Effects of motivation phase intervention components on quit attempts in smokers unwilling to quit: A factorial experiment

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments

AIM

To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence.

DESIGN

Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART).

SETTING

Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months.

MEASUREMENTS

The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects.

FINDINGS

Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to induce attempts to quit tobacco among adults not ready to quit

The prevalence of past-year smoking cessation remains below 10% in the U.S. Most who smoke are not ready to quit in the near future. Cessation requires both (a) initiating a quit attempt (QA) and (b) maintaining abstinence. Most research has focused on abstinence among people already motivated to quit. We systematically reviewed interventions to promote QAs among people not motivated to quit tobacco. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Embase, and our personal libraries for randomized trials of tobacco interventions that reported QAs as an outcome among adults not ready to quit. We screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled findings of the 25 included studies using Mantel-Haenszel random effects meta-analyses when ≥ 2 studies tested the same intervention. Most (24) trials addressed cigarettes and one addressed smokeless tobacco. Substantial heterogeneity among trials resulted in a series of small meta-analyses. Findings indicate varenicline may increase QAs more than no varenicline, n = 320; RR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.1, 1.7]; I² = 0%, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may increase QAs more than no NRT, n = 2,568; RR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.02, 1.3]; I² = 0%. Pooled effects for motivational counseling, reduction counseling, and very low nicotine content cigarettes showed no clear evidence of benefit or harm. The evidence was judged to be of medium to very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias, suggesting that further research is likely to change interpretation of our results. Findings demonstrate the need for more high-quality research on interventions to induce QAs among adults not ready to quit tobacco. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS)

AIMS

For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes.

DESIGN

A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit.

MEASUREMENTS

Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis.

FINDINGS

Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

One view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral approaches to cancer prevention and control: intervention optimization

As a new decade begins, we propose that the time is right to reexamine current methods and procedures and look for opportunities to accelerate progress in cancer prevention and control. In this article we offer our view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral interventions for cancer prevention and control. We begin by discussing and questioning several implicit conventions. We then briefly introduce an alternative research framework: the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST). MOST, a principled framework for intervention development, optimization, and evaluation, stresses not only intervention effectiveness, but also intervention affordability, scalability, and efficiency. We review some current limitations of MOST along with future directions for methodological work in this area, and suggest some changes in the scientific environment we believe would permit wider adoption of intervention optimization. We propose that wider adoption of intervention optimization would have a positive impact on development and successful implementation of interventions for cancer prevention and control and on intervention science more broadly, including accumulation of a coherent base of knowledge about what works and what does not; establishment of an empirical basis for adaptation of interventions to different settings with different levels and types of resources; and, in the long run, acceleration of progress from Stage 0 to Stage V in the National Institutes of Health Model of Stages of Intervention Development.

Evaluating four motivation-phase intervention components for use with primary care patients unwilling to quit smoking: a randomized factorial experiment

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of intervention components designed to increase quit attempts and promote abstinence in patients initially unwilling to quit smoking.

DESIGN

A four-factor, randomized factorial experiment.

SETTING

Sixteen primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 577 adults who smoke (60% women, 80% White) recruited during primary care visits who were currently willing to reduce their smoking but unwilling to try to quit. Interventions Four factors contrasted intervention components administered over a 1-year period: (i) nicotine mini-lozenge versus none; (ii) reduction counseling versus none; (iii) behavioral activation (BA) counseling versus none; and (iv) motivational 5Rs counseling versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any time.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks post enrollment; secondary outcomes were point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks and making a quit attempt by weeks 26 and 52.

FINDINGS

No abstinence main effects were found but a mini-lozenge × reduction counseling × BA interaction was found at 52 weeks; P = 0.03. Unpacking this interaction showed that the mini-lozenge alone produced the highest abstinence rate (16.7%); combining it with reduction counseling produced an especially low abstinence rate (4.1%). Reduction counseling decreased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 52 weeks relative to no reduction counseling (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine mini-lozenges may increase smoking abstinence in people initially unwilling to quit smoking, but their effectiveness declines when used with smoking reduction counseling or other behavioral interventions. Reduction counseling decreases the likelihood of making a quit attempt in people initially unwilling to quit smoking.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Predictors of Smoking Cessation Attempts and Success Following Motivation-Phase Interventions Among People Initially Unwilling to Quit Smoking

INTRODUCTION

Most people who smoke cigarettes are not willing (ie, not ready) to make a quit attempt (QA) at any given time. Unfortunately, interventions intended to increase QAs and the success of QAs are only modestly effective. Identifying processes leading to QAs and quitting success could guide intervention development.

AIMS AND METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized factorial trial of 6 weeks of motivation-phase interventions among primary care patients (N = 517) who were initially unwilling to quit but were willing to reduce their smoking. Using logistic regression, we controlled for treatment condition and tested whether baseline or change in smoking-related constructs after 6 weeks of treatment predicted (1) making an at least 24 h QA between weeks 6 and 26 and (2) quitting success at week 26 (7-day point-prevalence abstinence among those who made a QA). Predictors included cigarettes/day, time to first cigarette, motivation to quit, quitting self-efficacy, anticipated urges to smoke if quit, positive affect, negative affect, and time spent around others who smoke.

RESULTS

In multivariable models that included all smoking-related constructs, changes in the following variables predicted initiating a QA above and beyond other variables: greater baseline time to first cigarette (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60), increases in time to first cigarette (OR = 1.27), and increases in quitting self-efficacy (OR = 1.14). Increased motivation to quit predicted conversion of a QA into quitting success at 26 weeks (OR = 1.36).

CONCLUSION

Predictors of making a QA differed from predictors of quitting success. Predictors of QAs and success could each serve as important treatment targets of motivation-phase interventions.

IMPLICATIONS

Motivation-phase interventions for people initially unwilling to quit smoking cigarettes may be improved by striving to increase their (1) time to first cigarette and quitting self-efficacy to promote QAs and (2) motivation to quit to promote quit success. Future experimental tests of such interventions are needed to identify causal determinants of QAs and quitting success.

Effect of Additional Motivational Interviewing on Smoking Abstinence for 1-Year among Korean Adolescents: Results from A Comparative Retrospective Study in Quitline

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of additional motivational enhancement through telephone-based counseling on short- and long-term smoking abstinence among Korean adolescents.

METHODS

A comparative retrospective study was conducted based on the longitudinal follow up in Quitline from 2010 to 2017. A total of 533 and 178 adolescent smokers voluntarily participated in the 1-year quitting counseling only (group A, who were ready to quit) and the additional 4-week motivational interviewing before 1-year quitting counseling (group B, who were ambivalent about quitting), respectively. The outcomes were self-reported continuous abstinence at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year follow up. Logistic regression was applied to estimate the effect of potential factors, including motivational enhancement, on cessation outcome.

RESULTS

At baseline, adolescents in group B had a lower motivation to quit than those in group A (p < 0.001). The successful quit rates at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year follow up were 37.2%, 12.8%, and 11.4% in group A and 33.7%, 15.2%, and 11.2% in group B, respectively. After adjusting factors as appropriate, successful quit rates in group B were not significantly different from the rates in group A. Higher self-efficacy increased the successful quit rate at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year follow up, similar in subgroup analysis by gender. Never-drinking showed significant association with 30-day successful quit in the whole population and among boys. The lower number of smoking triggers was associated with an increased 30-day successful quit rate among boys only.

CONCLUSIONS

Counseling for motivational enhancement could be a promising approach for better quitting outcomes. Improving self-efficacy and eliminating smoking triggers should be continuously strengthened during the quitting process.