Impact of lifestyle on perioperative smoking cessation and postoperative complication rate

Perceptions of Facilitators and Barriers to Smoking Cessation Among Patients and Providers in a Cancer Center: A Single Institution Qualitative Exploratory Study

PURPOSE

Cancer patients who remain tobacco users have poorer outcomes, including increased mortality and decreased treatment tolerance; however, cessation post-diagnosis is challenging. Our formative research explored cessation-related perspectives among patients and staff at one National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center, to inform improving cessation services within oncology care.

METHODS

Using a descriptive phenomenological approach, a purposive sample of current cancer patients (n = 13) and cancer center physicians and cessation program staff (n = 9) were recruited to complete one-on-one audio-recorded in-depth qualitative interviews, to explore experiences providing or receiving cessation support, and perspectives on patients' readiness and needs regarding cessation. Thematic coding utilized Green's predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing framework to identify factors having positive, negative, or mixed impact on delivery of best-practices cessation services (ie, 5As) and patient cessation success.

RESULTS

Patients identified cancer diagnosis as a wake-up call, existing health problems, persistent healthcare providers, cost of cigarettes, and societal disapproval of smoking as factors facilitating quitting. Futility of quitting after a cancer diagnosis, cost and logistics of program participation, clinician time constraints, and lifetime addiction made quitting harder. Family, friends, stigma and motivation, and pharmacotherapies played mixed roles. Patients felt survivor-focused cessation programs, including stress management, could better enable quitting. Provider-anticipated problems with implementing cessation counseling included so-called "therapeutic nihilism" (ie, pessimism regarding cessation post-diagnosis), lack of training and standardized approaches, and time and documentation burden. Clinicians saw both policies and peer clinician "champions" as potentially increasing prioritization of cessation within oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight unmet needs for patients and providers regarding provision of effective cessation care. Despite survival benefit, cessation is still not standard within cancer care. Our results show that many patients would benefit from standardized programs where they are routinely asked about cessation. Providers would benefit from both structural enhancements and professional education to ensure that evidence-based cessation services tailored to cancer patients, are offered throughout treatment and survivorship.

Perioperative digital behaviour change interventions for reducing alcohol consumption, improving dietary intake, increasing physical activity and smoking cessation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that unhealthy lifestyle behaviours are modifiable risk factors for postoperative complications. Digital behaviour change interventions (DBCIs), for instance text messaging programs and smartphone apps, have shown promise in achieving lifestyle behaviour change in a wide range of clinical populations, and it may therefore be possible to reduce postoperative complications by supporting behaviour change perioperatively using digital interventions. This scoping review was conducted in order to identify existing research done in the area of perioperative DBCIs for reducing alcohol consumption, improving dietary intake, increasing physical activity and smoking cessation.

MAIN TEXT

This scoping review included eleven studies covering a range of surgeries: bariatric, orthopaedic, cancer, transplantation and elective surgery. The studies were both randomised controlled trials and feasibility studies and investigated a diverse set of interventions: one game, three smartphone apps, one web-based program and five text message interventions. Feasibility studies reported user acceptability and satisfaction with the behaviour change support. Engagement data showed participation rates ranged from 40 to 90%, with more participants being actively engaged early in the intervention period. In conclusion, the only full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT), text messaging ahead of bariatric surgery did not reveal any benefits with respect to adherence to preoperative exercise advice when compared to a control group. Two of the pilot studies, one text message intervention, one game, indicated change in a positive direction with respect to alcohol and tobacco outcomes, but between group comparisons were not done due to small sample sizes. The third pilot-study, a smartphone app, found between group changes for physical activity and alcohol, but not with respect to smoking cessation outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review found high participant satisfaction, but shows recruitment and timing-delivery issues, as well as low retention to interventions post-surgery. Small sample sizes and the use of a variety of feasibility outcome measures prevent the synthesis of results and makes generalisation difficult. Future research should focus on defining standardised outcome measures, enhancing patient engagement and improving adherence to behaviour change prior to scheduled surgery.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Transitions in Smokers' Social Networks After Quit Attempts: A Latent Transition Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Smokers' social networks vary in size, composition, and amount of exposure to smoking. The extent to which smokers' social networks change after a quit attempt is unknown, as is the relation between quitting success and later network changes.

METHODS

Unique types of social networks for 691 smokers enrolled in a smoking-cessation trial were identified based on network size, new network members, members' smoking habits, within network smoking, smoking buddies, and romantic partners' smoking. Latent transition analysis was used to identify the network classes and to predict transitions in class membership across 3 years from biochemically assessed smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

Five network classes were identified: Immersed (large network, extensive smoking exposure including smoking buddies), Low Smoking Exposure (large network, minimal smoking exposure), Smoking Partner (small network, smoking exposure primarily from partner), Isolated (small network, minimal smoking exposure), and Distant Smoking Exposure (small network, considerable nonpartner smoking exposure). Abstinence at years 1 and 2 was associated with shifts in participants' social networks to less contact with smokers and larger networks in years 2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

In the years following a smoking-cessation attempt, smokers' social networks changed, and abstinence status predicted these changes. Networks defined by high levels of exposure to smokers were especially associated with continued smoking. Abstinence, however, predicted transitions to larger social networks comprising less smoking exposure. These results support treatments that aim to reduce exposure to smoking cues and smokers, including partners who smoke.

IMPLICATIONS

Prior research has shown that social network features predict the likelihood of subsequent smoking cessation. The current research illustrates how successful quitting predicts social network change over 3 years following a quit attempt. Specifically, abstinence predicts transitions to networks that are larger and afford less exposure to smokers. This suggests that quitting smoking may expand a person's social milieu rather than narrow it. This effect, plus reduced exposure to smokers, may help sustain abstinence.

Smoking and alcohol behaviours in people following hip and knee arthroplasty: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

BACKGROUND

Smoking and alcohol consumption has a negative effect on overall health. Limited evidence has been presented as to how these health behaviours may change between pre- and postoperative intervals in the initial 12 months post-arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to address this uncertainty.

HYPOTHESIS

Smoking and alcohol consumption differs between pre- and post-THA/TKA and it differs between non-arthroplasty cohorts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a population-based observational study in the USA, were gathered. In total, data from 287 people who had undergone THA or TKA from baseline to month 48 OAI follow-up assessments were analysed. Data on this cohort were compared to 287 age- and gender-matched people with osteoarthritis. Mean change from pre- to post-arthroplasty, and differences between arthroplasty and non-arthroplasty participants for smoking and alcohol consumption were assessed descriptively and through Wilcoxin-matched pairs test and Student t-tests (as appropriate).

RESULTS

The lifetime prevalence of smoking was high for people who received THA (99%) and TKA (96%). Prevalence of current smoking significantly decreased from 5 to 3% across the THA and TKA cohort in the initial 12 months post-arthroplasty (P<0.05). Similarly, there was a statistically significant decrease in weekly alcohol consumption post-arthroplasty for people who underwent THA and TKA (P<0.01), although the mean difference was only by 0.9 alcoholic drinks. The only statistically significant difference in smoking and alcohol consumption for arthroplasty to non-arthroplasty participants was in weekly alcohol consumption, which was higher by 0.3 drinks in the non-arthroplasty cohort (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking and alcohol consumption decreased in the initial 12 months post-THA and TKA. This was not significantly different to an age- and gender-matched non-arthroplasty cohort. Whilst this is positive, a small group of patients still present with unhealthy lifestyle choices in relation to these behaviours post-arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III - prospective case control study.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Investigating group contingencies to promote brief abstinence from cigarette smoking

In contingency management (CM), monetary incentives are contingent on evidence of drug abstinence. Typically, incentives (e.g., "vouchers" exchangeable for goods or services) are contingent on individual performance. We programmed vouchers contingent on group performance to investigate whether these contingencies would promote brief abstinence from cigarette smoking. Thirty-two participants were divided into small teams (n = 3 per team). During three 5-day within-subject experimental conditions, participants submitted video recordings of breath carbon monoxide (CO) measures twice daily via Motiv8 Systems, an Internet-based remote monitoring application. During the interdependent contingency condition, participants earned vouchers each time they and their teammates submitted breath CO samples indicative of abstinence (i.e., negative samples). During the independent contingency condition, participants earned vouchers each time they submitted negative samples, regardless of their teammates' performance. During the no vouchers condition, no monetary incentives were contingent on abstinence. In addition, half of the participants (n = 16) could communicate with their teammates through an online peer support forum. Although forum access did not appear to promote smoking abstinence, monetary incentives did promote brief abstinence. Significantly more negative samples were submitted when vouchers were contingent on individual performance (56%) or team performance (53%) relative to when no vouchers were available (35%; F = 6.9, p = .002). The results show that interdependent contingencies can promote brief abstinence from cigarette smoking. Moreover, the results suggest that these contingencies may help lower treatment costs and promote social support.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cigarette smoking: a risk factor for postoperative morbidity and 1-year mortality following craniotomy for tumor resection

Object

Identifying risk factors for surgical morbidity and mortality might improve the safety and efficacy of neurosurgical intervention. Cigarette smoking is a relatively common practice and is associated with several adverse health outcomes. The authors examined the relationship between smoking and intraoperative blood loss, postoperative outcomes, and survival following craniotomy for tumor resection.

Methods

A consecutive population of patients undergoing craniotomy for tumor resection between 2006 and 2009 was identified. Using multivariable models and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the authors assessed the relation between smoking and operative outcomes including blood loss, complication rates, hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 1-year survival among patients who underwent craniotomy for tumor resection.

Results

A total of 453 patients were included in this study: 237 patients never smoked, 54 quit smoking for at least 1 year, and 162 were current smokers. Current smoking status was an independent risk factor for higher intraoperative blood loss, complication risk, and lower 1-year survival following intervention relative to patients who never smoked. Patients who quit smoking had significantly higher mean blood loss, but did not carry a higher risk for other outcomes such as postoperative complications and 1-year mortality compared with patients who never smoked.

Conclusions

Current cigarette smoking is associated with poor surgical outcome and lower 1-year survival after undergoing craniotomy for tumor resection. However, quitting smoking and implementing strict smoking cessation programs may help mitigate these risks. Future research might investigate mechanisms underlying these associations.

Internet-based group contingency management to promote abstinence from cigarette smoking: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

In contingency management (CM) interventions, monetary consequences are contingent on evidence of drug abstinence. Typically, these consequences are contingent on individual performance. Consequences contingent on group performance may promote social support (e.g., praise).

METHODS

Thus, to combine social support with the monetary incentives of CM, we integrated independent and interdependent group contingencies of reinforcement into an Internet-based intervention to promote smoking abstinence. Breath carbon monoxide (CO) measures were compared between treatment conditions and a baseline control condition. Thirteen participants were divided into 5 groups or "teams" (n=2-3 per team). Each participant submitted video recordings of CO measurement twice daily via the Internet. Teammates could monitor each other's progress and communicate with one another through an online peer support forum. During a 4-day tapering condition, vouchers exchangeable for goods were contingent on gradual reductions in breath CO. During a 10-day abstinence induction condition, vouchers were contingent on abstinence (CO≤4ppm). In both treatment conditions, concurrent independent and interdependent group contingencies were arranged (i.e., a mixed contingency arrangement).

RESULTS

Less than 1% of CO samples submitted during baseline were≤4ppm, compared to 57% submitted during abstinence induction. Sixty-five percent of participants' comments on the online peer support forum were rated as positive by independent observers. Participants rated the intervention favorably on a treatment acceptability questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the intervention is feasible and acceptable for promoting abstinence from cigarette smoking.

Smoking and outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Studies have suggested higher rates of perioperative and postoperative complications in smokers compared to nonsmokers. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the association of smoking and postoperative outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A search of 6 databases (The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Proquest Dissertation abstracts, CINAHL, Ovid Medline, and Embase) was performed by a Cochrane librarian. All titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers with expertise in performing systematic reviews. Studies were included if they were fully published reports that included smoking and any perioperative or postoperative clinical outcome in patients with TKA or THA.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included for the review, of which 6 provided multivariable-adjusted analyses, 14 univariate analyses, and one statistical modeling. For most outcomes, results from 1-2 studies could be pooled. Current smokers were significantly more likely to have any postoperative complication (risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.54) and death (risk ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.51) compared to nonsmokers. Former smokers were significantly more likely to have any post-operative complication (risk ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66) and death (risk ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.64) compared to nonsmokers.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review found that smoking is associated with significantly higher risk of postoperative complication and mortality following TKA or THA. Studies examining longterm consequences of smoking on implant survival and complications are needed. Smoking cessation may improve outcomes after THA or TKA.

Strategies of smoking cessation intervention before hernia surgery—effect on perioperative smoking behavior

BACKGROUND

Although it is now generally accepted that patients should be advised to quit smoking before surgery, the effect of low-intensive smoking cessation intervention, both on preoperative smoking behavior and on risk reduction, remains unclear. Our objective was to study the effect on perioperative smoking behavior and on postoperative wound infection of different types of low-intensive intervention before herniotomy.

METHODS

Between October 1998 and October 2000, 180 consecutive smokers scheduled for elective herniotomy were advised to quit smoking perioperatively and subsequently allocated randomly to three low-intensive smoking cessation groups: a standard (control) group, a telephone group, which was reminded by telephone, and an out-patient group, which was reminded by means of an out-patient talk and demonstration of nicotine replacement drugs. Spontaneous perioperative smoking behavior was recorded for 64 consecutive non-advised smokers. Postoperative wound infection was evaluated by independent assessors.

RESULTS

Of the advised patients, 19% (29/149) stopped smoking before surgery compared with 2% (1/64) in the non-advised cohort (P < 0.01). In the standard group 13% (6/48) quit smoking compared with 23% (23/101) in the pooled telephone and outpatient group (NS). In the last group 64% (65/101) reduced or stopped smoking compared with 42% (20/48) in the standard group (P < 0.05). Predictors of failed perioperative cessation of smoking were a CO breath-test at inclusion above 20 ppm (OR: 0.11; 0.02-0-57) and low motivation to quit smoking (OR: 0.25; 0.09-0.70). Wound infection occurred in 6% (13/213) and there was no difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Low-intensive smoking cessation intervention helps approximately one fifth of patients to stop smoking perioperatively. Patients who are reminded in addition to preoperative advice are more likely to stop or reduce smoking. Failure to stop smoking is greater if the patients are not motivated and if the CO breath test is high at the time of the preoperative advice.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search was performed in: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register (Apr 2004), Cochrane controlled trials register (Apr 2004), CDC and Prevention-Tobacco Information and Prevention Database (Jul 2000), MEDLINE (1966-Apr 2004), Cancer Lit (1966-Apr 2004), EMBASE (1974-Apr 2004), CINAHL (1966-Jul 2000), PsycInfo (1861-Apr 2004), ERIC, PsycLit, & Dissertation Abstracts (1861-Dec 1999), SSCI (1972-Apr 2004) and HealthStar (1975-Jul 2000). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees, and co-worker). The search was also limited to English language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of 6 months or greater.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third reviewer was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence and biochemical assessment were the primary outcome measures and were analyzed at two post-treatment intervals: 6-9 months and >12 months. The scores of PIQ (partner interaction questionnaire) were also analyzed to assess partner support. A fixed-effects model was used to assess the summary effect of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 40 articles were identified for this review. Only eight articles (nine studies) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied among the studies. All studies included data on self reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence rates. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence at 6-9 months was 1.08 (CI 95%, 0.81 -1.44); and at 12 months post-treatment was 1.0 (CI 95%, 0.75 - 1.34). Of the six studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review of the randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programs, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions did not increase partner support either. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. More systematic intervention to affect partnership significantly should be delivered if partner support were part of an existing cessation program.