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.

Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary.

METHODS

This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.

Association of a Comprehensive Smoking Cessation Program With Smoking Abstinence Among Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Patients with cancer who smoke after diagnosis risk experiencing reductions in treatment effectiveness, survival rates, and quality of life, and increases in complications, cancer recurrence, and second primary cancers. Smoking cessation can significantly affect these outcomes, but to date comprehensive treatment is not widely implemented in the oncologic setting.

OBJECTIVES

To describe a potential model tobacco treatment program (TTP) implemented in a cancer setting, report on its long-term outcomes, and highlight its importance to quality patient care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective cohort of smokers was treated in the TTP at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2006, to August 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to December 2018. Participants included 3245 patients (2343 with current cancer; 309 with previous cancer; 593 with no cancer history) drawn from a population of 5061 smokers referred for treatment in the TTP. Reasons for exclusion included follow-up for a noncancerous disease, no medical consultation, smoked less than 1 cigarette per day; or died before the 9-month follow-up.

EXPOSURES

Treatment consisted of an in-person medical consultation, 6 to 8 in-person and telephone follow-up counseling sessions, and 10 to 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was 9-month 7-day point-prevalence abstinence evaluated using time-specific (3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups) and longitudinal covariate-adjusted and unadjusted regression models with multiple imputation, intention-to-treat, and respondent-only approaches to missing data. The Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence was used as a measure of dependence (possible range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate greater dependence).

RESULTS

Of the 3245 smokers, 1588 (48.9%) were men, 322 (9.9%) were of black race/ethnicity, 172 (5.3%) were of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and 2498 (76.0%) were of white race/ethnicity. Mean (SD) age was 54 (11.4) years; Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence score, 4.41 (2.2), number of cigarettes smoked per day, 17.1 (10.7); years smoked, 33 (13.2); and 1393 patients (42.9%) had at least 1 psychiatric comorbidity. Overall self-reported abstinence was 45.1% at 3 months, 45.8% at 6 months, and 43.7% at 9 months in the multiply imputed sample. Results across all models were consistent, suggesting that, in comparison with smokers with no cancer history, abstinence rates within this TTP program did not differ appreciably whether smokers had current cancer, were a cancer survivor, or had smoking-related cancers, with the exception of patients with head and neck cancer; the rates were higher at 9 months (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56; P = .001) and in longitudinal models (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, mean smoking abstinence rates did not differ significantly between patients with cancer and those without cancer. These findings suggest that providing comprehensive tobacco treatment in the oncologic setting can result in sustained high abstinence rates for all patients with cancer and survivors and should be included as standard of care to ensure the best possible cancer treatment outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up.

DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5-8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (€) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

SETTING

The study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

294 smokers aged 19-71 years were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Behaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).

RESULTS

The more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5-8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to €918 and €3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.

CONCLUSION

CEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.

Economic evaluation of a brief counselling for smoking cessation in dentistry: a case study comparing two health economic models

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of a brief counselling of smoking cessation in dentistry by using two different health economic models.

DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a cluster randomised controlled trial. The number of quitters was estimated based on 7-day abstinence and on smoking reduction at follow-up. Health economic evaluation was performed using two models: (1) a population-based model employing potential impact fractions and (2) a Markov model estimating the cost-effectiveness of the intervention for the actual participants. The evaluation was performed from healthcare and societal perspectives, and health gains were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

SETTING

Dental clinics in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

205 Swedish smokers aged 20-75 years.

INTERVENTIONS

A brief, structured behavioural intervention was compared with 'usual care'.

RESULTS

The cost per quitter was US$552 in the intervention and US$522 in the 'usual care' condition. The net saving estimated with the population-based model was US$17.3 million for intervention and US$49.9 million for 'usual care', with health gains of 1428 QALYs and 2369 QALYs, respectively, for the whole Swedish population during 10 years. The intervention was thus dominated by 'usual care'. The reverse was true when using the Markov model, showing net societal savings of US$71 000 for the intervention and US$57000 for 'usual care', with gains of 5.42 QALYs and 4.74 QALYs, respectively, for lifelong quitters.

CONCLUSION

The comparison of intervention and 'usual care' derived from small-scale studies may be highly sensitive to the choice of the model used to calculate cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The cluster randomised trial is registered in the ISRCTN register of controlled trials with identification number ISRCTN50627997.

Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review

AIMS

To identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist-based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model-based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high-income country were excluded.

FINDINGS

Among the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state-transition Markov model was the most frequently used method (n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life-time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35-0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method.

CONCLUSION

All existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I2 = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I2 = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I2 = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.

Assessing dental professionals' understanding of tobacco prevention and control: a qualitative study in Västerbotten County, Sweden

Aim:

To assess dental professionals’ understanding of tobacco prevention and control.

Materials and methods:

In Sweden dental hygienists receive training in tobacco prevention and control. The study setting is Västerbotton County in the north of Sweden where a number of successful tobacco control initiatives have been established. A purposeful sample comprising five male and four female dental professionals and trainees was selected. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured individual interviews and analysed using content analysis.

Results:

Informants acknowledged limited adherence to tobacco prevention. They were not confident of their knowledge of tobacco and non-communicable disease prevention and had limited awareness of global oral health policies. Reasons for poor adherence included professional fragmentation, lack of training, and the absence of reimbursement for time spent on prevention activities.

Discussion:

The success of efforts to reduce smoking in Västerbotton County is attributed to the network of local public health initiatives with very limited involvement by local dental professionals.

Conclusions:

The findings highlight the need to more actively engage the dental workforce in tobacco control and prevention. Moreover, it is important to recognise that dental professionals can be public health advocates for tobacco control and prevention at global, national and local levels.

Extended Self-Help for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Far too few smokers receive recommended interventions at their healthcare visits, highlighting the importance of identifying effective, low-cost smoking interventions that can be readily delivered. Self-help interventions (e.g., written materials) would meet this need, but they have shown low efficacy. The purpose of this RCT was to determine the efficacy of a self-help intervention with increased duration and intensity.

DESIGN

Randomized parallel trial design involving enrollment between April 2010 and August 2011 with follow-up data for 24 months.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

U.S. national sample of daily smokers (N=1,874).

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized to one of three arms of a parallel trial design: Traditional Self-Help (TSH, n=638), Standard Repeated Mailings (SRM, n=614), or Intensive Repeated Mailings (IRM, n=622). TSH received an existing self-help booklet for quitting smoking. SRM received eight different cessation booklets mailed over a 12-month period. IRM received monthly mailings of ten booklets and additional material designed to enhance social support over 18 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence collected at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed between 2013 and 2015. A dose-response effect was found across all four follow-up points. For example, by 24 months, IRM produced the highest abstinence rate (30.0%), followed by SRM (24.4%) and TSH (18.9%). The difference in 24-month abstinence rates between IRM and TSH was 11.0% (95% CI=5.7%, 16.3%). Cost analyses indicated that, compared with TSH, the incremental cost per quitter who received SRM and IRM was $560 and $361, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-help interventions with increased intensity and duration resulted in significantly improved abstinence rates that extended 6 months beyond the end of the intervention. Despite the greater intensity, the interventions were highly cost effective, suggesting that widespread dissemination in healthcare settings could greatly enhance quitting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01352195.

Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies.

RESULTS

The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.

Cost-effectiveness of a voucher-based intervention for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Contingency management (CM) has been shown to be effective in reducing smoking consumption, but has traditionally been criticized for its costs.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using a voucher-based CM protocol added to a cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for smoking cessation among treatment-seeking patients from the general population.

METHODS

A total of 92 patients were randomly assigned to CBT or CBT plus CM for abstinence. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the increase in costs by the increase in effects (continuous abstinence, longest duration of abstinence at 6-month follow-up and cotinine results during the treatment). An acceptability curve illustrated the statistical uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness estimate. We also determined the optimum cost per participant for predicting the smoking status at 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The average cost per participant in the CBT condition was €138.73 (US$ 150.23) as opposed to €411.61 (US$ 445.73) in the CBT plus CM condition (p < 0.01). The incremental cost of using voucher-based CM to increase the number of participants that maintained abstinence at 6-month follow-up by one extra participant was €68.22 (US$ 73.88), and to lengthen the longest duration of abstinence by 1 week was €53.92 (US$ 58.39). The incremental cost to obtain an extra cotinine-negative result was €181.90 (US$ 196.98).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CBT alone, the voucher-based protocol required additional costs but achieved significantly better outcomes. These results will allow stakeholders to make policy decisions about CM implementation for smoking cessation in the broader community.

Possibilities for evaluating cost-effectiveness of family system nursing: An example based on Family Health Conversations with families in which a middle-aged family member had suffered stroke

Family Health Conversations (FamHC) increase health and well-being, but knowledge about their cost-effectiveness, and how to best calculate this, is lacking. In this feasibility study we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using FamHC with families in which a middle-aged family member had suffered stroke. Seven families participated in a FamHC intervention and seven families received ordinary care. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was estimated with SF-6D and EQ-5D over a six-month period. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was calculated. Families receiving FamHC intervention had significantly increased HRQoL at follow up. Cost per quality adjusted life year differed depending on the instrument and analysis method used in the calculation. However, all calculations showed that FamHC were cost-effective. We conclude that FamHC significantly increase HRQoL and suggest that they are cost-effective. Both instruments seemed to be able to capture changes. Considering the participants’ experience of answering the two instruments, we advocate the use of EQ-5D.

Higher Adherence During Reimbursement of Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Treatments

INTRODUCTION

In the Netherlands, pharmacologic Smoking Cessation Treatments (pSCTs) were reimbursed in 2011. In 2012 the reimbursement was discontinued. As of 2013, pSCTs were again reimbursed, provided they are accompanied by behavioral counseling. The aim of this article is to assess the impact of changes in reimbursement policy on use of-and adherence to-pSCTs.

METHODS

A retrospective dispensing database analysis was performed on real-world observational data (2010-2013) from the Netherlands. Data on use and adherence was collected, in patients who were dispensed bupropion or varenicline in community pharmacies for the first time. Using the InterActionDataBase (iadb.nl), adherence per patient that initiated varenicline or bupropion was calculated by adding up all dispenses between initiation of the therapy and the 120 days thereafter. Good adherence was defined as using minimal 80% of the recommended duration and intensity of use.

RESULTS

The prevalence of patients initiating pSCTs was stable at 0.4 per 1000 inhabitants per quarter during 2010. In 2011, the prevalence was on average 0.7, with peaks in the first (0.8 per 1000) and fourth (1.0 per 1000) quarters of 2011. In 2012, the prevalence was stable again at 0.3. In 2013, prevalence was on average 0.4, with a small peak in the first quarter. Adherence was 15.4% in 2010 versus 20.1% in 2011 (P = .002). In 2012, adherence was 13.9%, compared with 18.9% in 2013 (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Not only the likelihood of initiating pSCTs, but also the extent of adherence to these treatments, although generally low, seems higher during reimbursement.

Long-term follow-up of a high- and a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting--a randomized trial

Background

Achieving lifelong tobacco abstinence is an important public health goal. Most studies use 1-year follow-ups, but little is known about how good these are as proxies for long-term and life-long abstinence. Also, intervention intensity is an important issue for development of efficient and cost-effective cessation treatment protocols.

The study aims were to assess the long-term effectiveness of a high- and a low-intensity treatment (HIT and LIT) for smoking cessation and to analyze to what extent 12-month abstinence predicted long-term abstinence.

Methods

300 smokers attending dental or general health care were randomly assigned to HIT or LIT at the public dental clinic. Main outcome measures were self-reported point prevalence, continuous abstinence (≥6 months), and sustained abstinence. The study was a follow-up after 5–8 years of a previously performed 12-month follow-up, both by postal questionnaires.

Results

Response rate was 85% (n=241) of those still alive and living in Sweden. Abstinence rates were 8% higher in both programs at the long-term than at the 12-month follow-up. The difference of 7% between HIT and LIT had not change, being 31% vs. 24% for point prevalence and 26% vs. 19% for 6-month continuous abstinence, respectively. Significantly more participants in HIT (12%) than in LIT (5%) had been sustained abstinent (p=0.03). Logistic regression analyses showed that abstinence at 12-month follow-up was a strong predictor for abstinence at long-term follow-up.

Conclusions

Abstinence at 12-month follow-up is a good predictor for long-term abstinence. The difference in outcome between HIT and LIT for smoking cessation remains at least 5–8 years after the intervention.

Trial registration number

NCT00670514