Reported planning before and after quitting and quit success: retrospective data from the ITC 4-Country Survey

Nicotine replacement treatment, e-cigarettes and an online behavioural intervention to reduce relapse in recent ex-smokers: a multinational four-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Relapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic 'emergency' use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC.

PARTICIPANTS

Ex-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned sample size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages (n = 60), (2) the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol and interactive text messages (n = 57), (3) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes plus the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol with interactive text messages (n = 58) or (4) usual care plus static text messages (n = 59).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete.

RESULTS

The 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively (p = 0.11). Sustained abstinence rates were 41.7%, 54.8% and 50.9%, respectively (p = 0.17). Electronic cigarettes were chosen more frequently than nicotine replacement treatment in Australia (71.1% vs. 29.0%; p = 0.001), but not in England (54.0% vs. 46.0%; p = 0.57). Of participants allocated to nicotine products, 23.1% were using them daily at 6 months. The online intervention received positive ratings from 63% of participants at 6 months, but the majority of participants (72%) completed one assessment only. Coping strategies taught in the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol were used with similar frequency in all study arms, suggesting that these are strategies people had already acquired. Only one participant used the interactive texting, and interactive and static messages received virtually identical ratings.

LIMITATIONS

The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution.

FUTURE WORK

Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428.

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. 24, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia (NHMRC APP1095880). Public Health England provided the funds to purchase the nicotine products in England.

Understanding the Association Between Spontaneous Quit Attempts and Improved Smoking Cessation Success Rates: A Population Survey in England With 6-Month Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Almost half of smoking quit attempts are "spontaneous" (initiated as soon as the decision to quit has been made) and are associated with increased success rates. This study aimed to assess to what extent other factors may account for this association.

METHODS

Data were used from respondents to a survey representative of the adult population in England from 2006 to 2016. We included 2018 respondents who were current smokers at baseline and had attempted to quit between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Logistic regression models assessed the association between quit success and spontaneous quit attempts while adjusting for smoking, sociodemographic, and quit attempt characteristics.

RESULTS

Spontaneous quit attempts were associated with greater odds of quit success (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.60) but the association was not significant in the fully adjusted model (ORadj = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.49). In this adjusted model, those who attempted to quit without cutting down first (ORadj = 3.08, 95% CI = 2.46 to 3.88) and were male (ORadj = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.80) had greater odds of success; although a greater number of attempts in the past 6 months, stronger urges to smoke (strong vs. none), higher daily cigarette consumption, and lower social grade (E vs. AB) were associated with lower odds of success (ORadj range = 0.32-0.98, p < .030). Quit attempts made without cutting down first were correlated with spontaneous quit attempts (r = .150, p < .001) and appeared to account for the diminished association between spontaneous quitting and success (ORadj = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

The increased success rate of spontaneous quit attempts appears to be because spontaneous quit attempts are more likely to be made without cutting down first.

IMPLICATIONS

The apparent benefit of spontaneous over planned quit attempts may be attributable to the former being more likely to involve quitting without cutting down first (ie, abrupt cessation) than cutting down first (ie, gradual cessation) and so this may be a more useful target for advice to improve the chances of successful quitting.

The 2016 Ferno Award Address: Three Things

Researchers may optimize smoking treatment by addressing three research topics that have been relatively neglected. First, researchers have neglected to intensively explore how counseling contents affect smoking cessation success. Worldwide, millions of smokers are exposed to different smoking cessation contents and messages, yet existing research evidence does not permit strong inference about the value of particular counseling contents or strategies. Research in this area could enhance smoking outcomes and yield new insights into smoking motivation. Second, researchers have focused great attention on inducing smokers to make quit attempts when they contact healthcare systems; the success of such efforts may have plateaued. Also, the vast majority of quit attempts are self-quit attempts, largely unsuccessful, that occur outside such contacts. Researchers should explore strategies for using healthcare systems as conduits for digital- and other population-based interventions independent of healthcare visits. Such resources should be used to graft timely access to evidence-based intervention onto self-quitting, yielding evidence-based, patient-managed quit attempts. Third, most smoking treatments are assembled via selection of components based on informal synthesis of empirical and impressionistic evidence and are evaluated as a package. However, recent factorial experiments show that components of smoking treatments often interact meaningfully; for example, some components may interfere with the effectiveness of other components. Many extant treatments likely comprise suboptimal sets of components; future treatment development should routinely use factorial experiments to permit the assembly of components that yield additive or synergistic effects.Research in the above three areas should significantly advance our understanding of tobacco use and its treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

A lack of relevant research, and the likely prospect of significant clinical and public health benefit, underscore the importance of performing research on three topics related to smoking intervention: (1) researchers need to identify which contents of smoking counseling are effective; (2) researchers need to devise innovative strategies that use healthcare systems as conduits of smoking treatment delivery outside of clinical contacts; and (3) researchers need to use factorial designs to guide their development of smoking treatments. Research on these topics should yield complementary evidence that guides the development of more effective smoking treatments.

Measured, opportunistic, unexpected and naïve quitting: a qualitative grounded theory study of the process of quitting from the ex-smokers' perspective

BACKGROUND

To better understand the process of quitting from the ex-smokers' perspective, and to explore the role spontaneity and planning play in quitting.

METHODS

Qualitative grounded theory study using in-depth interviews with 37 Australian adult ex-smokers (24-68 years; 15 males, 22 females) who quit smoking in the past 6-24 months (26 quit unassisted; 11 used assistance).

RESULTS

Based on participants' accounts of quitting, we propose a typology of quitting experiences: measured, opportunistic, unexpected and naïve. Two key features integral to participants' accounts of their quitting experiences were used as the basis of the typology: (1) the apparent onset of quitting (gradual through to sudden); and (2) the degree to which the smoker appeared to have prepared for quitting (no evidence through to clear evidence of preparation). The resulting 2 × 2 matrix of quitting experiences took into consideration three additional characteristics: (1) the presence or absence of a clearly identifiable trigger; (2) the amount of effort (cognitive and practical) involved in quitting; and (3) the type of cognitive process that characterised the quitting experience (reflective; impulsive; reflective and impulsive).

CONCLUSIONS

Quitting typically included elements of spontaneity (impulsive behaviour) and preparation (reflective behaviour), and, importantly, the investment of time and cognitive effort by participants prior to quitting. Remarkably few participants quit completely out-of-the-blue with little or no preparation. Findings are discussed in relation to stages-of-change theory, catastrophe theory, and dual process theories, focusing on how dual process theories may provide a way of conceptualising how quitting can include elements of both spontaneity and preparation.