Both smoking reduction with nicotine replacement therapy and motivational advice increase future cessation among smokers unmotivated to quit

Increase of unmotivated and hardened smokers in Hong Kong: a repeated cross-sectional trend analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine the trends in the prevalence of hardening indicators and hardened smokers in Hong Kong, where the low smoking prevalence has plateaued in the recent decade.

METHODS

This is an analysis of repeated cross-sectional data from 9 territory-wide smoking cessation campaigns conducted annually from 2009 to 2018 (except 2011). Participants were 9837 biochemically verified daily cigarette smokers aged ≥18 years (18.5% female, mean age 43.2±14.2 years) recruited from the communities. Hardening indicators included heavy smoking (>15 CPD), high nicotine dependence (Heaviness of Smoking Index ≥5), no intention to quit within next 30 days and no past-year quit attempt. Perceived importance, confidence and difficulty of quitting were measured (each ranged 0-10). Multivariable regressions were used to model the changes in hardening indicators by calendar year, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, the prevalence of heavy smoking decreased from 57.6% to 39.4% (p<0.001), high nicotine dependence also decreased from 10.5% to 8.6% (p=0.06). However, the proportion of smokers with no intention to quit (12.7%-69.0%) and no past-year quit attempt (74.4%-80.4%) significantly increased (both p values <0.001). Hardened smokers (heavy smoking, no intention to quit, no past-year attempt quit attempt) significantly increased from 5.9% to 20.7% (p<0.001). Mean perceived importance (from 7.9±2.3 to 6.6±2.5) and confidence (from 6.2±2.6 to 5.3±2.4) of quitting also decreased significantly (all p values <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily cigarette smokers in Hong Kong were motivational hardening, but not dependence hardening. Effective tobacco control policies and interventions are warranted to motivate quitting to further reduce smoking prevalence.

Enabling tobacco treatment for gastroenterology patients via a novel low-burden point-of-care model

BACKGROUND & AIM

Smoking is a major risk factor for multiple gastrointestinal cancers, and adversely affects peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, pancreatitis and Crohn's disease. Despite key recommendations for diagnosing and treating tobacco use disorder in healthcare settings, the degree to which this is implemented in Gastroenterology (GI) clinics is unknown. We aimed to assess our providers' practices, identify barriers for implementing evidence-based smoking cessation treatments, and address these barriers by implementing a novel low-burden point of care Electronic health record-enabled evidence-based tobacco treatment (ELEVATE), in GI clinics.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to clinic gastroenterologists. ELEVATE module training was implemented in 1/2021. Data were evaluated during pre (7/2020-12/2020) and post (1/2021-12/2021) implementation periods to evaluate the reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to generate rate ratios (RR) to evaluate the intervention.

RESULTS

91% (20/22) of GI physicians responded to our survey, and only 20% often assisted patients who smoke with counseling. Lack of a systematic program to offer help to patients was reported by 80% of providers as an extremely/very important barrier limiting their smoking cessation practices. The proportion of current patients who smoke receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (14.36-27.47%, RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.60-2.26, p < .001). Post-ELEVATE, 14.4% (38/264) of patients with treatment quit smoking, compared to 7.9% (55/697) of patients without treatment (RR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.26-2.82, p = .0021).

CONCLUSION

Smoking practices are frequently assessed in GI clinics but barriers limiting cessation treatment exist. The use of a low burden point of care EHR enabled smoking cessation treatment module has led to a significant improvement in the treatment of smoking and subsequent cessation in our clinics. This study sheds light on an often under-recognized source of morbidity in GI patients and identifies an efficient, effective, and scalable strategy to combat tobacco use and improve clinical outcomes in our patients.

A Motivational Interviewing Chatbot With Generative Reflections for Increasing Readiness to Quit Smoking: Iterative Development Study

BACKGROUND

The motivational interviewing (MI) approach has been shown to help move ambivalent smokers toward the decision to quit smoking. There have been several attempts to broaden access to MI through text-based chatbots. These typically use scripted responses to client statements, but such nonspecific responses have been shown to reduce effectiveness. Recent advances in natural language processing provide a new way to create responses that are specific to a client's statements, using a generative language model.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to design, evolve, and measure the effectiveness of a chatbot system that can guide ambivalent people who smoke toward the decision to quit smoking with MI-style generative reflections.

METHODS

Over time, 4 different MI chatbot versions were evolved, and each version was tested with a separate group of ambivalent smokers. A total of 349 smokers were recruited through a web-based recruitment platform. The first chatbot version only asked questions without reflections on the answers. The second version asked the questions and provided reflections with an initial version of the reflection generator. The third version used an improved reflection generator, and the fourth version added extended interaction on some of the questions. Participants' readiness to quit was measured before the conversation and 1 week later using an 11-point scale that measured 3 attributes related to smoking cessation: readiness, confidence, and importance. The number of quit attempts made in the week before the conversation and the week after was surveyed; in addition, participants rated the perceived empathy of the chatbot. The main body of the conversation consists of 5 scripted questions, responses from participants, and (for 3 of the 4 versions) generated reflections. A pretrained transformer-based neural network was fine-tuned on examples of high-quality reflections to generate MI reflections.

RESULTS

The increase in average confidence using the nongenerative version was 1.0 (SD 2.0; P=.001), whereas for the 3 generative versions, the increases ranged from 1.2 to 1.3 (SD 2.0-2.3; P<.001). The extended conversation with improved generative reflections was the only version associated with a significant increase in average importance (0.7, SD 2.0; P<.001) and readiness (0.4, SD 1.7; P=.01). The enhanced reflection and extended conversations exhibited significantly better perceived empathy than the nongenerative conversation (P=.02 and P=.004, respectively). The number of quit attempts did not significantly change between the week before the conversation and the week after across all 4 conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that generative reflections increase the impact of a conversation on readiness to quit smoking 1 week later, although a significant portion of the impact seen so far can be achieved by only asking questions without the reflections. These results support further evolution of the chatbot conversation and can serve as a basis for comparison against more advanced versions.

Effect of unguided e-cigarette provision on uptake, use, and smoking cessation among adults who smoke in the USA: a naturalistic, randomised, controlled clinical trial

Background

As summarised in the most recent Cochrane review, the few clinical trials on e-cigarettes are largely focused on smoking cessation. We aimed to determine the naturalistic uptake, use, and impact of e-cigarettes among adults who may or may not want to stop smoking.

Methods

In this naturalistic, randomised, controlled clinical trial, adult smokers, across the motivational spectrum and with minimal history of e-cigarette use, were recruited online from the general community within 11 cities across the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to either receive either a free 4-week supply of flavoured, tank-style e-cigarette, or not. E-cigarette group participants received a battery and device with up to 30 pre-filled tanks, offered among five flavours, with minimal instructions on use. The study's primary purpose was to descriptively assess naturalistic uptake and usage of the e-cigarette, and to secondarily assess its impact on smoking behavior. The latter, assessed through six months of follow-up, included: a) self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence, b) incidence of quit attempts, and c) smoking reduction. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03453385.

Findings

Between 5/2018 and 3/2022, 638 adult smokers were enrolled and randomly assigned (427 in the e-cigarette group and 211 in the no-product control group). Uptake of e-cigarettes was robust: approximately 70% of participants used the product, with average usage exceeding 4 days per week during the initial 30 days. Based on an intent-to-treat approach where missing data is imputed as smoking, almost all behavioral outcomes favored the e-cigarette group relative to no-product control, including point prevalence abstinence at six months (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.8; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.0-3.1), cumulative incidence of 24-hr quit attempts (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.0-2.2), and having reduced smoking by at least 50% since baseline (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.2-2.7). Results were similar under an alternative imputation.

Interpretation

Complementing cessation-focused trials, results suggest that unguided e-cigarette use also leads to smoking cessation, allaying the notion that causal effects of e-cigarettes on cessation are not reflective of real-world scenario of self-determined use. For smokers who may not be able to quit using existing pharmacologic approaches, e-cigarettes may be considered to achive that purpose.

Funding

National Cancer Institute.

"And then I found $5": Optimizing recruitment efficiency in remote clinical trials

Introduction

As clinical trials adopt remote methodologies, there is need to optimize efficiency of remote enrollment. Within a remote clinical trial, we aim to (1) assess if sociodemographic factors differ among those consenting via mail vs. technology-based procedures (e-consent), (2) determine if, among those consenting via mail, a small unconditional monetary reward ($5) increases likelihood of subsequent enrollment, (3) economically evaluate additional cost per additional participant enrolled with $5 reward.

Methods

In the parent nationwide randomized clinical trial of adult smokers (N = 638), participants could enroll via mail or e-consent. Logistic regression models assessed relationships between sociodemographics and enrollment via mail (vs e-consent). Mailed consent packets were randomized (1:4) to include $5 unconditional reward or not, and logistic regression modeling examined impact of reward on subsequent enrollment, allowing for a randomized study within a study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis estimated additional cost per additional participant enrolled with $5 incentive.

Results

Older age, less education, lower income, and female sex predicted enrolling via mail vs e-consent (p < .05's). In adjusted model, older age (AOR = 1.02, p = .016) and less education (AOR = 2.23, p < .001) remained predictive of mail enrollment. The $5 incentive (vs none) increased enrollment rate by 9% (AOR = 1.64, p = .007), with estimated cost of additional $59 per additional participant enrolled.

Conclusions

As e-consent methods become more common, they have potential to reach many individuals but with perhaps diminished inclusion across all sociodemographic groups. Provision of an unconditional monetary incentive is possibly a cost-effective mechanism to increase recruitment efficiency for studies employing mail-based consenting procedures.

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.

Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT

Background

Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear.

Objectives

The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective.

Design

This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation.

Setting and participants

Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458).

Intervention

The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed.

Results

The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236).

Conclusions

There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective.

Limitations

Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence.

Future work

Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579.

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. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Planning a Change Easily (PACE) for smokers who are not ready to quit: a telephone-based, randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare brief advice (BA), motivational interviewing (MI), rate reduction (RR), and combined MI and RR (MI + RR) to promote smoking cessation in smokers not ready to quit.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with four parallel groups of smoking cessation intervention. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to receive one of the following interventions: BA (n = 128), MI (n = 258), RR (n = 257), and MI + RR (n = 260).

SETTING

The United States. All participant contact occurred over the telephone to be consistent with the typical quit line format.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 903 adult smokers. Participants had a mean age of 49 (SD = 13.3) years and were 28.9% male and 63.3% Caucasian.

INTERVENTIONS

The BA group received advice similar to typical smoking cessation quit lines. The MI group received advice using basic MI principles to elicit language that indicates behavioral change. The RR group received behavioral skills training and nicotine gum. The MI + RR group combined elements of MI and RR conditions. All interventions were six sessions.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure was self-reported point prevalence at 12 months. The secondary outcome was self-reported prolonged abstinence at 12 months.

FINDINGS

Intention to treat (ITT) point prevalence at 12 months indicated that BA (10.9%) had significantly lower point prevalence rates than RR (27.2%, OR = 3.17, 1.69-5.94), and MI + RR (26.9%, OR = 3.16, 1.68-5.93). BA did not have a significantly lower point prevalence rate than MI (15.5%, OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.81-3.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled trial provided evidence that rate reduction, which offers structured behavioral skills and nicotine gum, either alone or combined with motivational interviewing, is the most effective form of cessation intervention for smokers not ready to quit.

Effect of Technology-Assisted Brief Abstinence Game on Long-term Smoking Cessation in Individuals Not Yet Ready to Quit: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Most trials of behavioral or pharmaceutical interventions for people who smoke are limited to individuals reporting they are ready to quit smoking. Engaging individuals who initially report they are not yet ready to quit in brief, precessation, skills-building interventions (eg, practice quit attempts or nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] sampling) is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To test an integrated behavioral plus NRT-sampling intervention using a gamification approach supported by mobile health.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multisite randomized clinical trial with site-level 1-to-1 allocation into 2 conditions was conducted in 4 US health care systems. A total of 433 individuals who were currently smoking and reported at enrollment that they were not ready to quit smoking were enrolled. The study was conducted from November 7, 2016, to July 31, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Take a Break (TAB) was a 3-week game experience and included 5 behavioral components (motivational messaging, challenge quizzes, brief abstinence goal setting, mobile health apps for cravings management, and reward points for participation) integrated with NRT sampling. TAB draws on social cognitive theory and game mechanics concepts to engage participants in health behavior change. The comparison included NRT sampling only.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Time to first quit attempt (duration from TAB experience to primary outcome) and carbon monoxide level-verified smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up. All analyses used an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

Of the 433 individuals included in the trial, 223 were women (52%); mean (SD) age was 54 (13) years. More than half (53% [112 of 213]) of the TAB participants completed 100% of the daily challenge quizzes in the first week, 73% (145 of 199) of participants who completed the goal-setting call set a brief abstinence goal (most frequently 1-2 days of abstinence from cigarettes), and 75% (159 of 213) of participants used the mobile health apps to manage nicotine cravings. Time to the first quit attempt was lower for the TAB vs comparison group (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60; P = .02). At the 6-month follow-up, 18% (28 of 160) of TAB participants and 10% (17 of 171) of the comparison (χ2 test, P = .045) participants obtained carbon monoxide level-verified smoking cessation (accounting for clustering of outcomes by site; odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.01-3.68; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this randomized clinical trial demonstrate that individuals not yet ready to quit smoking could be engaged in a brief abstinence game. Six months later, the TAB group had nearly double the rate of smoking cessation vs the NRT sampling comparison group. Integrating a skills-building game experience with brief NRT sampling can enhance long-term cessation among those not yet ready to quit smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02973425.

A novel smoking-specific self-control task: An initial study of feasibility, acceptability, and changes in self-control and cigarette smoking behaviors among adults using cigarettes

Objective: Self-control is a key factor in quitting cigarettes and practicing general self-control tasks may strengthen self-control. This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a novel smoking-related self-control task. Method: Seventy-five adults with current cigarette smoking (M_age = 44.8, 74.7% male, 63.5% Black, 74.3% non-Latinx) were randomly assigned to practice a smoking-specific self-control task (Delay Smoking Task, n = 39) or a general self-control task (Posture Task, n = 36) for 1 week. Assessments included cigarettes per day (CPD), motivation to quit smoking, self-control, and task acceptability. Results: Most participants completed both appointments with no difference between task groups (p = .69). The Delay Smoking Task group rated the task as more difficult (p = .04) and more helpful for quitting smoking (p = .005) than did the Posture Task group. Self-control task groups did not differ in task effort (p = .66), task success (p = .14), or self-control used to practice the task (p = .13). Both task groups reported increased quit desire, expected quit success, quit confidence, and quit motivation (p < .05; partial η²s = 0.108-0.333). The time by task group interaction approached significance for expected quit success (p = .06; partial η² = .053), with the Delay Smoking Task group showing greater increases than the Posture Task group. Over the week, smoking decreased an average of 1.0 CPD with no difference between groups (p = .72; partial η² = 0.165). Conclusions: Practicing self-control was associated with increases in motivation to quit, confidence in quitting, and expected success at quitting smoking with similar changes for those practicing a smoking-specific versus a general self-control task. Self-control tasks may be useful for increasing motivation to quit cigarettes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Serious Psychological Distress Is Associated with Higher Intentions to Quit among Smokers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 has increased the rates of serious psychological distress (SPD) among the general population. However, the SPD among smokers during the pandemic remains understudied. In a parent study, 1,004 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD were randomized to view messages about COVID-19 risk, smoking risk, combined COVID-19 and smoking risk, or control. Outcomes were smoking quit intentions and COVID-19 protective behavior intentions. We analyzed the prevalence of SPD among current smokers; the associations between SPD, personal characteristics, and smoking and COVID-19 protective behavioral intentions; and whether SPD moderated the effect of messages about risks of smoking and COVID-19.Thirty-six percent of smokers met the criteria for SPD. Odds of having SPD were higher for older, everyday smokers, who had COVID-19, had poor health and conservative ideology. Smokers with SPD were significantly more likely to report intentions to quit smoking and seek counseling than smokers without SPD, controlling for demographics, readiness to quit, and message condition. SPD was not significantly related to COVID-19 protective intentions. The interactions between SPD and messages were nonsignificant. During the pandemic, smokers with SPD may be motivated to quit smoking, which provides an opportunity for targeted interventions to increase quit attempts.

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.

Smoking cessation, but not reduction, reduces cardiovascular disease incidence

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the association of smoking cessation and reduction with risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 897 975 current smokers aged ≥40 years who had undergone two consecutive national health examinations (in 2009 and 2011) were included. Participants were classified as quitters (20.6%), reducers I (≥50% reduction, 7.3%), reducers II (20-50% reduction, 11.6%), sustainers (45.7%), and increasers (≥20% increase, 14.5%). During 5 575 556 person-years (PY) of follow-up, 17 748 stroke (3.2/1000 PY) and 11 271 myocardial infarction (MI) (2.0/1000 PY) events were identified. Quitters had significantly decreased risk of stroke [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.77 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.81; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.31] and MI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.78; ARR -0.27, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.22) compared to sustainers after adjustment for demographic factors, comorbidities, and smoking status. The risk of stroke and MI incidence in reducers I (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.08 and aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06, respectively) and reducers II (aHR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95-1.05 and aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.04, respectively) was not significantly different from the risk in sustainers. Further analysis with a subgroup who underwent a third examination (in 2013) showed that those who quit at the second examination but had starting smoking again by the third examination had 42-69% increased risk of CVD compared to sustained quitters.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation, but not reduction, was associated with reduced CVD risk. Our study emphasizes the importance of sustained quitting in terms of CVD risk reduction.

Clinical practice guideline: evidence, recommendations and algorithm for the preoperative optimization of anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking

Preoperative optimization has not been explored comprehensively in the surgical literature, as this responsibility has often been divided among surgery, anesthesia and medicine. We developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to summarize existing evidence and present diagnostic and treatment algorithms for use by surgeons caring for patients scheduled to undergo major elective surgery. We focus on 3 common comorbid conditions seen across surgical specialties - anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking - as these conditions increase complication rates in patients undergoing major surgery and can be optimized successfully as soon as 6-8 weeks before surgery. With the ability to address these conditions earlier in the patient journey, surgeons can positively affect patient outcomes. The aim of this guideline is to bring optimization in the preoperative period under the existing umbrella of evidence-based surgical care.

Time to put it out - nurse-facilitated tobacco treatment in a comprehensive cancer center

Few cancer patients receive guideline-concordant care for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this pilot trial was to obtain preliminary estimates of effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention on the delivery of tobacco treatment and cessation outcomes in cancer patients. We conducted a pragmatic implementation trial with a before-after design in 119 current or recently quit adult smokers with cancer who met with a clinician at a single National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) (n = 61 pre-implementation, n = 58 post-implementation). We used a multi-component strategy based on the Chronic Care Model to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation counseling during the index visit was assessed by exit interview and patients were interviewed by phone to assess cessation outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Performance of cessation counseling and 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) were compared across the pre- and post-implementation periods using log-logistic regression, accounting for clustering by nursing staff. More patients had received assistance in quitting at the index visit during the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (30 vs. 10%, p < .01). At 3-month follow-up, 38 and 14% of participants had discussed smoking cessation medication with a CCC healthcare professional and 57 and 27% of participants had used pharmacotherapy, respectively (p < .01 for both comparisons). Seven-day PPA at 3-month follow-up was similar in both periods, however (14 vs. 12%, respectively). A multi-component tobacco treatment intervention increased the proportion of smokers who received assistance in quitting smoking during usual cancer care but did not improve cessation outcomes.

Increasing treatment enrollment among smokers who are not motivated to quit: a randomized clinical trial

There is a significant research-to-practice gap with respect to reaching underserved populations with evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments. Increasing enrollment in evidence-based treatments is necessary to reduce tobacco use and tobacco-related health inequities. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether Motivation And Problem Solving (MAPS), a flexible, holistic counseling/navigation approach delivered via phone, and proactive provision of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) would improve Quitline enrollment among a sample of low SES smokers who were not motivated to quit. In a 3×2 factorial design, cigarette smokers (N = 603) were randomized to one of six treatment conditions (Standard Treatment, MAPS-6, or MAPS-12 by NRT or no NRT). Results indicated that both MAPS-6 and MAPS-12 increased Quitline enrollment compared to Standard Treatment (ps < .03). There were no differences between MAPS conditions. NRT did not increase Quitline enrollment. MAPS is an effective intervention with the potential to be disseminated and implemented in healthcare and community settings to increase the reach of evidence-based interventions for tobacco cessation.

The effect of nicotine dependence and withdrawal symptoms on use of nicotine replacement therapy: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in primary care

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is effective for smoking cessation, but the optimal method of using NRT to maximize benefit is unclear. We examined whether nicotine dependence was associated with consumption of NRT, whether this was mediated by withdrawal symptoms, and the impact of these factors on cessation, in a population advised to use as much NRT as needed.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from an open label, parallel group randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 539) attended a smoking cessation clinic in primary care and remained engaged with treatment for at least one week following a quit attempt. Baseline dependence was measured by the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD), with tobacco exposure assessed via an exhaled carbon monoxide test. At one week after quit day, mean daily consumption of NRT was measured for all participants; withdrawal (Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS)) was also assessed in the subsample who reported being completely abstinent to that point (n = 279). Abstinence was biochemically assessed at four weeks for all participants as the principal smoking cessation outcome.

RESULTS

Each point higher on the FTCD was associated with 0.83 mg/day more NRT consumption, controlling for tobacco exposure. This relationship was diminished when withdrawal was controlled for, and withdrawal was associated with NRT consumption, with each point higher on the MPSS associated with a 0.12 mg/day increase. Increased consumption of NRT directly predicted subsequent smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher dependence appears to lead to greater withdrawal, which appears to drive greater use of NRT. This effect may partly offset lower abstinence rates in people with higher dependence. Advice to use sufficient NRT to suppress withdrawal may increase abstinence rates.

LGB Tobacco Control: Do Health Belief Model Constructs Predict Tobacco Use Intentions Differently between LGB and Heterosexual Individuals?

This research includes two studies testing whether the Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs predict tobacco use intentions differently between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people. Focusing on cigarette smoking, Study 1 (n = 1808 U.S. adult current smokers) found that the perceived health threat and perceived benefits of smoking differently predicted intentions to continue smoking between heterosexual and LGB smokers. The perceived health threat of smoking had a weaker negative relationship and perceived benefits of smoking had a stronger positive relationship with smoking intentions among LGB smokers than heterosexual smokers. Focusing on vaping, Study 2 (n = 2801 U.S. adults) found that the perceived health threat and perceived barriers of vaping differentially predicted vaping intentions between heterosexual and LGB individuals. The perceived health threat of vaping only negatively predicted vaping intentions among heterosexual people. Perceived barriers to vaping had a stronger negative relationship with intentions to vape among LGB people than among heterosexual people. Our finding suggests that compared to perceptions of tobacco-related health consequences (perceived heath threat), behavioral perceptions (perceived benefits and barriers) may have stronger impacts on tobacco use intentions among LGB people. Thus, efforts focusing on reducing tobacco-related disparities among the LGB community should address perceived benefits and barriers of tobacco use.

Will E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages with a Nicotine Warning Polarize Smokers' Beliefs about the Efficacy of Switching Completely to E-Cigarettes in Reducing Smoking-Related Risks?

In the U.S., e-cigarette companies can apply for permission to use reduced or modified risk messages (MRMs) in their marketing materials. Because e-cigarette marketing materials should have a nicotine addictiveness warning, MRMs and a nicotine warning could appear together-resulting in a conflicting message. When reading a conflicting message, individuals assimilate evidence supporting their pre-existing beliefs and eventually develop stronger beliefs, diverging more from those with different pre-existing beliefs (i.e., polarization). This study examined if exposure to e-cigarette MRMs with a nicotine warning polarizes smokers' initially opposing beliefs about the efficacy of switching completely to e-cigarettes in reducing smoking-related risks, and if this polarization depends on individuals' need for closure. An online experiment randomized 761 U.S. adult smokers to either three MRMs with a nicotine warning or three control messages. People reported their perceived efficacy of switching completely to e-cigarettes at pre- and posttest and need for closure at pretest. Linear regression showed no polarization effects. Nonetheless, need for closure and pretest efficacy beliefs influenced message response: MRMs with a nicotine warning only enhanced efficacy beliefs of smokers with low pretest efficacy beliefs and low need for closure. Evaluation of e-cigarette mixed communication should consider individuals' motivational and cognitive differences.

Predictors of Enrollment of Older Smokers in Six Smoking Cessation Trials in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: The Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration

SIGNIFICANCE

Increased rates of smoking cessation will be essential to maximize the population benefit of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. The NCI's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration includes eight randomized trials, each assessing evidence-based interventions among smokers undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS). We examined predictors of trial enrollment to improve future outreach efforts for cessation interventions offered to older smokers in this and other clinical settings.

METHODS

We included the six SCALE trials that randomized individual participants. We assessed demographics, intervention modalities, LCS site and trial administration characteristics, and reasons for declining.

RESULTS

Of 6,285 trial- and LCS-eligible individuals, 3,897 (62%) declined and 2,388 (38%) enrolled. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, Blacks had higher enrollment rates (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2,1.8) compared to Whites. Compared to 'NRT Only' trials, those approached for 'NRT+prescription medication' trials had higher odds of enrollment (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.7,7.9). Regarding enrollment methods, trials using 'Phone+In Person' methods had higher odds of enrollment (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2,1.9) compared to trials using 'Phone Only' methods. Some of the reasons for declining enrollment included 'too busy' (36.6%), 'not ready to quit' (8.2%), 'not interested in research' (7.7%), and 'not interested in the intervention offered' (6.2%).

CONCLUSION

Enrolling smokers in cessation interventions in the LCS setting is a major priority that requires multiple enrollment and intervention modalities. Barriers to enrollment provide insights that can be addressed and applied to future cessation interventions to improve implementation in LCS and other clinical settings with older smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

We explored enrollment rates and reasons for declining across six smoking cessation trials in the lung cancer screening setting. Offering multiple accrual methods and pharmacotherapy options predicted increased enrollment across trials. Enrollment rates were also greater among Blacks compared to Whites. The findings offer practical information for the implementation of cessation trials and interventions in the lung cancer screening context and other clinical settings, regarding intervention modalities that may be most appealing to older, long-term smokers.

Effects of modified risk tobacco product claims on consumer comprehension and risk perceptions of IQOS

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco industry studies on consumers' perceptions of modified risk claims (MRCs) often had important omissions (eg, no control group, not investigating whether consumers understand what 'switching completely' means). This study examined the effects of IQOS MRCs on risk perceptions and behavioural intentions.

METHOD

Based on tobacco companies' MRCs, we manipulated three MRC language features: explanation about 'switching completely' (absent vs present), number of diseases (single vs multiple) and language certainty (hypothetical vs certain). In an online experiment, we randomised 1523 US adult current smokers and 1391 young adult non-smokers to 1 of 9 conditions following a 2×2×2+1 control design. People reported their comprehension of 'switching completely', IQOS risk perceptions and behavioural intentions after message exposure.

RESULTS

More smokers exposed to MRCs that included an explanation about 'switching completely' (22.2%) (vs explanation absent (11.2%) and control (10.7%)) mentioned that 'switching completely' meant smoking 0 cigarettes. Compared with the control, several MRCs (eg, certain language) produced lower perceived risk of IQOS, including for diseases not mentioned in the MRCs. MRCs using certain and hypothetical language did not differ on any outcomes. MRCs highlighting reduced risk for a single disease and multiple diseases did not differ on any outcomes. MRCs did not influence behavioural intentions.

CONCLUSION

The Food and Drug Administration should ensure that consumers understand what 'switching completely' means in an MRC and recognize that some language features may mislead consumers into believing that a product reduces the risk of diseases not mentioned in an MRC.

Why and how do dual users quit vaping? Survey findings from adults who use electronic and combustible cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Most adults who use electronic cigarettes (ECs) also smoke combustible cigarettes (CCs). Quitting ECs appears common among dual users but little is known regarding adult dual users’ motivations and methods to quit ECs or how this relates to quitting CCs.

METHODS

We used Amazon Mechanical Turk, a web-based crowd-sourcing service, to survey 366 US adults with a history of regular EC and CC use. This analysis examined motivations and methods to quit both products among a subset of 204 (55.7%) respondents with dual use and a history of one or more attempts to quit ECs.

RESULTS

Most respondents (95%) were using ECs at the time of this survey and had a lifetime median of five EC quit attempts. The most common motivations to quit ECs were health (74%), money/cost (45%), and to reduce risk of COVID-19 (25%). The most common EC quit methods were cutting down (68%), getting advice from a doctor (28%), quitting 'cold turkey' (24%), nicotine replacement therapy (24%), and switching to ECs with less nicotine (24%). Most motivations and methods to quit ECs and CCs were moderately to highly correlated, suggesting similarity in dual users’ approach to quitting the two products.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual users had a range of motivations and methods to quit ECs, most of which were similar to their motivations and methods to quit CCs. These findings support the need to develop treatment for adults motivated to quit ECs and demonstrate that dual users may currently engage in similar strategies to quit both products.

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 e-Cigarettes Plus Counseling vs Counseling Alone on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) for smoking cessation remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate e-cigarettes with individual counseling for smoking cessation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized clinical trial enrolled adults motivated to quit smoking from November 2016 to September 2019 at 17 Canadian sites (801 individuals screened; 274 ineligible and 151 declined). Manufacturing delays resulted in early termination (376/486 participants, 77% of target). Outcomes through 24 weeks (March 2020) are reported.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization to nicotine e-cigarettes (n = 128), nonnicotine e-cigarettes (n = 127), or no e-cigarettes (n = 121) for 12 weeks. All groups received individual counseling.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was point prevalence abstinence (7-day recall, biochemically validated using expired carbon monoxide) at 12 weeks, changed from 52 weeks following early termination. Participants missing data were assumed to be smoking. The 7 secondary end points, examined at multiple follow-ups, were point prevalence abstinence at other follow-ups, continuous abstinence, daily cigarette consumption change, serious adverse events, adverse events, dropouts due to adverse effects, and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

Among 376 randomized participants (mean age, 52 years; 178 women [47%]), 299 (80%) and 278 (74%) self-reported smoking status at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. Point prevalence abstinence was significantly greater for nicotine e-cigarettes plus counseling vs counseling alone at 12 weeks (21.9% vs 9.1%; risk difference [RD], 12.8 [95% CI, 4.0 to 21.6]) but not 24 weeks (17.2% vs 9.9%; RD, 7.3 [95% CI, -1.2 to 15.7]). Point prevalence abstinence for nonnicotine e-cigarettes plus counseling was not significantly different from counseling alone at 12 weeks (17.3% vs 9.1%; RD, 8.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 16.6]), but was significantly greater at 24 weeks (20.5% vs 9.9%; RD, 10.6 [95% CI, 1.8 to 19.4]). Adverse events were common (nicotine e-cigarette with counseling: 120 [94%]; nonnicotine e-cigarette with counseling: 118 [93%]; counseling only: 88 [73%]), with the most common being cough (64%) and dry mouth (53%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults motivated to quit smoking, nicotine e-cigarettes plus counseling vs counseling alone significantly increased point prevalence abstinence at 12 weeks. However, the difference was no longer significant at 24 weeks, and trial interpretation is limited by early termination and inconsistent findings for nicotine and nonnicotine e-cigarettes, suggesting further research is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02417467.

Communicating risk differences between electronic and combusted cigarettes: the role of the FDA-mandated addiction warning and a nicotine fact sheet

INTRODUCTION

The US Food and Drug Administration requires e-cigarettes to carry a nicotine addiction warning. This research compared the effects of messages communicating comparative risk of electronic and combusted cigarettes (CR messages) with and without the mandated warning and tested the effects of showing a nicotine fact sheet (NFS) before exposure to CR messages with warning.

METHOD

In an online experiment, 1528 US adult smokers were randomised to one of four conditions: (1) three CR messages, (2) three CR messages in condition one with an addiction warning, (3) an NFS followed by the three messages in condition 2 and (4) control messages. Outcomes included message reactions and perceived effectiveness, e-cigarette-related and cigarette-related beliefs and behavioural intentions and nicotine-related beliefs.

RESULTS

CR messages with and without an addiction warning did not differ. The NFS condition produced higher odds of correctly understanding the risk of nicotine and stronger beliefs that switching to e-cigarettes could reduce health risks (response efficacy) than other treatments. Compared with control, all messages made it more likely for people to report e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes and increased response efficacy and switch intentions to e-cigarettes. Only NFS condition increased correct beliefs about the risk of nicotine and self-efficacy about switching to e-cigarettes.

CONCLUSION

Including an addiction warning on CR messages did not reduce intentions to switch to e-cigarettes. Communicating accurate risk of nicotine together with CR messages and addiction warning increased smokers' self-efficacy beliefs about switching completely to e-cigarettes, making it a potentially promising antitobacco communication strategy.

Development of a Mobile Health Intervention with Personal Experiments for Smokers Who Are Ambivalent About Quitting: Formative Design and Testing

Background

The majority of cigarette smokers want to quit someday but are not ready to commit to long-term abstinence. However, available smoking cessation treatments are not well-suited to meet the needs of these ambivalent smokers. Low-cost, high-reach mobile health (mHealth) interventions may be a cost-efficient means of offering assistance to ambivalent smokers, yet there are currently no evidence-based options available for this group.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop and preliminarily evaluate the core content for an mHealth program targeting adult smokers who are ambivalent about quitting. The core content consisted of a series of “personal experiments” similar to those tested as part of a counseling intervention in prior work, including brief cognitive or behavioral tasks designed to boost readiness for changing smoking behavior.

Methods

We conducted individual user interviews (N=3) to refine program content, and then conducted a one-arm pilot study (N=25) to assess user receptivity and the potential impact of the experiments on motivation and self-efficacy to quit or reduce smoking.

Results

In user interviews, participants liked the concept of the personal experiments. Participants in the pilot study found a medium-fidelity prototype to be highly acceptable. After watching a brief orientation video that explained how the program works, most participants (80%, 20/25) indicated that it sounded interesting, primarily because it did not require any commitment to quit. All participants (100%, 25/25) completed all 7 experiments, including a 24-hour quit attempt, although not all were able to refrain from smoking for a full day based on qualitative feedback on the experiment. The mean rating of usefulness of the overall program was 4.12 (SD 1.09) out of 5, and the average rating of the difficulty of the experiments was 2.16 (SD 1.18) out of 5. At the last assessment point, 92% (23/25) of the participants indicated that they were more interested in either quitting or cutting back than when they began the program, and 72% (18/25) said that if the program had included a free trial of nicotine replacement therapy, they would have used it to try to quit smoking.

Conclusions

This formative work confirmed that ambivalent smokers are willing to use and will remain engaged with an mHealth intervention that employs the novel concept of personal experiments to enhance their motivation for and ability to quit smoking. The addition of action-oriented treatment (self-help and free nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral) could further support users’ efforts to stop smoking and remain quit.

A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of Brief Interventions to Encourage Quit Attempts in Smokers From Socioeconomic Disadvantage

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking disproportionately affects communities of low socioeconomic status where greater smoking prevalence and poorer cessation rates have been observed. Utilizing brief evidence-based interventions to increase cessation attempts may be an effective and easily disseminable means by which to mitigate undue burden in this population.

AIMS AND METHODS

The current intervention randomized daily smokers (N = 57) recruited from a local community soup kitchen to receive either Brief (eg, 30 m) Motivational Interviewing, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) sampling, or a Referral-Only intervention. Approximately half of participants (50.9%) reported not completing high school and many reported either just (41.4%) or not (40.4%) meeting basic expenses. Follow-up was completed approximately 1-month postintervention.

RESULTS

Nonsignificant group differences indicated that participants randomized to the NRT sampling condition were more likely to make a quit attempt (moderate effect size). Approximately 40% of the sample reported making a serious quit attempt at follow-up. Significant differences in cigarettes per day at follow-up, controlling for baseline, were observed, with participants in the Motivational Interviewing condition, only, reporting significant reductions. Participants randomized to the NRT condition were significantly more likely to report using NRT patch and lozenge at follow-up (large effect). There were no differences between groups with respect to seeking behavioral support. Finally, we found that subjective financial strain moderated the effect of condition on change in cigarette consumption where NRT sampling was more effective for participants reporting less financial strain.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide initial evidence for personalizing brief interventions to promote quit attempts in low-income smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

While most clinical research on tobacco use and dependence focuses on successful sustained abstinence, the current study is novel because it examined three brief interventions designed to increase the number of quit attempts made by a nontreatment-seeking group suffering from health disparities (ie, smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage). These data suggest that nontreatment-seeking smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage can be influenced by Brief MIs and these interventions should be used to motivate smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage to make a quit attempt. Future studies should examine combined MIs including pharmacological and behavioral interventions.

Implementing Living Independent From Tobacco With Dyads of People With Disabilities and Their Caregivers: Successes and Lessons Learned

People with disabilities have more health complications and higher healthcare utilization related to tobacco use than people without disabilities. Yet, they are less likely to use tobacco cessation resources. Important to meaningful and lasting health behavior change are relationships developed in the home, workplace, and community. Some people with disabilities rely on paid and unpaid caregivers. Just like people with disabilities, paid caregivers are more likely to use tobacco, creating a unique opportunity to target smoking cessation to people with disabilities and their caregivers. Living Independent From Tobacco (LIFT), an evidence-based tobacco cessation intervention, was implemented with dyads of people with disabilities (n = 5) and their caregivers (n = 7). Qualitative analyses revealed that participants valued the dyadic approach and the opportunity to learn coping skills to help with smoking cessation. Lessons for offering inclusive health promotion interventions to people with disabilities and their caregivers are discussed.

The 'Take a Break' game: Randomized trial protocol for a technology-assisted brief abstinence experience designed to engage lower-motivated smokers

BACKGROUND

While smoking continues to be the most preventable cause of mortality in the United States, most current smokers remain not ready to quit at any given time. Engaging these 'motivation phase' smokers with brief experiences to build confidence and practice skills related to cessation could lead to sooner and more successful quit attempts. Increasingly available mobile technology and gamification can be used to provide smokers with accessible and engaging support.

METHODS

We describe our protocol for conducting a randomized controlled trial evaluating Take a Break, an mHealth-based smoking pre-cessation challenge designed for smokers not ready to quit. Participants in the intervention receive 1) Motivational Messages, 2) text message Challenge Quizzes, 3) Goal-setting with tobacco treatment specialist, 4) Coping Mini-Games apps, and 5) Recognition and Rewards for participation during a 3-week challenge. Access to coping mini-games and motivational messaging continues for 6-months. Both intervention and comparison group participants receive brief Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) sampling and daily smoking assessment text messages for three weeks. Primary outcomes include number of days abstinent during the challenge, change in patient-reported self-efficacy after the challenge, time to first quit attempt following the challenge, and 7-day point prevalent smoking cessation at six months.

CONCLUSION

Take a Break is an innovative approach to engage those not prepared for a quit attempt. Take a Break provides motivation phase smokers with tools and a brief experience to prepare them for a quit attempt, filling a gap in tobacco cessation support and current research.

Effectiveness of an Opt-Out Electronic Heath Record-Based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at an Urban Safety Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

To address the burden of tobacco use in underserved populations, our safety net hospital developed a tobacco treatment intervention consisting of an "opt-out" electronic health record-based best practice alert + order set, which triggers consultation to an inpatient tobacco treatment consult (TTC) service for all hospitalized smokers.

RESEARCH QUESTION

We sought to understand if the intervention would increase patient-level outcomes (receipt of tobacco treatment during hospitalization and at discharge; 6-month smoking abstinence) and improve hospital-wide performance on tobacco treatment metrics.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted two retrospective quasi-experimental analyses to examine effectiveness of the TTC service. Using a pragmatic design and multivariable logistic regression, we compared patient-level outcomes of receipt of nicotine replacement therapy and 6-month quit rates between smokers seen by the service (n = 505) and eligible smokers not seen because of time constraints (n = 680) between July 2016 and December 2016. In addition, we conducted an interrupted time series analysis to examine the effect of the TTC service on hospital-level performance measures, comparing reported Joint Commission measure rates for inpatient (Tob-2) and postdischarge (Tob-3) tobacco treatment preimplementation (January 2015-June 2016) vs postimplementation (July 2016-December 2017) of the intervention.

RESULTS

Compared with inpatient smokers not seen by the TTC service, smokers seen by the TTC service had higher odds of receiving nicotine replacement during hospitalization (260 of 505 [51.5%] vs 244 of 680 [35.9%]; adjusted ORs [AOR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.5-2.45]) and at discharge (164 of 505 [32.5%] vs 84 of 680 [12.4%]; AOR, 3.41 [95% CI, 2.54-4.61]), as well as higher odds of 6-month smoking abstinence (75 of 505 [14.9%] vs 68 of 680 [10%]; AOR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.03-2.12]). Hospital-wide, the intervention was associated with a change in slope trends for Tob-3 (P < .01), but not for Tob-2.

INTERPRETATION

The "opt-out" electronic health record-based TTC service at our large safety net hospital was effective at improving both patient-level outcomes and hospital-level performance metrics, and could be implemented at other safety net hospitals that care for hard-to-reach smokers.

Increasing Quit Attempts by Transitioning to Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes Versus Reducing Number of Cigarettes Per Day: A Secondary Analysis of an Exploratory Randomized Trial

Introduction

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed reducing nicotine with very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes. In contrast, reducing nicotine by reducing number of cigarettes per day (CPD) is common. Our prior findings demonstrate that VLNC cigarettes decreased dependence more and were more acceptable than reducing CPD. This secondary analysis explored which reduction strategy increased quit attempts (QA), self-efficacy, or intention to quit more.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of 68 adult daily smokers not ready to quit randomized to smoke VLNC cigarettes versus reduce CPD over 5 weeks. All participants smoked study cigarettes with nicotine yield similar to most commercial cigarettes ad lib for 1 week (baseline). Participants were then randomized to gradually reduce to 70%, 35%, 15%, and 3% of baseline nicotine over 4 weeks by either (1) transitioning to lower nicotine VLNC cigarettes or (2) reducing the number of full nicotine CPD. All participants received nicotine patches to aid reduction. We assessed (1) QAs using nightly and weekly self-reports, (2) Velicer’s Self-Efficacy to Quit measure weekly, and (3) the Intention-to-Quit Ladder nightly.

Results

More CPD (41%) than VLNC (17%) participants made any QA (odds ratio = 3.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.1, 10.5). There was no difference in QAs ≥24 h. Self-efficacy increased for VLNC but not CPD participants (interaction: F = 3.7, p < .01). The condition by time interaction for intention-to-quit was not significant.

Conclusions

Reducing number of CPD increased QAs more than reducing nicotine via switching to VLNC cigarettes. The lack of difference in longer QAs suggests replication tests are needed.

Implications

Reducing the frequency of smoking behavior (ie, CPD) could be a more effective strategy to increase QAs than reducing the magnitude of nicotine in each cigarette (ie, VLNC) per se.

E-Cigarette Quality Control: Impurity and Nicotine Level Analysis in Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquids

This work targets mainly the quality control of electronic cigarette liquids. It relies on an analytical control of a “32-product” sample made of several types of e-cigarette liquids taken from various supermarkets and tobacconist's offices in Morocco. All along this study, we made sure to check both the conformity of the nicotine level indicated in the packaging of each product and the existence of any other components inside the product, especially toxic or unknown impurities. The method used for this study is known under the name of high-performance liquid chromatography. For statistical analysis, we used Student's t-test for a single sample in order to analyze the relative differences between nicotine quantity reported in the product and the one measured during our experiment. Finally, we used linear regression test to determine the relationship between the nicotine level accuracy on the packaging and the level of toxic impurities in the products. The differences between the nicotine concentrations reported in the packages and the measured ones varied from −100% to +3.3%. The study showed that 31% of analyzed products have an accurate indication of the level of nicotine on the packaging. However, 47% of the studied products showed more than 20% difference between measure and packaging indication. In all analyzed samples, the level of impurities altered from 0 to 32.6%. Furthermore, the level of the nicotine breakdown products did not exceed 2% of the nicotine content in pretty much all of the samples. The actual nicotine content of electronic cigarette refill liquids is not always as precise as what is stated on the packaging; in addition to the level of impurities detected in several brands and that exceeds the European Pharmacopoeia standards, some may even present a risk of causing toxicological damage.

Reduction in Cigarettes per Day Prospectively Predicts Making a Quit Attempt: A Fine-Grained Secondary Analysis of a Natural History Study

INTRODUCTION

Reducing cigarettes per day (CPD) aided by medication increases quit attempts (QA) among smokers not trying to quit. If this is due to reducing CPD per se, then a greater reduction should predict making a QA.

AIMS AND METHODS

In this secondary analysis, 132 smokers completed nightly calls to report CPD, intention to quit tomorrow, and QAs over 12 weeks. We provided no treatment. We identified episodes of reduction and tested whether (1) percent reduction in CPD, (2) absolute reduction in CPD, (3) duration of reduction, or (4) CPD on the final day predicted a QA immediately after a reduction episode. We tested this separately among reduction episodes that began with and without an intention to quit.

RESULTS

Among the 1179 episodes that began without intention to quit, all four measures of reduction predicted making a QA. Greater percent reduction, longer duration, and fewer CPD on the final day were retained in a multivariate model (all p < .05). Among the 85 episodes that began with intention to quit, greater percent reduction and greater absolute reduction predicted making a QA. Only mean percent reduction was retained in a multivariate model (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results replicate and extend earlier studies by using fine-grained analyses and examining immediately proximal QAs in a sample of self-quitters. Findings suggest that reducing CPD per se increases the probability of a QA among smokers without intention to quit in a dose-related manner. Whether this is the case among smokers who intend to quit remains unclear.

IMPLICATIONS

Reducing CPD appears to be an effective strategy to increase the probability of making a QA for the majority of smokers who do not intend to quit in the near future. However, our findings are mixed regarding the effectiveness of reducing among smokers who intend to quit. Clinical interventions and policies that promote reducing CPD are likely to be an effective way to increase QAs. Reduction may be especially helpful for smokers who have not responded to traditional advice to stop abruptly.

Living Independent From Tobacco reduces cigarette smoking and improves general health status among long-term tobacco users with disabilities

BACKGROUND

People with disabilities disproportionately use tobacco and suffer associated negative health consequences. Research is needed to explore tobacco cessation programming for people with disabilities to counter these health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of Living Independent From Tobacco on tobacco use, knowledge and attitudes about tobacco use, coping skills, and perceived health status among people with disabilities. We also assessed participants' subjective impressions at post-test.

METHODS

Living Independent From Tobacco was evaluated via train the trainer model at three Midwestern sites serving people with disabilities. Outcomes were assessed at four time points: pre- and post-test (n = 30), and again at 1-month (n = 26) and 6-months (n = 13).

RESULTS

Long-term tobacco users with disabilities significantly reduced tobacco use from pre-test to post-test (p = 0.003), and, compared to baseline, this reduction continued to be significant 1-month after the intervention (p = 0.02). From pre-test to post-test, perceived health status significantly improved (p = 0.0001). No significant changes were observed across time points for knowledge and attitudes about tobacco use nor for coping skills. Qualitative data revealed the importance of coping skills to mitigate the negative effects of nicotine withdrawal. Peer accountability was also noted as an important source of motivation for tobacco cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the present study provide evidence for the short-term effectiveness of Living Independent From Tobacco to reduce tobacco use and improve health status among people with disabilities. Qualitative data revealed the importance of coping skills and peer accountability to support tobacco cessation. Implications for tobacco cessation programming for people with disabilities are discussed.

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.

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 (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.

Effect of Intensive Personalized "5As+5Rs" Intervention on Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Not Ready to Quit Immediately: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

The acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who are not ready to quit smoking immediately have an extremely low rate of cessation. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of intensive personalized '5As+5Rs'intervention (IPANR intervention) on smoking cessation in this population.

Methods

A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was carried out, which compared IPANR intervention with routine 5Rs (control) at Fu Xing Hospital, Capital Medical University, Bei Jing, China. Three hundred and twenty hospitalized ACS smokers who were not ready to quit were randomly distributed to IPANR intervention group comprising three individual counseling during hospitalization and 15 intensive follow-up sessions (weekly during months 1, 2, 3, and monthly thereafter until month 6) or 5Rs group in a 1:1 fashion by 8 cardiologists who were blinded to the allocation sequence. Primary end point was carbon monoxide-confirmed continuous abstinence rate (CAR) through week 9 to week 12. Secondary outcome included abstinence rate at 24 weeks.

Results

Overall, 97.5% (312/320) participants completed the trial. An intention-to-treat analysis showed statistically significant advantage of IPANR compared with control group at 4 weeks CAR (27.5% vs. 17.5%, RR = 1.571, 95% CI = 1.032-2.392, p = 0.032, number needed to treat (NNT) = 10), and abstinence rate at 24 weeks (23.8% vs.15.0%, RR 1.583, 95% CI = 0.998-2.512, p = 0.048, NNT: 11.36). At 24 weeks, cigarettes smoked per day by the patients who failed to quit were significant lower in IPANR group than 5Rs group (13.21 ± 8.23 vs. 17.45 ± 10.71; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The IPANR initiated during hospitalization, is a feasible and effective approach for smoking cessation in ACS patients not ready to quit immediately.

Implications

Smoking has a major impact on acute stages of ACS for recurrent ischemic events and long-term outcomes. However, there are few evidence-based treatments for smokers who are not ready to quit. This study described a cessation intervention initiated during hospitalization and included 15 intensive follow-up aimed at enabling ACS smokers who were not ready to quit immediately to deliver adequate motivational and behavior change counseling. Given its effectiveness demonstrated in this prospective study, this intervention in hospitalized ACS smokers might have the potential to substantially improve the cessation rate of ACS patients who are not ready to quit smoking immediately.

Higher negative emotions in response to cigarette pictorial warning labels predict higher quit intentions among smokers

BACKGROUND

Cigarette pictorial warning labels (PWLs) could produce stronger quit intentions than text-only warning labels (TWLs) due to greater emotional arousal. Yet, it remains unclear whether PWLs that elicit different levels of emotions produce different outcomes. To better understand the role of negative emotions in the effects of PWLs, this study developed two sets of PWLs arousing different emotional levels (high vs low) but equally high on informativeness and compared them to each other and to the current TWLs.

METHODS

Adult US smokers (n=1503) were randomised to view nine high-emotion-arousing or low-emotion-arousing PWLs or TWLs. After each label, participants reported the negative emotions they felt while looking at the label. After seeing all the labels, participants reported their intentions to quit smoking. Mediation analyses tested whether message condition influenced quit intentions indirectly through negative emotions.

RESULTS

Compared with TWLs, PWLs produced higher levels of negative emotions (b=0.27, SE=0.04, p<0.001). Compared with low-emotion arousing PWLs, high-emotion-arousing PWLs produced higher levels of negative emotions (b=0.24, SE=0.07, p<0.001). Higher negative emotions predicted stronger quit intentions (b=0.20, SE=0.03, p<0.001). Negative emotions mediated the effects of PWLs versus TWLs and high-emotion-arousing versus low- emotion-arousing PWLs on quit intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide additional evidence for negative emotions as the mechanism through which PWLs motivate smokers to consider quitting. The findings call on the Food and Drug Administration to design and implement high-emotion-arousing cigarette warning labels.

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.

Testing messages about comparative risk of electronic cigarettes and combusted cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Health agencies are grappling with communicating risks of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) compared with combusted cigarettes. This study examined smokers' responses to two types of comparative risk messages with one type incorporating more negative antismoking elements in the design.

METHODS

In an online experiment, 1400 US adult (18+ years) current smokers and recent quitters were randomised to view one of three comparative risk messages about e-cigarettes (CR messages), one of three comparative risk messages that included more negative antismoking elements in the design (CR- messages) or a control message. Selection of outcomes was guided by the antismoking message impact framework. Multivariate analyses of covariance and logistic regression models analysed effects of messages on message evaluations, e-cigarette-related and cigarette-related beliefs and behavioural intentions.

RESULTS

Both CR and CR- messages decreased smokers' intentions to smoke cigarettes, increased intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and increased perceptions that e-cigarettes are less harmful than combusted cigarettes. Neither message type increased dual use intentions relative to exclusive e-cigarettes use or smoking cessation. CR messages decreased perceived absolute risks of e-cigarettes and self-exempting beliefs about smoking, whereas CR- versus CR messages produced higher self-efficacy to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

Comparative risk communication might encourage smokers to switch to lower-harm tobacco products. Comparative risk messages with more negative antismoking elements in the design might be particularly effective, because they led to higher self-efficacy to quit smoking. Regulatory agencies may consider using comparative risk messages with more negative antismoking elements to educate the public about lower risk of e-cigarettes.

Psychological distress and responses to comparative risk messages about electronic and combusted cigarettes

BACKGROUND

People with mental illness suffer disproportionately high health burdens of smoking. Communicating to these smokers that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a less harmful alternative to combusted cigarettes might help them reduce their health risks by encouraging complete switching to e-cigarettes. However, such messages might also cause unintended consequences (e.g., dual use of both combusted and e-cigarettes). Our study examined how smokers with vs. without serious psychological distress (SPD) responded to messages communicating reduced harm of e-cigarettes in relation to cigarettes.

METHOD

In an online experiment, 1400 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD viewed 1 of 6 messages about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes or a control message. Then participants reported e-cigarette- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

Message type (comparative risk messages vs. control) did not interact with SPD status to produce differential impacts on smokers with and without SPD. Regardless of being exposed to a comparative risk message or a control message, smokers with SPD reported greater perceived absolute risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, greater support for tobacco control, greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help with quitting, and were less likely to report e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes compared to smokers without SPD.

DISCUSSION

Smokers with SPD had greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help quitting compared to smokers without SPD, which indicates that smokers with SPD may be optimistic about e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.

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

BACKGROUND

Smoking reduction treatment is a promising approach to increase abstinence amongst smokers initially unwilling to quit. However, little is known about which reduction treatment elements increase quit attempts and the uptake of cessation treatment amongst such smokers.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of a 4-factor randomized factorial experiment conducted amongst primary care patients (N = 517) presenting for regular healthcare visits in Southern Wisconsin who were unwilling to quit smoking but willing to cut down. We evaluated the main and interactive effects of Motivation-phase intervention components on whether participants: 1) made a quit attempt (intentional abstinence ≥24 h) by 6- and 26-weeks post-study enrollment and, 2) used cessation treatment. We also evaluated the relations of quit attempts with abstinence. The four intervention components evaluated were: 1) Nicotine Patch vs. None; 2) Nicotine Gum vs. None; 3) Motivational Interviewing (MI) vs. None; and 4) Behavioral Reduction Counseling (BR) vs. None. Intervention components were administered over 6 weeks, with an option to repeat treatment; participants could request cessation treatment at any point.

RESULTS

Nicotine gum significantly increased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 6 weeks (23% vs. 15% without gum; p < .05). Conversely, nicotine patch reduced quit attempts when used with BR. Patch also discouraged use of cessation treatment (15.8% vs. 23% without patch; p < .05). Aided vs. unaided quit attempts produced abstinence in 42% vs. 10% of participants, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Nicotine gum is a promising Motivation-phase intervention that may spur quit attempts amongst smokers initially unwilling to quit.

Feeling Hopeful Motivates Change: Emotional Responses to Messages Communicating Comparative Risk of Electronic Cigarettes and Combusted Cigarettes

BACKGROUND

Emotions are important in smoking-related communications, but the role of discrete positive and negative emotions in comparative risk messages about combusted and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is unclear.

METHOD

In an online experiment, 1,202 U.S. adult current smokers or recent quitters were randomized to view one of six messages about comparative risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Participants reported their feelings of hope, happiness, fear, guilt, disgust, and anger and risk perceptions and behavioral intentions about e-cigarettes and cigarettes.

RESULTS

Hope was associated with higher perceived absolute cigarette risk, lower perceived absolute and comparative e-cigarette risk, and stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), switch to e-cigarettes, and use e-cigarettes exclusively versus dual use. Happiness was related to stronger intentions to seek quit help, use NRT, and switch to e-cigarettes but higher perceived comparative risk of e-cigarettes. Fear was associated with stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, use NRT, and switch to e-cigarettes. Guilt was related to higher perceived absolute cigarette risk, lower perceived comparative e-cigarette risk, and stronger intentions to use NRT. Disgust was associated with higher absolute and comparative e-cigarette risk and stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, and use e-cigarettes exclusively versus dual use. Anger was related to lower perceived absolute cigarette risk, higher perceived comparative e-cigarette risk, and weaker intentions to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

Comparative risk messages about e-cigarettes that arouse hope, fear, and guilt and avoid anger might be particularly likely to have positive impact on smokers.

Evidence for the Fidelity and Effectiveness of Living Independent From Tobacco for People with Disabilities and Their Caregivers

People with disabilities (PWD) are more likely to use tobacco and less likely to access tobacco cessation programs compared with people without disabilities. Living Independent From Tobacco (LIFT), an evidence-based intervention designed for PWD, was piloted with dyads of PWD (n = 5) and their caregivers (n = 7). As an important source of practical and social support for PWD, caregivers also impact health-related attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of PWD. Caregivers who smoke may unwittingly interfere with cessation efforts of the people they support. We found that LIFT could be offered to dyads of PWD and their caregivers with fidelity. The intervention was associated with increased use of coping strategies and self-efficacy to reduce smoking. Tobacco use decreased at post-test (-34.94%), with further reduction 6-months after the intervention (-50.60%). Implications for offering inclusive health promotion interventions to both PWD and their caregivers are discussed.

Varenicline for smoking reduction in smokers not yet ready to quit: A double-blind, proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Varenicline has demonstrated efficacy for quitting smoking. Its agonist and antagonist effects suggest that it would be efficacious for reducing cigarettes per day in smokers not yet ready to quit.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a proof-of-concept placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of varenicline for smokers willing to reduce, but not quit smoking.

METHODS

Smokers (N = 53) were randomized to receive 28-days of varenicline plus brief counseling or 28-days of placebo plus brief counseling. They were instructed to reduce their cigarettes per day with the goal of reducing by 50% from baseline to end-of-treatment.

RESULTS

Most (82.7%) participants attended all four counseling sessions and more than half took their medication as prescribed on at least 80% of days. Approximately half of our participants reported at least one adverse event, but no serious adverse events were reported or discovered. Although twice as many smokers receiving varenicline made a quit attempt as compared to those receiving placebo, the data did not support the hypothesis that taking varenicline would have a benefit over placebo in meeting a 50% smoking reduction goal. Those who reduced their cigarettes per day by at least 50% and those who reduced their CO intake by at least 50% from baseline to end-of-treatment showed higher self-efficacy for quitting at end-of-treatment, however.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the proof-of-concept that smokers not ready to quit are willing to use varenicline while reducing the number of cigarettes smoked per day, and that successful reduction is associated with increased self-efficacy for later quitting.

Smoking Cessation for Smokers Not Ready to Quit: Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

CONTEXT

To provide a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis on smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit, a population that makes up approximately 32% of current smokers.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Twenty-two studies on pharmacological, behavioral, and combination smoking-cessation interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit (defined as those who reported they were not ready to quit at the time of the study) published between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. The effectiveness (measured by the number needed to treat) and cost effectiveness (measured by costs per quit) of interventions were calculated. All data collection and analyses were performed in 2017.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit can be as effective as similar interventions for smokers ready to quit; however, costs of intervening on this group may be higher for some intervention types. The most cost-effective interventions identified for this group were those using varenicline and those using behavioral interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Updating clinical recommendations to provide cessation interventions for this group is recommended. Further research on development of cost-effective treatments and effective strategies for recruitment and outreach for this group are needed. Additional studies may allow for more nuanced comparisons of treatment types among this group.

Using Facebook to address smoking and heavy drinking in young adults: Protocol for a randomized, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco and alcohol often are used simultaneously by young adults, and their co-use is associated with greater health consequences than from single use. Social media platforms offer low cost and highly accessible channels to reach and engage young people in substance use interventions. The current trial seeks to compare the Facebook Tobacco Status Project (TSP) smoking cessation intervention to an intervention targeting both tobacco use and heavy episodic drinking (TSP + ALC) among young adults who use both substances.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial will evaluate the feasibility and initial efficacy of TSP + ALC compared to TSP with 225 US young adult smokers reporting heavy drinking. Participants will be recruited online and randomized to one of two conditions (TSP or TSP + ALC), both with assignment to a Facebook group tailored to readiness to quit smoking. Groups will receive a 90-day intervention including daily Facebook postings and weekly live counseling sessions. The TSP + ALC group will include content related to alcohol use. All participants will be offered a 2-week introductory supply of nicotine patch. Participants will complete baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month online assessments of substance use and other health risk behaviors. The primary efficacy outcome is biochemically-verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence. Secondary outcomes include alcohol and tobacco use, combined use, and thoughts about each substance.

DISCUSSION

This trial examines an innovative and scalable approach to engaging young adults online in tobacco and alcohol use treatment. Study findings will inform digital health interventions and best practices for treating multiple substance use in young adults.

Comparison of two approaches in achieving smoking abstinence among patients in an outpatient clinic: A Phase 2 randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of quitting immediately and cutting down to quit in promoting smoking abstinence among smokers in an outpatient clinic.

METHODS

A total of 100 subjects were randomized into two groups, 50 in the quit immediately group, who received an intervention on abruptly quitting, and 50 in the cut down to quit group, who received an intervention on gradual reduction. All subjects were followed up at 6 and 12 months via telephone. The intention-to-treat principle was used.

RESULTS

At the 6-month follow-up, the self-reported quit rate of subjects in the quit immediately group was significantly higher than in the cut down to quit group (18.0% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.04). However, this difference was not significant at the 12-month follow-up (12.0% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that quitting immediately might be more effective than cutting down to quit at 6 months but not at 12 months.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is crucial to allow smokers to select quitting immediately or reducing the number of cigarettes smoked. Further studies are warranted to compare the effectiveness of various approaches for achieving smoking abstinence.

Planning a Change Easily (PACE): A randomized controlled trial for smokers who are not ready to quit

Smoking cessation programs are efficacious and have been validated to assist the 10% to 30% of smokers who are ready to quit in the next 30 days. While the majority of smokers want to quit smoking in the future, only 69% are planning to quit within the next year. Planning a Change Easily (PACE) is a nation-wide, telephone-based comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled trial for smokers not ready to quit (SNRTQ). This project, as well as its intervention components, outcomes, and hypotheses are discussed. This study will compare the effectiveness of four intervention conditions that could potentially help SNRTQ to quit smoking: Brief Advice, Motivational Interviewing, Rate Reduction, and Motivational Interviewing plus Rate Reduction combined. Rate Reduction conditions will include the provision of nicotine replacement therapy in the form of gum. Approximately 840 participants will be recruited and randomized to the four intervention conditions. The main outcomes for this study include self-report prolonged and point prevalence abstinence with biochemical verification of cessation. Secondary outcomes include quit attempts, cost-per-quit, and cost-effectiveness analyses. Informed by evidenced-based interventions, strong clinical guidelines, and economic analysis, PACE has the potential for significant public health impact. Results could readily be disseminated and translated to tobacco quitlines, which are present in all 50 states and are offered free to the public.

Why Don't Cancer Survivors Quit Smoking? An Evaluation of Readiness for Smoking Cessation in Cancer Survivors

Background

Cancer survivors have a high rate of participation in cigarette-smoking cessation programs but their smoking-abstinence rates remain low. In the current study, we evaluated the readiness to quit smoking in a cancer-survivor population.

Methods

Cross-sectional data survey conducted among 112 adult cancer survivors who smoked cigarettes in Tennessee. Analyses were conducted using a two-sample t-test, χ² test, Fishers Exact test, and multivariable logistic regression with smoker’s readiness to quit as the dependent variable. We operationally defined a smoker not ready to quit as anyone interested in quitting smoking beyond the next 6 months or longer (or not at all), as compared to those that are ready to quit within the next 6 months.

Results

Thirty-three percent of participants displayed a readiness to quit smoking in the next 30 days. Smokers ready to quit were more likely to display high confidence in their ability to quit (OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1–9.7; P < 0.0001) than those not ready to quit. Those ready to quit were nearly five times more likely to believe smoking contributed to their cancer diagnosis (OR = 4.9; 95% CI, 1.1–22.6; P = 0.0432). Those ready to quit were also much more likely to attempt smoking cessation when diagnosed with cancer (OR = 8.9; 95% CI, 1.8–44.3; P = 0.0076) than smokers not ready to quit. Finally, those ready to quit were more likely to endorse smoking more in the morning than other times of the day, compared to those not ready to quit (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 1.5–42,3; P = 0.0148), which increased odds of readiness to quit within the next 6 months.

Conclusions

Despite high participation in smoking-cessation programs for cancer survivors, only one-third of participants were ready to quit. Future research is needed to develop programs targeting effective strategies promoting smoking cessation among cancer survivors who are both ready and not ready to quit smoking.