ESCAPE: a randomised controlled trial of computer-tailored smoking cessation advice in primary care

Electronic interventions in primary care to address substance use: A systematic review

The present systematic review aims to identify electronic interventions for addressing substance use and understand their effectiveness in primary care settings. A systematic search was carried out in the Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The search included the keywords "electronic intervention", "substance use", "primary care" and synonyms. To determine the quality and recommendation of the analyzed interventions, the efficacy results reported by the studies were considered, as well as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) assessment and the GRADE Evidence Assessment. Twenty-one electronic interventions in Primary Care were identified: internet, mobile or tablet applications, text messages, emails, automated telephone calls, or electronic self-reports. These interventions had diverse components, incorporating theories that have proven effective in face-to-face interventions as their theoretical frameworks. Some of them were complementary to in-person treatment, while others replaced it. Six interventions (28.5 %) displayed high quality: HealthCall, AB-CASI, Quit Genius, eCHECKUP-TOGO, CBI, and TES. Another nine interventions (42.8 %) were found to have moderate-high quality: Alcohol y Salud, IVR-BI, Program of Wallace et al., Let's Talk About Smoking, SMSalud, ESCAPE, AAC-ASPIRE, iQuit, and Programa VIH. One intervention (4.7 %) had moderate-low quality: Vive sin tabaco ¡Decídete! The remaining five interventions (23.8 %) were found to have very low quality: Connection to health, cSBI, Teen Well Check, the program of Helzer et al. (2008), and Down your drink. The programs with the highest recommendation for addressing alcohol-related issues are HealthCall and AB-CASI; for tobacco use, it is Quit Genius; for cannabis use, it is eCHECKUP-TOGO; for addressing both legal and illegal substances, it is CBI and TES. Finally, for specific illicit drug use, the only recommended program is CBI. This last intervention, CBI, is of the highest quality and, therefore, can be considered a model intervention for dissemination in the primary care setting.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

Assessment of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tailored Web- and Text-Based Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care (iQuit in Practice II): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of smoking is declining; however, it continues to be a major public health burden. In England, primary care is the health setting that provides smoking cessation support to most smokers. However, this setting has one of the lowest success rates. The iQuit in practice intervention (iQuit) is a tailored web-based and text message intervention developed for use in primary care consultations as an adjunct to routine smoking cessation support with the aim of increasing success rates. iQuit has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

This definitive trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iQuit when used as an adjunct to the usual support provided to patients who wish to quit smoking, compared with usual care alone.

METHODS

The iQuit in Practice II trial is a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 1:1 individual allocation comparing usual care (ie, pharmacotherapy combined with multisession behavioral support)-the control-with usual care plus iQuit-the intervention. Participants were recruited through primary care clinics and talked to a smoking cessation advisor. Participants were randomized during the initial consultation, and those allocated to the intervention group received a tailored advice report and 90 days of text messaging in addition to the standard support provided to all patients.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is self-reported prolonged abstinence biochemically verified using saliva cotinine at 6 months after the quit date. A sample size of 1700 participants, with 850 per arm, would yield 90% power to detect a 4.3% difference in validated quit rates between the groups at the two-sided 5% level of significance. The Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee approved the study in February 2016, and funding for the study was granted from May 2016. In total, 1671 participants were recruited between August 2016 and July 2019. Follow-up for all participants was completed in January 2020. Data analysis will begin in the summer of 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

iQuit in Practice II is a definitive, pragmatic RCT assessing whether a digital intervention can augment the impact of routine smoking cessation support in primary care. Previous research has found good acceptability and feasibility for delivering iQuit among smoking cessation advisors working in primary care. If demonstrated to be cost-effective, iQuit could be delivered across primary care and other settings, such as community pharmacies. The potential benefit would likely be highest where less behavioral support is delivered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 44559004; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN44559004.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/17160.

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand.

RESULTS

Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.

Combining Education With Auricular Acupressure to Facilitate Smoking Cessation in Young Adults

Young adults rarely use pharmacotherapy to cease smoking. This prospective experimental study was performed using a nonpharmacotherapy design. Smoking cessation education combined with auricular acupressure may be more attractive. The key factor for superior smoking cessation was the decrease of nicotine dependence in the early stage of smoking cessation.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow may increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies, and to determine the comparative effectiveness of different components and characteristics of print-based self-help, such as computer-generated feedback, additional materials, tailoring of materials to individuals, and targeting of materials at specific groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the most recent search was March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested print-based materials providing self-help compared with minimal print-based self-help (such as a short leaflet) or a lower-intensity control. We defined 'self-help' as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in accordance with standard methodological procedures set out by Cochrane. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each study and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 75 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to allow judgement of risk of bias for some domains. We judged 30 studies (40%) to be at high risk of bias for one or more domains.Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Eleven studies compared self-help materials alone with no intervention and found a small effect in favour of the intervention (n = 13,241; risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.37; I² = 0%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for indirect relevance to populations in low- and middle-income countries because evidence for this comparison came from studies conducted solely in high-income countries and there is reason to believe the intervention might work differently in low- and middle-income countries. This analysis excluded two studies by the same author team with strongly positive outcomes that were clear outliers and introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further studies of structured self-help compared with brief leaflets did not show evidence of an effect of self-help materials on smoking cessation (n = 7023; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; I² = 21%). We found evidence of benefit from standard self-help materials when there was brief contact that did not include smoking cessation advice (4 studies; n = 2822; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; I² = 0%), but not when self-help was provided as an adjunct to face-to-face smoking cessation advice for all participants (11 studies; n = 5365; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28; I² = 32%).Thirty-two studies tested materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving no materials, or stage-matched or non-tailored materials. Most of these studies used more than one mailing. Pooling studies that compared tailored self-help with no self-help, either on its own or compared with advice, or as an adjunct to advice, showed a benefit of providing tailored self-help interventions (12 studies; n = 19,190; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.49; I² = 0%) with little evidence of difference between subgroups (10 studies compared tailored with no materials, n = 14,359; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.51; I² = 0%; two studies compared tailored materials with brief advice, n = 2992; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49; I² = 0%; and two studies evaluated tailored materials as an adjunct to brief advice, n = 1839; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.53; I² = 10%). When studies compared tailored self-help with non-tailored self-help, results favoured tailored interventions when the tailored interventions involved more mailings than the non-tailored interventions (9 studies; n = 14,166; RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.68; I² = 0%), but not when the two conditions were contact-matched (10 studies; n = 11,024; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30; I² = 50%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for risk of bias.Five studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy; pooling three of these provided no evidence of additional benefit (n = 1769; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Four studies evaluating additional written materials favoured the intervention, but the lower confidence interval crossed the line of no effect (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; I² = 73%). A small number of other studies did not detect benefit from using targeted materials, or find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that when no other support is available, written self-help materials help more people to stop smoking than no intervention. When people receive advice from a health professional or are using nicotine replacement therapy, there is no evidence that self-help materials add to their effect. However, small benefits cannot be excluded. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that self-help materials that use data from participants to tailor the nature of the advice or support given are more effective than no intervention. However, when tailored self-help materials, which typically involve repeated assessment and mailing, were compared with untailored materials delivered similarly, there was no evidence of benefit.Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high-income countries, where more intensive support is often available. Further research is needed to investigate effects of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries, where more intensive support may not be available.

Evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the EU: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, the attention for health literacy has increased in the European Union. This is due to three main reasons. First, reviews have shown that inadequate health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes, higher health care use and expenditure. Second, in all European countries the population is aging and the number of chronically ill people is rising. Improving health literacy in this group can offer greater opportunities to take an active part in society, be independent and improve quality of life. Third, since most research on health literacy has been conducted outside Europe and relatively little is known about the development of health literacy interventions and its effects on outcome measures in European countries. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the European Union published between 1995 and 2018.

METHODS

Searches have been performed in Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and SCOPUS for publications on health literacy intervention studies in European Union countries. Studies were included if the research was conducted in one or more Member States of the European Union, the publication described an intervention study, the intervention was aimed at health literacy, the publication described an outcome measure related to health literacy and the publication was written in English, French or German.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included. Three types of interventions were identified; aimed at improving health literacy, tailored to different health literacy levels and aimed at improving health outcomes in general that differentiated in effects for people with different health literacy levels. Most interventions identified in the review focus on the functional level of health literacy or numeracy. The strength of evidence from the European health literacy intervention studies was low and there was a huge heterogeneity in study design, measurement tools and outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising interventions were tailored to the needs of patients, addressing functional, interactive and critical skills and use not difficult animated spoken text. Future research should focus on the development and assessment of such interventions and use stronger designs.

Start2quit: a randomised clinical controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS Stop Smoking Services

BACKGROUND

The NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers who want to quit. However, the proportion of smokers attending the SSSs is low and current figures show a continuing downward trend. This research addressed the problem of how to motivate more smokers to accept help to quit.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of an intervention consisting of proactive recruitment by a brief computer-tailored personal risk letter and an invitation to a 'Come and Try it' taster session to provide information about the SSSs, compared with a standard generic letter advertising the service, in terms of attendance at the SSSs of at least one session and validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention with follow-up 6 months after the date of randomisation.

SETTING

SSSs and general practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

All smokers aged ≥ 16 years identified from medical records in participating practices who were motivated to quit and who had not attended the SSS in the previous 12 months. Participants were randomised in the ratio 3 : 2 (intervention to control) by a computer program.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention - brief personalised and tailored letter sent from the general practitioner using information obtained from the screening questionnaire and from medical records, and an invitation to attend a taster session, run by the local SSS. Control - standard generic letter from the general practice advertising the local SSS and the therapies available, and asking the smoker to contact the service to make an appointment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Proportion of people attending the first session of a 6-week course over a period of 6 months from the receipt of the invitation letter, measured by records of attendance at the SSSs; (2) 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up, validated by salivary cotinine analysis; and (3) cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

RESULTS

Eighteen SSSs and 99 practices within the SSS areas participated; 4384 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 2636) or control (n = 1748). One participant withdrew and 4383 were analysed. The proportion of people attending the first session of a SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group [17.4% vs. 9.0%; unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 2.57; p < 0.001]. The validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (9.0% vs. 5.6%; unadjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15; p < 0.001), as was the validated 3-month prolonged abstinence and all other periods of abstinence measured by self-report. Using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention was more cost-effective than the control was up to 27% at 6 months and > 86% over a lifetime horizon.

LIMITATIONS

Participating SSSs may not be representative of all SSSs in England. Recruitment was low, at 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Start2quit trial added to evidence that a proactive approach with an intensive intervention to deliver personalised risk information and offer a no-commitment introductory session can be successful in reaching more smokers and increasing the uptake of the SSS and quit rates. The intervention appears less likely to be cost-effective in the short term, but is highly likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon.

FUTURE WORK

Further research could assess the separate effects of these components.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916.

FUNDING DETAILS

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. 21, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Difficulties Quitting for Smokers with and without a Respiratory Disease and Use of a Tailored Intervention for Smoking Cessation – A Qualitative Study

Introduction: Smokers with respiratory diseases are less likely to quit than those without impaired lung function, yet few studies have investigated the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions with this population, and none have used a computer-tailored approach.

Aims: This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by exploring smokers’ experiences when trying to quit and their perceptions of a computer-tailored intervention.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 smokers recruited from six general practises in North London. Thematic analysis was conducted to examine participants’ previous experiences of quitting and their perceptions of receiving personal tailored feedback reports to aid smoking cessation.

Results: Participants discussed how their positive smoking experiences coupled with their negative cessation experiences led to conflicts with quitting smoking. Although the computer-tailored intervention was key in prompting quit attempts and participants valued its personal approach; it was not sufficient as a stand-alone intervention.

Conclusions: The results highlight the difficulties that smokers experience when quitting and the need for a more personalised stop smoking service in smokers with respiratory diseases. The study also demonstrates the application and potential for computer-tailored intervention as part of a wider programme of long-term smoking cessation.

‘I Sat Filling in This Form While Smoking and It Was Divine’. An Analysis of Free-Text Comments from Smokers Who Report They Have No Intention of Quitting in the Next Six Months

Introduction: Smokers unmotivated to quit are neglected by smoking cessation research. Free-text comment analysis is a potentially useful way to gain insight into this group's beliefs.

Aims: To analyse the free-text comments provided by smokers unmotivated to quit as part of a randomized controlled trial of computer-tailored feedback for smoking cessation.

Method: A random sample of 58,660 smokers were sent a smoking behaviour questionnaire (SBQ). The responses and follow-up outcomes of those providing free-text comments were compared to those who did not to assess the representativeness of the former group of smokers. The comments of participants unmotivated to quit (631) were thematically analysed.

Results: Those who provided a comment differed from those who did not on variables including education level and quit attempts at six-month follow-up. Emergent themes included; justification of smoking and restricting smoking instead of quitting.

Conclusions: The findings illustrate the value of free-text comments in identifying issues important to respondents. The identified themes highlight areas for future research in smokers unmotivated to quit including cutting down as a path to quitting and explicit messages regarding the inability of positive health behaviours to balance out the negative impact of smoking on health.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05385712.

Using Bayes factors for testing hypotheses about intervention effectiveness in addictions research

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It has been proposed that more use should be made of Bayes factors in hypothesis testing in addiction research. Bayes factors are the ratios of the likelihood of a specified hypothesis (e.g. an intervention effect within a given range) to another hypothesis (e.g. no effect). They are particularly important for differentiating lack of strong evidence for an effect and evidence for lack of an effect. This paper reviewed randomized trials reported in Addiction between January and June 2013 to assess how far Bayes factors might improve the interpretation of the data.

METHODS

Seventy-five effect sizes and their standard errors were extracted from 12 trials. Seventy-three per cent (n = 55) of these were non-significant (i.e. P > 0.05). For each non-significant finding a Bayes factor was calculated using a population effect derived from previous research. In sensitivity analyses, a further two Bayes factors were calculated assuming clinically meaningful and plausible ranges around this population effect.

RESULTS

Twenty per cent (n = 11) of the non-significant Bayes factors were < ⅓ and 3.6% (n = 2) were > 3. The other 76.4% (n = 42) of Bayes factors were between ⅓ and 3. Of these, 26 were in the direction of there being an effect (Bayes factor > 1 and < 3); 12 tended to favour the hypothesis of no effect (Bayes factor < 1 and > ⅓); and for four there was no evidence either way (Bayes factor = 1). In sensitivity analyses, 13.3% of Bayes Factors were < ⅓ (n = 20), 62.7% (n = 94) were between ⅓ and 3 and 24.0% (n = 36) were > 3, showing good concordance with the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of Bayes factors when analysing data from randomized trials of interventions in addiction research can provide important information that would lead to more precise conclusions than are obtained typically using currently prevailing methods.

Are predictors of making a quit attempt the same as predictors of 3-month abstinence from smoking? Findings from a sample of smokers recruited for a study of computer-tailored smoking cessation advice in primary care

AIMS

To identify predictors of quit attempts and of 3-month abstinence from cigarette smoking.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data gathered for a two-armed randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up.

SETTING

A total of 123 general practices across the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4397 participants who completed the 6-month follow-up. Participants were categorized on self-reported smoking behaviour at 6-month follow-up as non-attempters (n = 2664), attempted quitters (n = 1548) and successful quitters (n = 185).

MEASURES

Demographic characteristics, smoking history and nicotine dependence, cognitive and social-environmental factors measured at baseline were examined as potential predictors of quit attempts and 3-month abstinence.

FINDINGS

Univariate predictors of quit attempts included commitment [odds ratio (OR) = 11.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.30-16.32], motivation (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.98-2.22) and determination to quit (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.83-2.05). Successful quitting was associated with being married (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.11-2.05), lower social deprivation (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.74), higher reading level (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.19-2.21) and lower nicotine dependence (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.29-0.62). Health problems related to smoking and previous quit attempts for 3 months or longer predicted both. In the multivariate analysis, the significant predictors of making a quit attempt were; later stage of readiness to quit (OR = 5.38, 95% CI = 3.67-7.89), motivation (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.34-1.62) and determination to quit (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.05-1.29) and health problems related to smoking (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.18-1.75). For 3-month abstinence, the only significant predictor was not having health problems related to smoking (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.29-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

While high motivation and determination to quit is necessary to prompt an attempt to quit smoking, demographic factors and level of nicotine dependence are more important for maintaining abstinence.

Computer-tailored smoking cessation advice matched to reading ability: Perceptions of participants from the ESCAPE trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore perceptions of computer-tailored advice reports for smoking cessation matched to the recipient's reading level.

METHODS

Current cigarette smokers in the UK aged 18-65 who completed a Smoking Behavior Questionnaire (n=6911) were randomized to receive standard generic materials or standard materials plus computer-tailored reports adapted to the recipient's reading level. Smoking status and perception of the reports was assessed at a 6-month follow-up. 4677 participants were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

53.3% were categorized into the easy reading group (ERG). The relative benefit of the intervention for prolonged 3-month abstinence was more marked in the ERG (2.6%/1.9%, OR=1.50) than in the standard reading group (SRG) (4.0%/3.8%, OR=1.05), although the interaction was not statistically significant. Participants in the Intervention group perceived the standard materials more positively than did those in the Control group, and participants in the ERG perceived both the generic material and the tailored report more positively.

CONCLUSIONS

The easy reading version of this brief self-help intervention was better perceived than the standard version, and appeared to have a small, but promising effect in smokers with a lower literacy level.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

An association between reading level and deprivation emphasizes the need to adapt smoking cessation materials to address the needs of smokers with lower literacy.

Randomized controlled trial to assess the short-term effectiveness of tailored web- and text-based facilitation of smoking cessation in primary care (iQuit in practice)

AIMS

To estimate the short-term effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of a smoking cessation intervention (the iQuit system) that consists of tailored printed and Short Message Service (SMS) text message self-help delivered as an adjunct to cessation support in primary care to inform the design of a definitive trial.

DESIGN

A stratified two parallel-group randomized controlled trial comparing usual care (control) with usual care plus the iQuit system (intervention), delivered by primary care nurses/healthcare assistants who were blinded to the allocation sequence.

SETTING

Thirty-two general practice (GP) surgeries in England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 602 smokers initiating smoking cessation support from their local GP surgery were randomized (control n = 303, intervention n = 299).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was self-reported 2-week point prevalence abstinence at 8 weeks follow-up. Secondary smoking outcomes and feasibility and acceptability measures were collected at 4 weeks after quit date, 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up.

FINDINGS

There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome [control 40.3%, iQuit 45.2%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.69] or in secondary short-term smoking outcomes. Six-month prolonged abstinence was significantly higher in the iQuit arm (control 8.9%, iQuit 15.1%; OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.09-3.01). iQuit support took on average 7.7 minutes (standard deviation = 4.0) to deliver and 18.9% (95% CI = 14.8-23.7%) of intervention participants discontinued the text message support during the programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored printed and text message self-help delivered alongside routine smoking cessation support in primary care does not significantly increase short-term abstinence, but may increase long-term abstinence and demonstrated feasibility and acceptability compared with routine cessation support alone.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine: the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to print-based self help, such as computer-generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. Date of the most recent search April 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a print-based self-help intervention. We defined self help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face-to-face contact given to intervention and to control conditions, outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 trials which met the inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to judge risk of bias for some domains. Twenty-eight studies (38%) were judged at high risk of bias for one or more domains but the overall risk of bias across all included studies was judged to be moderate, and unlikely to alter the conclusions.Thirty-four trials evaluated the effect of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Pooling 11 of these trials in which there was no face-to-face contact and provision of structured self-help materials was compared to no intervention gave an estimate of benefit that just reached statistical significance (n = 13,241, risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 1.37). This analysis excluded two trials with strongly positive outcomes that introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further trials without face-to-face contact in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials (n = 7023, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04). When these two subgroups were pooled, there was no longer evidence for a benefit of standard structured materials (n = 20,264, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18). We failed to find evidence of benefit from providing standard self-help materials when there was brief contact with all participants (5 trials, n = 3866, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42), or face-to-face advice for all participants (11 trials, n = 5365, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.18).Thirty-one trials offered materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving either no materials, or stage matched or non-tailored materials. Most of the trials used more than one mailing. Pooling these showed a benefit of tailored materials (n = 40,890, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.37) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 32%). The evidence is strongest for the subgroup of nine trials in which tailored materials were compared to no intervention (n = 13,437, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.53), but also supports tailored materials as more helpful than standard materials. Part of this effect could be due to the additional contact or assessment required to obtain individual data, since the subgroup of 10 trials where the number of contacts was matched did not detect an effect (n = 11,024, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). In two trials including a direct comparison between tailored materials and brief advice from a health care provider, there was no evidence of a difference, but confidence intervals were wide (n = 2992, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49).Only four studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy, with no evidence of additional benefit (n = 2291, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25). A small number of other trials failed to detect benefits from using additional materials or targeted materials, or to find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Standard, print-based self-help materials increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We did not find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a healthcare professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are more effective than non-tailored materials, although the absolute size of effect is still small. Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high income countries; further research is needed to investigate their effect in contexts where more intensive support is not available.

Study protocol for iQuit in Practice: a randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of tailored web- and text-based facilitation of smoking cessation in primary care

Background

Primary care is an important setting for smoking cessation interventions. There is evidence for the effectiveness of tailored interventions for smoking cessation, and text messaging interventions for smoking cessation show promise. The intervention to be evaluated in this trial consists of two components: (1) a web-based program designed to be used by a practice nurse or other smoking cessation advisor (SCA); the program generates a cessation advice report that is highly tailored to relevant characteristics of the smoker; and (2) a three-month programme of automated tailored text messages sent to the smoker’s mobile phone. The objectives of the trial are to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and to estimate the short-term effectiveness of the intervention in increasing the quit rate compared with usual care alone.

Methods/design

The design is a two parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT). 600 smokers who want to quit will be recruited in up to 30 general practices in the East of England. During a consultation with an SCA, they will be individually randomised by computer program to usual care (Control) or to usual care plus the iQuit system (Intervention). At the four-week follow-up appointment, the SCA will record smoking status and measure carbon monoxide level. There will be two further follow-ups, at eight weeks and six months from randomisation date, by postal questionnaire sent from and returned to the study centre or by telephone interview conducted by a research interviewer. The primary outcome will be self-reported abstinence for at least two weeks at eight weeks. A sample size of 300 per group would give 80% power to detect an increase in quit rate from 20% to 30% (alpha = 0.05, 2-sided test). The main analyses of quit rates will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, making the usual assumption that participants lost to follow up are smoking.

Discussion

This trial will focus on acceptability, feasibility and short-term effectiveness. The findings will be used to refine the intervention and to inform the decision to proceed to a pragmatic trial to estimate longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56702353