit smokers to Web-assisted tobacco interventions.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive telephone support via helplines and in other settings to help smokers quit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author identified and data extracted trials, and a second author checked them. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio for abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We selected the strictest measure of abstinence, using biochemically validated rates where available. We considered participants lost to follow-up to be continuing smokers. Where trials had more than one arm with a less intensive intervention we used only the most similar intervention without the telephone component as the control group in the primary analysis. We assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. We considered trials recruiting callers to quitlines separately from studies recruiting in other settings. Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. We used a meta-regression to investigate the effect of differences in planned number of calls, selection for motivation, and the nature of the control condition (self help only, minimal intervention, pharmacotherapy) in the group of studies recruiting in non-quitline settings.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials met the inclusion criteria. Some trials were judged to be at risk of bias in some domains but overall we did not judge the results to be at high risk of bias. Among smokers who contacted helplines, quit rates were higher for groups randomized to receive multiple sessions of proactive counselling (nine studies, > 24,000 participants, risk ratio (RR) for cessation at longest follow-up 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 1.50). There was mixed evidence about whether increasing the number of calls altered quit rates but most trials used more than two calls. Three studies comparing different counselling approaches during a single quitline contact did not detect significant differences. Of three studies that tested the provision of access to a hotline two detected a significant benefit and one did not.Telephone counselling not initiated by calls to helplines also increased quitting (51 studies, > 30,000 participants, RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.36). In a meta-regression controlling for other factors the effect was estimated to be slightly larger if more calls were offered, and in trials that specifically recruited smokers motivated to try to quit. The relative extra benefit of counselling was smaller when it was provided in addition to pharmacotherapy (usually nicotine replacement therapy) than when the control group only received self-help material or a brief intervention.A further eight studies were too diverse to contribute to meta-analyses and are discussed separately. Two compared different intensities of counselling, both of which detected a dose response; one of these detected a benefit of multiple counselling sessions over a single call for people prescribed bupropion. The others tested a variety of interventions largely involving offering telephone counselling as part of a referral or systems change and none detected evidence of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines. Telephone quitlines provide an important route of access to support for smokers, and call-back counselling enhances their usefulness. There is limited evidence about the optimal number of calls. Proactive telephone counselling also helps people who receive it in other settings. There is some evidence of a dose response; one or two brief calls are less likely to provide a measurable benefit. Three or more calls increase the chances of quitting compared to a minimal intervention such as providing standard self-help materials, or brief advice, or compared to pharmacotherapy alone.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation programme, and to estimate the size of any effect.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, the search was limited to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. This was searched in December 2011. The Specialized Register includes reports of controlled trials of smoking cessation identified from electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to Issue 4, 2011, MEDLINE to update 20110826, EMBASE to 2011 week 33, PsycINFO to 20110822 and Web of Science. The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees and co-worker).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third author was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence, biochemically validated if possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals: six to nine months and 12 months or greater. Partner Interaction Questionnaire and Support Provided Measure scores were also analysed to assess partner support. A fixed-effect model was used to pool relative risks from each study and estimate a summary effect.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 57 articles were identified for this review. Twelve articles (13 studies, > 2000 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied between studies. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio for self-reported abstinence was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15) at six to nine months and 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the eight studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One study reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly in this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review of randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programmes, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions also did not increase partner support. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. Additional studies with larger samples are needed to adequately explore the effects of partner support interventions for smoking cessation.

Development of an interactive, Web-delivered system to increase provider-patient engagement in smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Patient self-management interventions for smoking cessation are effective but underused. Health care providers do not routinely refer smokers to these interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to uncover barriers and facilitators to the use of an e-referral system that will be evaluated in a community-based randomized trial. The e-referral system will allow providers to refer smokers to an online smoking intervention during routine clinical care.

METHODS

We devised a four-step development and pilot testing process: (1) system conceptualization using Delphi to identify key functionalities that would overcome barriers in provider referrals for smoking cessation, (2) Web system programming using agile software development and best programming practices with usability refinement using think-aloud testing, (3) implementation planning using the nominal group technique for the effective integration of the system into the workflow of practices, and (4) pilot testing to identify practice recruitment and system-use barriers in real-world settings.

RESULTS

Our Delphi process (step 1) conceptualized three key e-referral functions: (1) Refer Your Smokers, allowing providers to e-refer patients at the point of care by entering their emails directly into the system, (2) practice reports, providing feedback regarding referrals and impact of smoking-cessation counseling, and (3) secure messaging, facilitating provider-patient communication. Usability testing (step 2) suggested the system was easy to use, but implementation planning (step 3) suggested several important approaches to encourage use (eg, proactive email cues to encourage practices to participate). Pilot testing (step 4) in 5 practices had limited success, with only 2 patients referred; we uncovered important recruitment and system-use barriers (eg, lack of study champion, training, and motivation, registration difficulties, and forgetting to refer).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing a system to be used in a clinical setting is complex, as several issues can affect system use. In our ongoing large randomized trial, preliminary analysis with the first 50 practices using the system for 3 months demonstrated that our rigorous preimplementation evaluation helped us successfully identify and overcome these barriers before the main trial.

TRIAL

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00797628; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00797628 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/61feCfjCy).

Support-person promotion of a smoking quitline: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Quitlines and other evidence-based cessation treatments are greatly underutilized by smokers, limiting their public health impact. Social support is correlated with successful cessation. Thus, efforts targeting the social network of smokers could be a potential avenue to promote quitline utilization.

PURPOSE

This study examined the efficacy of an intervention for nonsmokers interested in helping a smoker (i.e., support people) to promote smoker utilization of the Minnesota QUITPLAN(®) Helpline. Data were collected from 2007 to 2010, and analyses were conducted from 2010 to 2011.

DESIGN

Two-group randomized design evaluating the support-person intervention (n=267) compared with a control condition (written materials, n=267).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Enrolled were 534 support people (91% female, 93% Caucasian) residing in Minnesota.

INTERVENTION

Written materials plus three weekly telephone sessions lasting 10-30 minutes each. Based on Cohen's theory of social support, the intervention provided participants with information and skills needed to encourage their smoker to call the QUITPLAN Helpline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants completed the Support Provided Measure (SPM) by mail at baseline and Week 4 (end-of-treatment). Helpline intake staff documented smoker calls to the Helpline through 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The proportion of calls to the Helpline was significantly (p=0.012) greater for smokers linked to support people in the intervention group (16.1%, 43/267) than in the control group (8.6%, 23/267). The treatment effect remained significant after adjusting for support person residing with the smoker (OR=2.04, 95% CI=1.19, 3.49, p=0.010). Among support people randomly assigned to the intervention group, greater number of sessions completed was associated with increased smokers' calls to the Helpline (p=0.004). After adjusting for the baseline score, the M±SD SPM score at Week 4 was significantly higher for support people in the intervention group (16.4±3.3) than for those in the control group (15.3±3.6), p=0.002.

CONCLUSIONS

A support-person intervention is effective in increasing smoker utilization of the QUITPLAN Helpline. There is potential for increasing the reach of quitlines by targeting the social network of smokers. TRIAL REGISTRATION #: NCT01311830.

Validation of the support provided measure among spouses of smokers receiving a clinical smoking cessation intervention

Studies indicate a positive association between social support and smoking cessation. However, clinic-based interventions designed to increase social support have had limited success. Most studies have relied on only the smoker's perceptions of support received while few have assessed the support provider's report of support delivered. Understanding supportive interactions between support providers and recipients may assist in developing effective support interventions for cessation. The current investigation examined the perceptions of smoking-specific support provided by the spouse of a partner who smokes and was seen for a nicotine dependence consultation. Specifically, we examined spouse reported willingness to help their spouse quit, interest in learning ways to help their spouse quit, and characteristics associated with the provision of smoking-specific supportive behaviors (as assessed via the Support Provided Measure, SPM), in the 2-weeks prior to the consultation. The current investigation also examined the concurrent validity of the SPM with a validated measure of support provided to a smoker, the Partner Interaction Questionnaire (PIQ), accounting for social desirability bias and smoker readiness to change. The sample comprised 84 adult cigarette smokers seen for a clinical smoking cessation intervention and their spouses (N = 84). Results indicate that a high percentage of spouses are willing to help their partner who smokes and interested in learning way to help. As expected, spouses who were females and had never smoked had higher scores on the SPM than males or current smokers. The SPM was significantly correlated with the PIQ positive (r = 0.50, p < 0.01) and negative (r = 0.44, p <0.01) item scales overall and for spouses whose partners reported higher levels of readiness to quit smoking (r = 0.54, p < 0.01; r = 0.50, p < 0.01, respectively). Suggestions for future research are offered.

Feasibility of a telephone-based intervention for support persons to help smokers quit: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Nonsmokers have a potentially supportive role in tobacco cessation efforts. The present study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a telephone-based intervention for nonsmoking support persons.

METHODS

A total of 59 support persons (mean age = 36 years, 92% female, 95% White) were randomly assigned to a control condition (N = 30; written materials only) or to a social cognitive theory-based intervention (N = 29; written materials and 5 weekly, 20- to 30-min telephone counseling sessions). Both support persons and smokers completed assessments separately by mail at baseline and at weeks 6 (end of treatment) and 26.

RESULTS

Two thirds of the smokers reported low-moderate levels of motivation to quit at baseline as assessed by the contemplation ladder. Study retention rates were excellent, with 95% of both support persons and smokers completing the week 26 assessment. Moreover, 86% of support persons in the intervention group completed all five telephone sessions. Treatment acceptability was high for both support persons and smokers. Compared with the control condition, the intervention was associated with a significant increase in support person self-efficacy to help their smoker (p = .034) and outcome expectancies (p = .025) from baseline to week 6. However, the intervention was not associated with higher smoking abstinence rates or quit attempts.

DISCUSSION

The program was successful in reaching smokers with lower levels of readiness to quit. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to both support persons and smokers. Although support persons and smokers can be engaged in this type of outreach program, refinements in the intervention approach are needed to improve the smoking outcomes.