Smoking cessation intervention delivered by social service organisations for a diverse population of Australian disadvantaged smokers: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Opportunistic smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings: A scoping review

AIM

The aim of this work was to systematically scope the evidence on opportunistic tobacco smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register to 21 March 2023. We duplicate screened 20% of titles/abstracts and all full texts. We included primary studies investigating smoking cessation interventions delivered opportunistically to people who smoked tobacco, within settings offering support for problems caused by financial hardship, for example homeless support services, social housing and food banks. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by another and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We included 25 studies conducted in a range of financial support settings using qualitative (e.g. interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (e.g. randomized controlled trials, surveys and single arm intervention studies) methodologies. Evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of opportunistic smoking cessation advice was investigated among both clients and providers. Approximately 90% of service providers supported such interventions; however, lack of resources, staff training and a belief that tobacco smoking reduced illicit substance use were perceived barriers. Clients welcomed being asked about smoking and offered assistance to quit and expressed interest in interventions including the provision of nicotine replacement therapy, e-cigarettes and incentives to quit smoking. Six studies investigated the comparative effectiveness of opportunistic smoking cessation interventions on quitting success, with five comparing more to less intensive interventions, with mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies investigating opportunistic smoking cessation interventions in financial support settings have not measured their effectiveness. Where they have, settings, populations, interventions and findings have varied. There is more evidence investigating acceptability, with promising results.

Personalised multicomponent interventions for tobacco dependence management in low socioeconomic populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There remains a disproportionally high tobacco smoking rate in low-income populations. Multicomponent tobacco dependence interventions in theory are effective. However, which intervention components are necessary to include for low socioeconomic status (SES) populations is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of multicomponent tobacco dependence interventions for low SES and create a checklist tool examining multicomponent interventions.

METHODS

EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published with the primary outcome of tobacco smoking cessation measured at 6 months or post intervention. RCTs that evaluated tobacco dependence management interventions (for reduction or cessation) in low SES (experience of housing insecurity, poverty, low income, unemployment, mental health challenges, illicit substance use and/or food insecurity) were included. Two authors independently abstracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and post hoc sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 33 included studies, the number of intervention components ranged from 1 to 6, with smoking quit rates varying between 1% and 36.6%. Meta-analysis revealed that both the 6-month and 12-month outcome timepoints, multicomponent interventions were successful in achieving higher smoking quit rates than the control (OR 1.64, 95% Cl 1.41 to 1.91; OR 1.74, 95% Cl 1.30 to 2.33). Evidence of low heterogeneity in the effect size was observed at 6-month (I2=26%) and moderate heterogeneity at 12-month (I2=56%) outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Multicomponent tobacco dependence interventions should focus on inclusion of social support, frequency and duration of components. Employing community-based participatory-action research approach is essential to addressing underlying psychosocioeconomic-structural factors, in addition to the proven combination pharmacotherapies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076650.

Addressing smoking in sheltered homelessness with intensive smoking treatment (ASSIST project): A pilot feasibility study of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy and motivational interviewing

BACKGROUND

This pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of providing varenicline in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and motivational interviewing (MI) to adult male smokers attending a clinic in a hostel for homeless people.

METHODS

A single group pre- and post-treatment (12 weeks following intervention commencement) design with embedded process evaluation (at weekly counselling and fortnightly safety check-ins). Participants were 20 male smokers attending a health clinic within a homelessness service in Sydney, Australia, between December 2019 and March 2020. Participants set a target quit date 7-days post intervention commencement. Adverse events, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes per day, treatment adherence and acceptability of the study interventions were assessed 12 weeks post intervention commencement. Abstinence was biochemically verified. Results are complete cases.

RESULTS

Retention was 65% at 12-weeks post-intervention commencement (n = 13). No related adverse events were reported. Three participants (15%) reported continuous abstinence. Two participants self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (10%), confirmed by CO level. Participants who did not quit smoking (n = 10), reported a significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day (19.4 vs 4.7, p < .01). Cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and psychological distress significantly decreased from baseline to 12-week follow-up (all < 0.01). Adherence to the pharmacological interventions was good, most used combination NRT and varenicline. Adherence to the counselling sessions was low, attending three of 12 sessions. Both NRT and MI were rated as highly acceptable. Some participants expressed concerns about the safety of varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was feasible and acceptable and associated with short-term smoking cessation and significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked-per-day.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Community Health Workers Improve Smoking Cessation When They Recruit Patients in Their Home Villages

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE

Community health workers (CHWs) can play a vital role in many aspects of healthcare, particularly for underserved communities, but it is unclear what factors are most important in determining the success of CHW-based programs. We wanted to assess what factors contribute to the effectiveness of CHWs in a smoking cessation program.

METHODS

We trained CHWs in 3 areas regarding smoking cessation: knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP). The training program utilized the 5A's as approach. CHWs actively sought out people addicted to cigarettes to participate. Patients received support from CHWs and a team of medical professionals for a year. At the conclusion of the program, focus group discussions with a group of CHWs, a group of patients, and a group of medical professionals were conducted.

RESULTS

On average, patients reduced their cigarettes/day by 7.2% and 29% of patients were completely cigarette free at a 1-year follow-up. Patients marginally decreased exhalation CO levels and increased lung capacity. CHWs gained a good understanding of health risks associated with smoking and common methods to help quit. Their attitude became more sympathetic and caring. CHWs exhibited patient-specific solutions to help with smoking cessation and actively sought out people to participate in the smoking cessation program.

CONCLUSIONS

A smoking cessation program combining CHWs and pharmacists was effective. Key factors were having CHWs that are respected and established in their communities, using CHWs who know their patients and can provide individually tailored solutions, and empowering CHWs with intensive training.

Group Support for Smoking Cessation: Importance of the Smoker's Choice for Better Outcomes

Smoking cessation method effectiveness is discussed among socially disadvantaged smokers. Our aim was to measure real-life effectiveness of the choice of a multi-component group intervention in comparison with individual usual care. We report an observational study (N = 100). Disadvantaged smokers were screened with a validated tool. We designed a multi-component structured behavioural group intervention, delivered in weekly group sessions during 6 weeks. Usual care consisted of individual visits. Both groups received free nicotine replacement therapy. We observed 33 smokers participating in the group intervention, while 67 received usual care. Abstinence at 6 weeks was 24.2% (n = 8) in the group intervention versus 11.9% (n = 8) in usual care (p = .115). Also, 36.4% (n = 12) of group intervention patients had reduced their cigarette consumption versus 16.4% (n = 11) in usual care (p = .026). In addition, 6.1% (n = 2) dropped out of group versus 31.3% (n = 21) in usual care (p = .005). Finally, 6 months after their first visit, 15.2% (n = 5) of group intervention patients and 4.5% (n = 3) in usual care were abstinent (p = .111). Group intervention choice versus usual care might facilitate smoking abstinence, reduction, and follow-up adherence.

Effectiveness of community health workers involvement in smoking cessation programme: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) has set the target to reduce premature mortalities from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by one-third. One of the ways to achieve this is through strengthening the countries' implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Community health workers (CHWs) involvement has shown promising results in the prevention of NCDs. This systematic review is aimed at critically evaluating the available evidence on the effectiveness of involving CHWs in smoking cessation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systemically searched PubMed and CENTRAL up to September 2019. We searched for published interventional studies on smoking cessation interventions using the usual care that complemented with CHWs as compared to the usual or standard care alone. Our primary outcome was abstinence of smoking. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias.

RESULT

We identified 2794 articles, of which only five studies were included. A total of 3513 smokers with 41 CHWs were included in the studies. The intervention duration range from 6 weeks to 30 months. The studies used behavioral intervention or a combination of behavioral intervention and pharmacological treatment. Overall, the smoking cessation intervention that incorporated involvement of CHWs had higher smoking cessation rates [OR 1.95, 95% CI (1.35, 2.83)]. Significant smoking cessation rates were seen in two studies.

CONCLUSION

Higher smoking cessation rates were seen in the interventions that combined the usual care with interventions by CHWs as compared to the usual care alone. However, there were insufficient studies to prove the effectiveness. In addition, there was high heterogeneity in terms of interventions and participants in the current studies.

Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking cessation have led to development of interventions that are specifically tailored for smokers from disadvantaged groups. We aimed to assess whether the effectiveness of interventions for disadvantaged groups is moderated by tailoring for socioeconomic position.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Tobacco Addiction Register of Clinical Trials and the IC-SMOKE database from their inception until Aug 18, 2019, for randomised controlled trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored or non-socioeconomic-position-tailored individual-level behavioural interventions for smoking cessation at 6 months or longer of follow-up in disadvantaged groups. Studies measured socioeconomic position via income, eligibility for government financial assistance, occupation, and housing. Studies were excluded if they were delivered at the community or population level, did not report differential effects by socioeconomic position, did not report smoking cessation outcomes from 6 months or longer after the start of the intervention, were delivered at a group level, or provided pharmacotherapy with standard behavioural support compared with behavioural support alone. Individual patient-level data were extracted from published reports and from contacting study authors. Random-effects meta-analyses and mixed-effects meta-regression analyses were done to assess associations between tailoring of the intervention and effectiveness. Meta-analysis outcomes were summarised as risk ratios (RR). Certainty of evidence was assessed within each study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018103008.

FINDINGS

Of 2376 studies identified by our literature search, 348 full-text articles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Of these, 42 studies (26 168 participants) were included in the systematic review. 30 (71%) of 42 studies were done in the USA, three (7%) were done in the UK, two (5%) each in the Netherlands and Australia, and one (2%) each in Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, India, and China. 26 (62%) of 42 studies were trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions and 16 (38%) were non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions. 17 (65%) of 26 socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions were in-person or telephone-delivered behavioural interventions, four (15%) were digital interventions, three (12%) involved financial incentives, and two (8%) were brief interventions. Individuals who participated in an intervention, irrespective of tailoring, were significantly more likely to quit smoking than were control participants (RR 1·56, 95% CI 1·39-1·75; I2=54·5%). Socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions did not yield better outcomes compared with non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions for disadvantaged groups (adjusted RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·81-1·27; β=0·011, SE=0·11; p=0·93). We observed similar effect sizes in separate meta-analyses of non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions using trial data from participants with high socioeconomic position (RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·36-2·93; I2=82·7%) and participants with low socioeconomic position (1·94, 1·31-2·86; I2=76·6%), although certainty of evidence from these studies was graded as low.

INTERPRETATION

We found evidence that individual-level interventions can assist disadvantaged smokers with quitting, but there were no large moderating effects of tailoring for disadvantaged smokers. Improvements in tailored intervention development might be necessary to achieve equity-positive smoking cessation outcomes.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I2 = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I2 = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I2 = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I2 = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I2 = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

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.