Hypnotherapy is more effective than nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: results of a randomized controlled trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Hypnotherapy compared to cognitive-behavioral therapy for smoking cessation in a randomized controlled trial

Worldwide, more than eight million people die each year as a result of tobacco use. A large proportion of smokers who want to quit are interested in alternative smoking cessation methods, of which hypnotherapy is the most popular. However, the efficacy of hypnotherapy as a tobacco cessation intervention cannot be considered sufficiently proven due to significant methodological limitations in the studies available to date. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of a hypnotherapeutic group program for smoking cessation with that of an established cognitive-behavioral group program in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 360 smokers who were willing to quit were randomly assigned to either hypnotherapy (HT) or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) at two study sites, without regard to treatment preference. They each underwent a 6 weeks smoking cessation course (one 90 min group session per week) and were followed up at regular intervals over a 12 months period. The primary outcome variable was defined as continuous abstinence from smoking according to the Russell standard, verified by a carbon monoxide measurement at three measurement time points. Secondary outcome variables were 7 days point prevalence abstinence during the 12 months follow up and the number of cigarettes the non-quitters smoked per smoking day (smoking intensity). Generalized estimating equations were used to test treatment condition, hypnotic suggestibility, and treatment expectancy as predictors of abstinence. The two interventions did not differ significantly in the proportion of participants who remained continuously abstinent throughout the follow-up period (CBT: 15.6%, HT: 15.0%) and also regarding the 7 days abstinence rates during the 12 months follow-up (CBT: 21.2%, HT: 16.7%). However, when controlling for hypnotic suggestibility, CBT showed significantly higher 7 days abstinence rates. In terms of the continuous abstinence rates, it can be concluded that the efficacy of hypnotherapeutic methods for smoking cessation seem to be comparable to established programs such as CBT.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01129999.

Redefining hypnosis: A narrative review of theories to move towards an integrative model

Hypnosis is an ancient mind-body intervention that has regained interest with the surge of research in the last decade documenting its clinical validity. Yet, theoretical controversies and misconceptions prevail among theorists, clinicians, and the general public, impeding the understanding, acceptance, replication, and use of hypnosis. Providing adequate information, which dispels misconceptions and promotes more balanced views, is warranted to facilitate the implementation and adoption of hypnosis in clinical and research settings. This review re-examines the conceptualisation of hypnosis throughout history and the theoretical controversies surrounding it while highlighting their meeting points and clinical implications. Despite dichotomies, a broad agreement appears across theoretical approaches regarding hypnotic analgesia effects, key components, and vocabulary. Further, theories highlight key factors of hypnotic responding. For instance, social theories highlight social and contextual variables, whereas state theories highlight biopsychosocial mechanisms and individual factors. Based on theories, the terms hypnotherapy or clinical hypnosis are recommended to refer to the therapeutic use of hypnosis in psychotherapeutic and medical contexts, respectively. This review concludes with a model that integrates various theories and evidence and presents hypnosis as a complex multifaceted intervention encompassing multiple procedures, phenomena, and influencing factors. This review intends to deepen our understanding of hypnosis, and promote its more rapid adoption and adequate implementation in research and clinical contexts, in addition to steering research towards evidence-based hypnotic practice. The review can have important research and clinical implications by contributing to advancing knowledge regarding hypnotic procedures, phenomena, and influencing factors.

Demystifying hypnosis: Unravelling facts, exploring the historical roots of myths, and discerning what is hypnosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Hypnosis, a mind-body treatment dating back to early human history, has regained attention in the last decade, with research suggesting its effectiveness for varied physiological and psychological ailments such as distress, pain, and psychosomatic disorders. However, myths and misconceptions have prevailed among the general public and clinicians, hindering the adoption and acceptance of hypnosis. It is important to distinguish myths from facts and discern what is hypnosis and what is not to enhance the understanding, acceptance, and adoption of hypnotic interventions.

METHODS

This narrative review traces the history of myths surrounding hypnosis in contrast to the evolution of hypnosis as a treatment modality. In addition to comparing hypnosis to other interventions with similar procedures and features, the review unravels misconceptions that have impeded the adoption and acceptance of hypnosis in clinical and research settings and presents evidence to demystify this intervention.

RESULTS

This review examines the roots of myths while presenting historical facts and evidence that support hypnosis as a treatment modality and alleviate misconceptions depicting it as mystical. Further, the review distinguishes hypnotic and non-hypnotic interventions with overlapping procedures and phenomenological features to enhance our understanding of hypnotic techniques and phenomena.

CONCLUSION

This review enhances the understanding of hypnosis in historical, clinical, and research contexts by disproving related myths and misconceptions to promote the adoption of hypnosis in clinical and research contexts. Further, this review highlights knowledge gaps requiring further investigations to steer research toward an evidence-based practice of hypnosis and optimise multimodal therapies embedding hypnosis.

Comparison of withdrawal symptom intensity between hypnosis and nicotine-replacement-therapies: A pilot study

Smoking cessation is a global public health issue. Nicotine dependence is a dynamic process that is not limited to physical dependence. Hypnosis can be helpful in the global management of smoking cessation. We explored this effect by comparing the effects of hypnosis and nicotine-replacement therapies (NRT) on tobacco withdrawal.Thirty participants were included in this comparative-randomized pilot study in parallel controlled groups after ethical validation. Participants were recruited by a general practitioner and had standardized consultations with addiction and hypnosis specialists and adapted treatment. The evolution of withdrawal symptoms was compared using the Cigarette Withdrawal Scale-21 for one month after smoking cessation in an adult tobacco-addict population wishing to stop smoking and receiving either NRT or hypnosis, both supported by motivational interviews. Craving intensity (French version of the Tobacco Craving Questionnaire), nicotine dependence (Fagerström), tobacco consumption, anxiety (Hamilton scale), and depression (Montgomery-Asberg scale) were also evaluated. Hypnosis appeared to have an influence on reducing the number of smoked cigarettes, whereas NRT appeared to influence markers of both physical and psychic dependence. A complementarity of hypnosis and NRT may be a viable therapeutic alternative to reduce the intensity of withdrawal symptoms after voluntary smoking cessation. A study on a larger population with a longer follow-up is needed to assess the advantages of each method to quit smoking.

The neural mechanisms of immediate and follow-up of the treatment effect of hypnosis on smoking craving

Hypnosis has a therapeutic effect on substance dependence. However, its neural basis remains unclear, which impedes its further clinical applications. This study investigated the mechanisms of smoking treatment based on hypnosis from two perspectives: immediate and follow-up effects. Twenty-four smokers screened from 132 volunteers underwent hypnosis suggestion and performed a smoking-related cue task twice during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning (in normal and hypnotic states). The number of cigarettes smoked per day was recorded at follow-up visits. The smokers reported decreased craving after hypnosis. The activations in the right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC), the left insula and the right middle frontal gyrus (rMFG), and the functional connectivity between the rDLPFC and the left insula were increased in the hypnotic state. The reduced craving was related to the DLPFC-insula network, which reflected the immediate mechanism of hypnosis on smoking. The number of cigarette use at the 1-week and 1 month follow-up was correlated with the rMFG activation which reflecting hypnotic depth, suggesting the follow-up effect of hypnosis on smoking depended on the trait of smokers. We identified two different mechanisms of hypnosis effect on smoking, which have important implications for design and optimization of hypnotic treatments on mental disorders.

Hypnotic suggestions of safety reduce neuronal signals of delay discounting

Waiting for delayed rewards is important to reach long-term goals, yet most people prefer immediate rewards. This tendency is called delay discounting. Evidence shows that people are more willing to wait for delayed rewards when they believe that the delayed reward is certain. We hypothesized that feeling safe makes delayed outcomes subjectively more certain, which should in turn reduce neuronal signals of delay discounting. We hypnotized 24 highly suggestible participants and gave them a suggestion to feel safe. We then used EEG to measure their brain responses to immediate and delayed rewards while they played a delayed gratification game. As compared to a control condition without hypnosis, participants that were suggested to feel safe under hypnosis reported feeling significantly safer. Further, their reward-related brain activity differentiated less between immediate and delayed rewards. We conclude that feeling safe makes delayed outcomes subjectively more certain and therefore reduces neuronal signals of delay discounting.

Hypnotherapy for overweight and obese patients: A narrative review

Obesity and overweight problems are serious global health issues today and despite many efforts, the prevalence has continued to rise for decades. Interestingly, hypnotherapy has been gaining recognition as an effective treatment for obesity and overweight problems. This review compiles contemporary scientific research on the effectiveness of hypnotherapy for weight reduction. Scopus, PubMed and EBSCO Host databases were applied in the study. The search identified 119 articles, of which seven met the inclusion criteria. A total of 539 respondents (82.7% women and 17.3% men) between the ages of 17 and 67 years were represented in the seven studies. Most studies incorporated lifestyle changes, such as changes of dietary habit and behavioral recommendations in the hypnotic procedure. Their results suggested that the use of hypnotherapy not only promoted weight reduction during the treatment period but also after treatment cessation, and in some cases, one to ten kilograms were lost during follow-up periods. In addition, one study even showed increased physical activity among the hypnotised individuals. This use of hypnotherapy also improved respondents' eating behavior and quality of life. However, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn due to several methodological flaws and the limited number of published studies in this area. Therefore, further well-designed studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of hypnotherapy for this modern-day health problem.

Feel Safe and Money is Less Important! Hypnotic Suggestions of Safety Decrease Brain Responses to Monetary Rewards in a Risk Game

When a stimulus is important, the corresponding brain responses increase, especially the P300 brain response. This is true for all kinds of important stimuli, also monetary rewards. In our study, we developed a hypnotic suggestion to reduce the subjective importance of monetary rewards. As successful suggestions do not contain negations, we suggested participants to feel safe during hypnosis instead of suggesting that money is not important anymore. We predicted lower P300 amplitudes when participants feel safe during hypnosis. We tested 24 highly suggestible participants playing a risk game in 2 conditions with monetary rewards while we measured their EEG brain responses. In the safety condition, we induced a hypnotic state and suggested that participants feel safe. In the control condition, participants played the risk game without hypnosis. Here we show that participants felt significantly safer in the safety condition and showed significantly lower P300 amplitudes to monetary rewards. Risk behavior did not differ significantly between conditions. Our results are important for substance use disorders, as decreased P300 responses to substance-related stimuli are associated with less craving and better abstinence. Therefore, we conclude that suggestions to feel safe during hypnosis might work as a treatment for individuals with substance use disorders.

Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Hypnotherapy is widely promoted as a method for aiding smoking cessation. It is intended to act on underlying impulses to weaken the desire to smoke, or strengthen the will to stop.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of hypnotherapy for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), using the terms "smoking cessation" and "hypnotherapy" or "hypnosis", with no restrictions on language or publication date. The most recent search was performed on 18 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked and implemented a hypnotherapy intervention for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, or with any other therapeutic interventions. Trials were required to report smoking cessation rates at least six months after the beginning of treatment. Study eligibility was determined by at least two review authors, independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data on participant characteristics, the type and duration of hypnotherapy, the nature of the control group, smoking status, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. These authors also independently assessed the quality of the included studies. In undertaking this work, we used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated abstinence rates where available. Those lost to follow-up were considered to still be smoking. We summarized effects as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We also noted any adverse events reported.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, which brings the total to 14 included studies that compared hypnotherapy with 22 different control interventions. The studies included a total of 1926 participants. Studies were diverse and a single meta-analysis was not possible. We judged only one study to be at low risk of bias overall; we judged 10 studies to be at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Studies did not provide reliable evidence of a greater benefit from hypnotherapy compared with other interventions or no treatment for smoking cessation. Most individual studies did not find statistically significant differences in quit rates after six months or longer, and studies that did detect differences typically had methodological limitations.Pooling small groups of relatively comparable studies did not provide reliable evidence for a specific effect of hypnotherapy relative to controls. There was low certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, that showed no statistically significant difference between hypnotherapy and attention-matched behavioural treatments (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.61; I² = 36%; 6 studies, 957 participants). Results were similarly imprecise, and also limited by risk of bias, when comparing hypnotherapy to intensive behavioural interventions (not matched for contact time) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 211 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision. No significant differences were detected in comparisons of hypnotherapy with brief behavioural interventions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.69; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 269 participants), rapid/focused smoking (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.33; I² = 65%; 2 studies, 54 participants), and pharmacotherapies (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.20; I² = 5%; 2 studies, 197 participants). When hypnotherapy was evaluated as an adjunct to other treatments, the pooled result from five studies showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of hypnotherapy (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.35; I² = 62%; 224 participants); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias across studies (four had a high risk or bias, one had an unclear risk), and substantial statistical heterogeneity.Most studies did not provide information on whether data specifically relating to adverse events were collected, and whether or not any adverse events occurred. One study that did collect such data did not find a statistically significant difference in the adverse event 'index' between hypnotherapy and relaxation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether hypnotherapy is more effective for smoking cessation than other forms of behavioural support or unassisted quitting. If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most. There is very little evidence on whether hypnotherapy causes adverse effects, but the existing data show no evidence that it does. Further large, high-quality randomized controlled trials, and more comprehensive assessments of safety, are needed on this topic.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Strategies and Design of Hypnosis Intervention for Tobacco Cessation

The purpose of this article is to share approaches and program design to assist healthcare professionals trained in hypnosis help tobacco users become tobacco free. Helping tobacco users overcome their tobacco dependency is generally seen as challenging to healthcare professionals. Efforts to stop a tobacco habit have components which are both physical and emotional in nature and which produce periods of discomfort and high relapse rates. Hypnosis can be supportive for both the physical and emotional aspects necessary for successful cessation. Health risks of tobacco use cannot be overlooked, and individuals burdened by tobacco habits will benefit from health professionals' greater appreciation for the contributions hypnosis can offer. Tobacco cessation incorporating hypnosis can be successful when careful attention is given to the program design.

Psychedelics and hypnosis: Commonalities and therapeutic implications

BACKGROUND

Recent research on psychedelics and hypnosis demonstrates the value of both methods in the treatment of a range of psychopathologies with overlapping applications and neurophenomenological features. The potential of harnessing the power of suggestion to influence the phenomenological response to psychedelics toward more therapeutic action has remained unexplored in recent research and thereby warrants empirical attention.

AIMS

Here we aim to elucidate the phenomenological and neurophysiological similarities and dissimilarities between psychedelic states and hypnosis in order to revisit how contemporary knowledge may inform their conjunct usage in psychotherapy.

METHODS

We review recent advances in phenomenological and neurophysiological research on psychedelics and hypnosis, and we summarize early investigations on the coupling of psychedelics and hypnosis in scientific and therapeutic contexts. Results/outcomes: We highlight commonalities and differences between psychedelics and hypnosis that point to the potential efficacy of combining the two in psychotherapy. We propose multiple research paths for coupling these two phenomena at different stages in the preparation, acute phase and follow-up of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy in order to prepare, guide and integrate the psychedelic experience with the aim of enhancing therapeutic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Harnessing the power of suggestion to modulate response to psychedelics could enhance their therapeutic efficacy by helping to increase the likelihood of positive responses, including mystical-type experiences.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Integrative Medicine Strategies for Changing Health Behaviors: Support for Primary Care

Until system reforms allow adequate time and reimbursement for primary care providers to focus on lifestyle change to prevent and mitigate chronic disease, primary care providers need a manageable, defined role to support lifestyle change. The authors suggest this role is to serve as a catalyst, priming the patient for change; educating and pointing the patient to appropriate, evidence-based resources for additional guidance and hands-on support; and providing ongoing encouragement throughout the long journey of change while patients work more intensely with health coaches or allied health providers.

Indonesian provisional clinical psychologists' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards complementary-alternative medicine (CAM)

Sixty provisional clinical psychologists in Indonesia were emailed to seek their participation in an online-questionnaire that reflected: CAM knowledge, attitudes CAM, and CAM behaviours. Of the 60 participants approached, 44 with majority of female (95%) completed the questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 25 years. Overall, participants reported low knowledge of CAM and attitudes towards CAM were positive. While 73% reported having recommended CAM to their clients, only 39% had ever made referral. Most of the participants (98%) had used CAM personally but just over half (59%) had ever used it in clinical practice. It was found that knowledge and attitudes towards CAM did not predict CAM recommendation, personal use, nor professional use among the participants. However, CAM knowledge was found to predict CAM referrals. It is assumed that positive attitudes towards CAM integration among participants has been conflicted with their concern for CAM safety.

The role of hypnotherapy in evidence-based clinical practice

The purpose of this review was to discuss the place of hypnotherapy in a modern medical world dominated by so-called evidence-based clinical practice. Hypnosis is an easily learned technique that is a valuable adjuvant to many medical, dental and psychological interventions.

Effectiveness of dentist's intervention in smoking cessation: A review

Introduction

Smoking is one of the main public health problems in developed countries. Despite extensive evidence on the effects of smoking on both oral and general health, the rate of smoking cessation is not promising.

Material and Methods

To review the evidence on knowledge and programs for smoking cessation developed by dentists, a literature review was carried out on programs for smoking cessation from the dentist’s perspective, as well as a review of behavioral guidelines that have been recently proposed for these interventions. We used the keywords “Tobacco”, “Smoking Prevention”, “Public Health” AND “Dentistry”, to identify controlled studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2014, in Google Scholar, SCOPUS and PubMed.

Results

Out of 177 studies found, 35 were considered, and these were divided into 2 groups of 20 and 15 articles respectively, according to type of study and inclusion criteria.

Conclusions

There is considerable scientific evidence describing the programs for smoking cessation used in dentistry, which support their effectiveness. Overall, these are brief behavioral interventions complemented by pharmacological treatment, with the participation of the entire dental team.

Key words:Dentistry, nicotine, smoking cessation, tobacco.