Comparative effectiveness of motivation phase intervention components for use with smokers unwilling to quit: a factorial screening experiment

Learning & motivational talk in smoking cessation interventions: An examination of session language in two randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

Motivational Interviewing (MI), a client-centered approach that seeks to evoke and resolve ambivalence, and health education (HE), which provides health information and advice, may both provide some benefit to unmotivated smokers. In HE, it is possible that client language reflective of new learning, or "learning talk" (LT), and rejection of health advice, or "rejection talk," (RT), may uniquely reflect intent of subsequent behavior change.

METHODS

This project utilized MI and HE sessions from two randomized clinical trials (RCTs), one in a low-income, diverse community civilian sample of 255 unmotivated smokers, and the other in a sample of Veterans with mental illness who were unmotivated smokers (n = 55). Mixed methods approaches were utilized to reliably code sessions using the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code 2.5 (MISC 2.5)1 and a refined Learning Talk coding system2.

RESULTS

Reliability of LT and RT codes ranged from fair to excellent (ICCs from 0.43-0.93).

CONCLUSION

LT appears to be a unique construct and its impact on post-session changes in smoking is warranted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This system can be used in a study to code existing interventions for smokers using both MI and HE techniques and relate in-session client LT to subsequent smoking behaviors.

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments

AIM

To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence.

DESIGN

Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART).

SETTING

Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months.

MEASUREMENTS

The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects.

FINDINGS

Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.

E-cigarette support for smoking cessation: Identifying the effectiveness of intervention components in an on-line randomized optimization experiment

AIMS, DESIGN AND SETTING

The aim of this study was to determine which combination(s) of five e-cigarette-orientated intervention components, delivered on-line, affect smoking cessation. An on-line (UK) balanced five-factor (2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 32 intervention combinations) randomized factorial design guided by the multi-phase optimization strategy (MOST) was used.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1214 eligible participants (61% female; 97% white) were recruited via social media.

INTERVENTIONS

The five on-line intervention components designed to help smokers switch to exclusive e-cigarette use were: (1) tailored device selection advice; (2) tailored e-liquid nicotine strength advice; (3): tailored e-liquid flavour advice; (4) brief information on relative harms; and (5) text message (SMS) support.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 4-week self-reported complete abstinence at 12 weeks post-randomization. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (loss to follow-up recorded as smoking). Logistic regressions modelled the three- and two-way interactions and main effects, explored in that order.

FINDINGS

In the adjusted model the only significant interaction was a two-way interaction, advice on flavour combined with text message support, which increased the odds of abstinence (odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.14, P = 0.007, Bayes factor = 7.25). There were no main effects of the intervention components.

CONCLUSIONS

Text-message support with tailored advice on flavour is a promising intervention combination for smokers using an e-cigarette in a quit attempt.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Multiple Pharmacotherapy Adaptations for Smoking Cessation Based on Treatment Response in Black Adults Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Adapting to different smoking cessation medications when an individual has not stopped smoking has shown promise, but efficacy has not been tested in racial and ethnic minority individuals who smoke and tend to have less success in quitting and bear a disproportionate share of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of multiple smoking cessation pharmacotherapy adaptations based on treatment response in Black adults who smoke daily.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial of adapted therapy (ADT) or enhanced usual care (UC) included non-Hispanic Black adults who smoke and was conducted from May 2019 to January 2022 at a federally qualified health center in Kansas City, Missouri. Data analysis took place from March 2022 to January 2023.

Interventions

Both groups received 18 weeks of pharmacotherapy with long-term follow-up through week 26. The ADT group consisted of 196 individuals who received a nicotine patch (NP) and up to 2 pharmacotherapy adaptations, with a first switch to varenicline at week 2 and, if needed, a second switch to bupropion plus NP (bupropion + NP) based on carbon monoxide (CO)-verified smoking status (CO ≥6 ppm) at week 6. The UC group consisted of 196 individuals who received NP throughout the duration of treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Anabasine-verified and anatabine-verified point-prevalence abstinence at week 12 (primary end point) and weeks 18 and 26 (secondary end points). The χ2 test was used to compare verified abstinence at week 12 (primary end point) and weeks 18 and 26 (secondary end points) between ADT and UC. A post hoc sensitivity analysis of smoking abstinence at week 12 was performed with multiple imputation using a monotone logistic regression with treatment and gender as covariates to impute the missing data.

Results

Among 392 participants who were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 53 [11.6] years; 224 [57%] female; 186 [47%] ≤ 100% federal poverty level; mean [SD] 13 [12.4] cigarettes per day), 324 (83%) completed the trial. Overall, 196 individuals were randomized to each study group. Using intent-to-treat and imputing missing data as participants who smoke, verified 7-day abstinence was not significantly different by treatment group at 12 weeks (ADT: 34 of 196 [17.4%]; UC: 23 of 196 [11.7%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 0.89-2.80; P = .12), 18 weeks (ADT: 32 of 196 [16.3%]; UC: 31 of 196 [15.8%]; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.61-1.78; P = .89), and 26 weeks (ADT: 24 of 196 [12.2%]; UC: 26 of 196 [13.3%]; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.50-1.65; P = .76). Of the ADT participants who received pharmacotherapy adaptations (135/188 [71.8%]), 11 of 135 (8.1%) were abstinent at week 12. Controlling for treatment, individuals who responded to treatment and had CO-verified abstinence at week 2 had 4.6 times greater odds of being abstinent at week 12 (37 of 129 [28.7%] abstinence) than those who did not respond to treatment (19 of 245 [7.8%] abstinence; OR; 4.6; 95% CI, 2.5-8.6; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of adapted vs standard of care pharmacotherapy, adaptation to varenicline and/or bupropion + NP after failure of NP monotherapy did not significantly improve abstinence rates for Black adults who smoke relative to those who continued treatment with NP. Those who achieved abstinence in the first 2 weeks of the study were significantly more likely to achieve later abstinence, highlighting early treatment response as an important area for preemptive intervention.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03897439.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to induce attempts to quit tobacco among adults not ready to quit

The prevalence of past-year smoking cessation remains below 10% in the U.S. Most who smoke are not ready to quit in the near future. Cessation requires both (a) initiating a quit attempt (QA) and (b) maintaining abstinence. Most research has focused on abstinence among people already motivated to quit. We systematically reviewed interventions to promote QAs among people not motivated to quit tobacco. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Embase, and our personal libraries for randomized trials of tobacco interventions that reported QAs as an outcome among adults not ready to quit. We screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled findings of the 25 included studies using Mantel-Haenszel random effects meta-analyses when ≥ 2 studies tested the same intervention. Most (24) trials addressed cigarettes and one addressed smokeless tobacco. Substantial heterogeneity among trials resulted in a series of small meta-analyses. Findings indicate varenicline may increase QAs more than no varenicline, n = 320; RR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.1, 1.7]; I² = 0%, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may increase QAs more than no NRT, n = 2,568; RR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.02, 1.3]; I² = 0%. Pooled effects for motivational counseling, reduction counseling, and very low nicotine content cigarettes showed no clear evidence of benefit or harm. The evidence was judged to be of medium to very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias, suggesting that further research is likely to change interpretation of our results. Findings demonstrate the need for more high-quality research on interventions to induce QAs among adults not ready to quit tobacco. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS)

AIMS

For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes.

DESIGN

A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit.

MEASUREMENTS

Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis.

FINDINGS

Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

Successful Optimization of Tobacco Dependence Treatment in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Tobacco dependence treatment initiated in the hospital emergency department (ED) is effective. However, trials typically use multicomponent interventions, making it difficult to distinguish specific components that are effective. In addition, interactions between components cannot be assessed. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy allows investigators to identify these effects.

METHODS

We conducted a full-factorial, 24 or 16-condition optimization trial in a busy hospital ED to examine the performance of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: a brief negotiation interview; 6 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy with the first dose delivered in the ED; active referral to a telephone quitline; and enrollment in SmokefreeTXT, a free short-messaging service program. Study data were analyzed with a novel mixed methods approach to assess clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint was tobacco abstinence at 3 months, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide using a Bedfont Micro+ Smokerlyzer.

RESULTS

Between February 2017 and May 2019, we enrolled 1,056 adult smokers visiting the ED. Odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) from the primary analysis of biochemically confirmed abstinence rates at 3 months for each intervention, versus control, were: brief negotiation interview, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8); nicotine replacement therapy, 2.1 (1.3, 3.2); quitline, 1.4 (0.9, 2.2); SmokefreeTXT, 1.1 (0.7, 1.7). There were no statistically significant interactions among components. Economic and qualitative analyses are in progress.

CONCLUSION

The brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy were efficacious. This study is the first to identify components of ED-initiated tobacco dependence treatment that are individually effective. Future work will address the scalability of the brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy by offering provider-delivered brief negotiation interviews and nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions.

Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing and Brief Interventions on tobacco use among healthy adults: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of a brief intervention and motivational interviewing in reducing the use of different tobacco-related products in adults.

METHODS

For this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO databases were electronically searched for randomized controlled trialson the effect of a brief intervention and / or motivational interview on tobacco reduction among healthy adults published between January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2021. Data from eligible studies were extracted and analyzed. CONSORT guidelines were used to assess the quality of the studies by two reviewers for the included studies. The titles and abstracts of the search results were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers for eligibility criteria per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cochrane review criteria were used to assess the risk of bias in included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the final data extraction of 1406 studies. The brief intervention and motivational interviewing showed varied effects on tobacco use reduction among adults at different follow-ups. Seven of the 12 studies (58.3%) reported a beneficial impact on reducing tobacco use. Pieces of evidence on biochemical estimation on tobacco reduction are limited compared to self-reports, and varied results on quitting and tobacco cessation with different follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence supports the effectiveness of a brief intervention and motivational interviewing to quit tobacco use. Still, it suggests using more biochemical markers as outcome measures to reach an intervention-specific decision. While more initiatives to train nurses in providing non-pharmacological nursing interventions, including brief interventions, are recommended to help people quit smoking.

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

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

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

One view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral approaches to cancer prevention and control: intervention optimization

As a new decade begins, we propose that the time is right to reexamine current methods and procedures and look for opportunities to accelerate progress in cancer prevention and control. In this article we offer our view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral interventions for cancer prevention and control. We begin by discussing and questioning several implicit conventions. We then briefly introduce an alternative research framework: the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST). MOST, a principled framework for intervention development, optimization, and evaluation, stresses not only intervention effectiveness, but also intervention affordability, scalability, and efficiency. We review some current limitations of MOST along with future directions for methodological work in this area, and suggest some changes in the scientific environment we believe would permit wider adoption of intervention optimization. We propose that wider adoption of intervention optimization would have a positive impact on development and successful implementation of interventions for cancer prevention and control and on intervention science more broadly, including accumulation of a coherent base of knowledge about what works and what does not; establishment of an empirical basis for adaptation of interventions to different settings with different levels and types of resources; and, in the long run, acceleration of progress from Stage 0 to Stage V in the National Institutes of Health Model of Stages of Intervention Development.

The preparation phase in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST): a systematic review and introduction of a reporting checklist

Multicomponent behavioral interventions developed using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) framework offer important advantages over alternative intervention development models by focusing on outcomes within constraints relevant for effective dissemination. MOST consists of three phases: preparation, optimization, and evaluation. The preparation phase is critical to establishing the foundation for the optimization and evaluation phases; thus, detailed reporting is critical to enhancing rigor and reproducibility. A systematic review of published research using the MOST framework was conducted. A structured framework was used to describe and summarize the use of MOST terminology (i.e., preparation phase and optimization objective) and the presentation of preparation work, the conceptual model, and the optimization. Fifty-eight articles were reviewed and the majority focused on either describing the methodology or presenting results of an optimization trial (n = 38, 66%). Although almost all articles identified intervention components (96%), there was considerable variability in the degree to which authors fully described other elements of MOST. In particular, there was less consistency in use of MOST terminology. Reporting on the MOST preparation phase is varied, and there is a need for increased focus on explicit articulation of key design elements and rationale of the preparation phase. The proposed checklist for reporting MOST studies would significantly advance the use of this emerging methodology and improve implementation and dissemination of MOST. Accurate reporting is essential to reproducibility and rigor of scientific trials as it ensures future research fully understands not only the methodology, but the rationale for intervention and optimization decisions.

Evaluating four motivation-phase intervention components for use with primary care patients unwilling to quit smoking: a randomized factorial experiment

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of intervention components designed to increase quit attempts and promote abstinence in patients initially unwilling to quit smoking.

DESIGN

A four-factor, randomized factorial experiment.

SETTING

Sixteen primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 577 adults who smoke (60% women, 80% White) recruited during primary care visits who were currently willing to reduce their smoking but unwilling to try to quit. Interventions Four factors contrasted intervention components administered over a 1-year period: (i) nicotine mini-lozenge versus none; (ii) reduction counseling versus none; (iii) behavioral activation (BA) counseling versus none; and (iv) motivational 5Rs counseling versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any time.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks post enrollment; secondary outcomes were point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks and making a quit attempt by weeks 26 and 52.

FINDINGS

No abstinence main effects were found but a mini-lozenge × reduction counseling × BA interaction was found at 52 weeks; P = 0.03. Unpacking this interaction showed that the mini-lozenge alone produced the highest abstinence rate (16.7%); combining it with reduction counseling produced an especially low abstinence rate (4.1%). Reduction counseling decreased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 52 weeks relative to no reduction counseling (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine mini-lozenges may increase smoking abstinence in people initially unwilling to quit smoking, but their effectiveness declines when used with smoking reduction counseling or other behavioral interventions. Reduction counseling decreases the likelihood of making a quit attempt in people initially unwilling to quit smoking.

Barriers to Building More Effective Treatments: Negative Interactions Amongst Smoking Intervention Components

Meaningfully improved mental and behavioral health treatment is an unrealized dream. Across three factorial experiments, inferential tests in prior studies showed a pattern of negative interactions suggesting that better clinical outcomes are obtained when participants receive fewer rather than more intervention components. Further, relatively few significant main effects were found in these experiments. Modeling suggested that negative interactions amongst components may account for these patterns. This paper evaluates factors that may contribute to such declining benefit: increased attentional or effort burden; components that produce their effects via the same capacity limited mechanisms, making their effects subadditive; and a tipping point phenomenon in which those near a hypothesized "tipping point" for change will benefit markedly from weak intervention while those far from the tipping point will benefit little from even strong intervention. New research should explore factors that cause negative interactions amongst components and constrain the development of more effective treatments.

Smoking Treatment: A Report Card on Progress and Challenges

The impact of tobacco smoking treatment is determined by its reach into the smoking population and the effectiveness of its interventions. This review evaluates the reach and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for smoking. Historically, the reach of smoking treatment has been low, and therefore its impact has been limited, but new reach strategies such as digital interventions and health care system changes offer great promise. Pharmacotherapy tends to be more effective than psychosocial intervention when used clinically, and newer pharmacotherapy strategies hold great promise of further enhancing effectiveness. However, new approaches are needed to advance psychosocial interventions; progress has stagnated because research and dissemination efforts have focused too narrowly on skill training despite evidence that its core content may be inconsequential and the fact that its mechanisms are either unknown or inconsistent with supporting theory. Identifying effective psychosocial content and its mechanisms of action could greatly enhance the effectiveness of counseling, digital, and web interventions.

Time-varying effects of 'optimized smoking treatment' on craving, negative affect and anhedonia

AIMS

To identify when smoking cessation treatments affect craving, negative affect and anhedonia, and how these symptoms relate to abstinence, to help evaluate the effects of particular intervention components in multi-component treatments and accelerate treatment refinement.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a two-arm randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Seven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult primary care patients who smoked daily (n = 574).

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Intervention was abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT, n = 276) comprising 3 weeks of nicotine mini-lozenges pre-target quit day (TQD), 26 weeks of combination nicotine patch and mini-lozenges post-TQD and extensive psychosocial support. The comparator was recommended usual care (RUC, n = 298), comprising brief counseling and 8 weeks of nicotine patch post-TQD.

MEASUREMENTS

Time-varying effect models examined dynamic effects of A-OT (versus RUC) on the primary outcomes of nightly cigarette craving, negative affect and anhedonia from 1 week pre- to 2 weeks post-TQD. Exploratory models examined within-person relations between nicotine medication use and same-day symptom ratings. Secondary logistic regression analyses examined associations between post-TQD craving, negative affect and anhedonia and 1-month post-TQD abstinence.

FINDINGS

A-OT significantly suppressed pre- and post-TQD craving (β = -0.27 to -0.46 across days) and post-TQD anhedonia (β = -0.24 to -0.38 across days), relative to RUC. Within individuals, using patches was associated with lower negative affect in RUC (β = -0.42 to -0.52), but not in A-OT. Using more mini-lozenges was associated with greater craving (β = 0.04-0.07) and negative affect (β = 0.03-0.05) early, and with lower anhedonia (β = -0.06 to -0.12) later. Greater post-TQD craving (OR = 0.68) and anhedonia (OR = 0.85) predicted lower odds of abstinence 1 month post-TQD.

CONCLUSION

Time-varying effect models showed that a multi-component treatment intervention for smoking cessation suppressed significant withdrawal symptoms more effectively than recommended usual care among daily adult smokers motivated to quit. The intervention reduced craving pre- and post-target quit day (TQD) and anhedonia post-TQD.

Predictors of Smoking Cessation Attempts and Success Following Motivation-Phase Interventions Among People Initially Unwilling to Quit Smoking

INTRODUCTION

Most people who smoke cigarettes are not willing (ie, not ready) to make a quit attempt (QA) at any given time. Unfortunately, interventions intended to increase QAs and the success of QAs are only modestly effective. Identifying processes leading to QAs and quitting success could guide intervention development.

AIMS AND METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized factorial trial of 6 weeks of motivation-phase interventions among primary care patients (N = 517) who were initially unwilling to quit but were willing to reduce their smoking. Using logistic regression, we controlled for treatment condition and tested whether baseline or change in smoking-related constructs after 6 weeks of treatment predicted (1) making an at least 24 h QA between weeks 6 and 26 and (2) quitting success at week 26 (7-day point-prevalence abstinence among those who made a QA). Predictors included cigarettes/day, time to first cigarette, motivation to quit, quitting self-efficacy, anticipated urges to smoke if quit, positive affect, negative affect, and time spent around others who smoke.

RESULTS

In multivariable models that included all smoking-related constructs, changes in the following variables predicted initiating a QA above and beyond other variables: greater baseline time to first cigarette (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60), increases in time to first cigarette (OR = 1.27), and increases in quitting self-efficacy (OR = 1.14). Increased motivation to quit predicted conversion of a QA into quitting success at 26 weeks (OR = 1.36).

CONCLUSION

Predictors of making a QA differed from predictors of quitting success. Predictors of QAs and success could each serve as important treatment targets of motivation-phase interventions.

IMPLICATIONS

Motivation-phase interventions for people initially unwilling to quit smoking cigarettes may be improved by striving to increase their (1) time to first cigarette and quitting self-efficacy to promote QAs and (2) motivation to quit to promote quit success. Future experimental tests of such interventions are needed to identify causal determinants of QAs and quitting success.

Optimizing Text Messages to Promote Engagement With Internet Smoking Cessation Treatment: Results From a Factorial Screening Experiment

BACKGROUND

Smoking remains a leading cause of preventable death and illness. Internet interventions for smoking cessation have the potential to significantly impact public health, given their broad reach and proven effectiveness. Given the dose-response association between engagement and behavior change, identifying strategies to promote engagement is a priority across digital health interventions. Text messaging is a proven smoking cessation treatment modality and a powerful strategy to increase intervention engagement in other areas of health, but it has not been tested as an engagement strategy for a digital cessation intervention.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the impact of 4 experimental text message design factors on adult smokers' engagement with an internet smoking cessation program.

METHODS

We conducted a 2×2×2×2 full factorial screening experiment wherein 864 participants were randomized to 1 of 16 experimental conditions after registering with a free internet smoking cessation program and enrolling in its automated text message program. Experimental factors were personalization (on/off), integration between the web and text message platforms (on/off), dynamic tailoring of intervention content based on user engagement (on/off), and message intensity (tapered vs abrupt drop-off). Primary outcomes were 3-month measures of engagement (ie, page views, time on site, and return visits to the website) as well as use of 6 interactive features of the internet program. All metrics were automatically tracked; there were no missing data.

RESULTS

Main effects were detected for integration and dynamic tailoring. Integration significantly increased interactive feature use by participants, whereas dynamic tailoring increased the number of features used and page views. No main effects were found for message intensity or personalization alone, although several synergistic interactions with other experimental features were observed. Synergistic effects, when all experimental factors were active, resulted in the highest rates of interactive feature use and the greatest proportion of participants at high levels of engagement. Measured in terms of standardized mean differences (SMDs), effects on interactive feature use were highest for Build Support System (SMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81), Choose Quit Smoking Aid (SMD 0.38; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66), and Track Smoking Triggers (SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.61). Among the engagement metrics, the largest effects were on overall feature utilization (SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.59) and time on site (SMD 0.29; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57). As no SMD >0.30 was observed for main effects on any outcome, results suggest that for some outcomes, the combined intervention was stronger than individual factors alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This factorial experiment demonstrates the effectiveness of text messaging as a strategy to increase engagement with an internet smoking cessation intervention, resulting in greater overall intervention dose and greater exposure to the core components of tobacco dependence treatment that can promote abstinence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585206; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02585206.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010687.

Randomization procedures for multicomponent behavioral intervention factorial trials in the multiphase optimization strategy framework: challenges and recommendations

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an increasingly popular framework to prepare, optimize, and evaluate multicomponent behavioral health interventions. Within this framework, it is common to use a factorial trial to assemble an optimized multicomponent intervention by simultaneously testing several intervention components. With the possibility of a large number of conditions (unique combinations of components) and a goal to balance conditions on both sample size (for statistical efficiency) and baseline covariates (for internal validity), such trials face additional randomization challenges compared to the standard two-arm trial. The purpose of the current paper is to compare and contrast potential randomization methods for factorial trials in the context of MOST and to provide guidance for the reporting of those methods. We describe the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of several randomization methods in the context of factorial trials. We then provide examples to examine current practice in the MOST-related literature and provide recommendations for reporting of randomization. We identify two key randomization decisions for MOST-related factorial trials: (i) whether to randomize to components or conditions and (ii) whether to use restricted randomization techniques, such as stratification, permuted blocks, and minimization. We also provide a checklist to assist researchers in ensuring complete reporting of randomization methods used. As more investigators use factorial trials within the MOST framework for assembling optimized multicomponent behavioral interventions, appropriate implementation and rigorous reporting of randomization procedures will be essential for ensuring the efficiency and validity of the results.

Dispositional mindfulness, affect and tobacco dependence among treatment naive cigarette smokers in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

The current study examined associations between affective and smoking-related factors, and dispositional mindfulness among smokers seeking enrollment in a cessation program in Brazil.

METHODS

Participants were first-time treatment seeking adult smokers (N=90) on a waiting list for a government-sponsored cessation program. Pearson's bivariate correlations assessed relationships between the primary outcome variable (dispositional mindfulness) and each explanatory variable (nicotine dependence, depression, anxiety, and state positive/negative affect). Linear regression analyses evaluated the unique contribution of each explanatory variable when controlling for the others.

RESULTS

The sample (N=90) was predominantly female (n=71) and most (79%) had 11 or fewer years of education. In the final regression model, a total of 36.2% of the variance in dispositional mindfulness was accounted for by positive affect (B=0.81, p<0.001), negative affect (B= -0.44, p=0.02), and level of nicotine dependence (B=1.48, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Positive and negative affect, as well as nicotine dependence, account for a significant and sizable amount of the variance in dispositional mindfulness. Future mindfulness interventions for smoking cessation should be designed to address individual differences in affect, as well as nicotine dependence, in order to better tailor treatment to address baseline differences in mindfulness.

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I2 = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I2 = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I2 = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I2 = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I2 = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Use of the Phase-Based Model of Smoking Treatment to Guide Intervention Development for Persons Living with HIV Who Self-Identify as African American Tobacco Smokers

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH), with rates as high 50% as compared to 14% in the general U.S. population. Tobacco use causes morbidity and mortality in PLWH, and tobacco-related harm is substantially higher in PLWH than smokers in the general population, providing the scientific premise for developing effective tobacco cessation interventions in this population. To better address this issue, we conducted six focus group sessions with 45 African American smokers who are living with HIV to understand the barriers to smoking cessation and the strategies that would be helpful to overcome these barriers. We organized our findings by the Phase-Based Model of Smoking Treatment to understand the intervention components that are needed at each phase to help PLWH successfully quit smoking. Participants in our focus group sessions articulated key components for incorporation into tobacco cessation intervention for PLWH: a personalized plan for quitting, reminders about that plan, and a support system. Participants thought that their HIV and tobacco use were disassociated. Participants described barriers to the use of pharmacotherapy, including adverse side effects of the gum and patch and concerns about the negative health effects of some oral medications. Substance use was identified as a commonly co-occurring condition as well as a barrier to successfully ceasing to smoke tobacco products. In summary, these findings offer information on the components of a tobacco cessation intervention for PLWH, namely reminders, a support system, substance use treatment, and monitoring to prevent relapse.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Optimized Smoking Treatment Delivered in Primary Care

Background

The effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment is limited in real-world use, perhaps because we have not selected the components of such treatments optimally nor have treatments typically been developed for and evaluated in real-world clinical settings.

Purpose

To validate an optimized smoking cessation treatment package that comprises intervention components identified as effective in factorial screening experiments conducted as per the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST).

Methods

Adult smokers motivated to quit were recruited from primary care clinics (N = 623). Participants were randomized to receive either recommended usual care (R-UC; 10 min of in-person counseling, 8 weeks of nicotine patch, and referral to quitline services) or abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT; 3 weeks of prequit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch + mini-lozenges, three in-person and eight phone counseling sessions, and 7-11 automated calls to prompt medication use). The key outcomes were self-reported and biochemically confirmed (carbon monoxide, CO <6 ppm) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence.

Results

A-OT participants had significantly higher self-reported abstinence rates than R-UC participants at 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks (ORs: 1.91-3.05; p <. 001). The biochemically confirmed 26-week abstinence rates were lower than the self-reported 26-week rates, but revealed a similar treatment effect size (OR = 2.94, p < .001). There was no moderation of treatment effects on 26-week abstinence by demographic, psychiatric, or nicotine dependence variables. A-OT had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 26-week CO-confirmed abstinence of $7,800.

Conclusions

A smoking cessation treatment that is optimized via MOST development meaningfully enhances cessation rates beyond R-UC smoking treatment in smokers seen in primary care.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02301403.

Multilevel factorial designs with experiment-induced clustering

Factorial experimental designs have many applications in the behavioral sciences. In the context of intervention development, factorial experiments play a critical role in building and optimizing high-quality, multicomponent behavioral interventions. One challenge in implementing factorial experiments in the behavioral sciences is that individuals are often clustered in social or administrative units and may be more similar to each other than to individuals in other clusters. This means that data are dependent within clusters. Power planning resources are available for factorial experiments in which the multilevel structure of the data is due to individuals' membership in groups that existed before experimentation. However, in many cases clusters are generated in the course of the study itself. Such experiment-induced clustering (EIC) requires different data analysis models and power planning resources from those available for multilevel experimental designs in which clusters exist prior to experimentation. Despite the common occurrence of both experimental designs with EIC and factorial designs, a bridge has yet to be built between EIC and factorial designs. Therefore, resources are limited or nonexistent for planning factorial experiments that involve EIC. This article seeks to bridge this gap by extending prior models for EIC, developed for single-factor experiments, to factorial experiments involving various types of EIC. We also offer power formulas to help investigators decide whether a particular experimental design involving EIC is feasible. We demonstrate that factorial experiments can be powerful and feasible even with EIC. We discuss design considerations and directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Identifying Differences in Rates of Invitation to Participate in Tobacco Treatment in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

The progress achieved in reducing tobacco use has not been consistent across groups of smokers, and health systems are inconsistently implementing best practice guidelines. Guideline implementation could be associated with improved treatment invitation rates.

AIMS

To evaluate differences in tobacco treatment invitation rates based on patient characteristics in primary care clinics implementing best practice guidelines.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of patients presenting to 11 primary care clinics from 2 Wisconsin health systems from June 2010 to February 2013. The main outcome was whether patients received an invitation to participate in tobacco treatment. Invitation rates were examined by sex, age group (≤ 24 years, 25-44, 45-64, ≥ 64), race (white, black, other), insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, none), and visit diagnosis ("high-risk" [cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, malignancy, pregnancy] vs "low-risk" [all other ICD-9 categories]). Moderation effects of health systems also were examined.

RESULTS

Of the 95,471 patients seen, 84,668 (89%) were screened for smoking. Among the 15,193 smokers, 10,242 (67%) were invited to participate. Invited patients were older, white or black, and carried low-risk diagnoses. Invitation rates and patient-level differences varied between the health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Variable treatment invitation rates and health system differences remain evident in the primary care setting employing robust clinical practice guideline recommendations.

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

CONTEXT

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Offering smoking treatment to primary care patients in two Wisconsin healthcare systems: Who chooses smoking reduction versus cessation?

Smokers unwilling to make a quit attempt can still benefit from smoking intervention. However, it is unclear what proportion of smokers will enter such a Motivation phase intervention, and whether such an intervention attracts different types of smokers than does abstinence oriented treatment. We conducted a study from June 2010 to October 2013 based on a chronic care model of tobacco treatment among study eligible primary care patients (N=1579; 58% women, 89% White) presenting for regular health care visits in southern Wisconsin, U.S. Medical assistants, prompted via the electronic health record (EHR), invited smokers (n=10,242) to learn more about treatment options to help them either reduce their smoking or quit. Of those invited to learn more who were then reached by study staff, 10.2% (n=1046) reported interest in reduction treatment and 24% (n=2465) reported interest in cessation treatment. Patients who selected and ultimately entered reduction (n=492) versus cessation (n=1087) were more likely to report: older age; a history of anxiety; lower motivation to quit; lower primary dependence motives; more close friends or family who smoke; and a greater interval since their last quit attempt. Results suggest that Motivation phase treatment aimed at smoking reduction may increase the proportion and range of smokers inducted into tobacco treatment.

Smokers who are unmotivated to quit and have a child with asthma are more likely to quit with intensive motivational interviewing and repeated biomarker feedback

OBJECTIVE

Smokers who are not motivated to quit are an important group for intervention, particularly if they have children with asthma. Research indicates that unmotivated smokers are less responsive to intensive interventions, although motivation-by-treatment interactions have not been tested. This study examines whether motivation to quit moderates the effect of a cessation induction intervention.

METHOD

Parents had an asthmatic child requiring urgent care, and did not have to want to quit smoking to be eligible for the study. Two home visits included asthma education, motivational interviewing (MI) for cessation, and feedback on child's secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe). Participants were then randomized (n = 339, 79.6% female) to receive Enhanced-PAM (Precaution Adoption Model; 6 MI calls including SHSe feedback) or PAM (6 contact control calls). Motivation to quit was assessed at baseline and point-prevalence abstinence (ppa) and SHSe outcomes were objectively measured.

RESULTS

At baseline, 38.9% were not motivated to quit. Those who were not motivated to quit were 3 to 4 times more likely to be abstinent at 6 months in Enhanced-PAM versus PAM (7-day ppa: OR = 3.71, 95% CI = [1.06, 12.99]; 30-day: OR = 4.15, 95% CI [1.20, 14.35]); those receiving Enhanced-PAM achieved quit rates comparable to motivated smokers. Those who were not motivated to quit were more than 4 times as likely to have very low/undetectable SHSe at follow-up in Enhanced-PAM versus PAM (OR = 4.46, 95% CI [1.31, 15.15]). Among motivated smokers, neither outcome significantly differed by treatment arm.

CONCLUSION

It cannot be assumed that smokers who are unmotivated to quit will not be responsive to intensive interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Smoking Cessation and Electronic Cigarettes in Community Mental Health Centers: Patient and Provider Perspectives

Little is known about patients' electronic cigarette use, interest in and use of smoking cessation treatments, and providers' attitude towards such treatment. We assessed patients (N = 231) and providers (45 psychiatrists, 97 case workers) in four Community Mental Health Centers. Interestingly, 50% of smokers reported interest in using electronic cigarettes to quit smoking, and 22% reported current use. While 82% of smokers reported wanting to quit or reduce smoking, 91% of psychiatrists and 84% of case workers reported that patients were not interested in quitting as the lead barrier, limiting the provision of cessation interventions. Providers' assumption of low patient interest in treatment may account for the low rate of smoking cessation treatment. In contrast, patients report interest and active use of electronic cigarettes to quit smoking. This study highlights the need for interventions targeting different phases of smoking cessation in these patients suffering disproportionately from tobacco dependence.

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.

Implementing Clinical Research Using Factorial Designs: A Primer

Factorial experiments have rarely been used in the development or evaluation of clinical interventions. However, factorial designs offer advantages over randomized controlled trial designs, the latter being much more frequently used in such research. Factorial designs are highly efficient (permitting evaluation of multiple intervention components with good statistical power) and present the opportunity to detect interactions amongst intervention components. Such advantages have led methodologists to advocate for the greater use of factorial designs in research on clinical interventions (Collins, Dziak, & Li, 2009). However, researchers considering the use of such designs in clinical research face a series of choices that have consequential implications for the interpretability and value of the experimental results. These choices include: whether to use a factorial design, selection of the number and type of factors to include, how to address the compatibility of the different factors included, whether and how to avoid confounds between the type and number of interventions a participant receives, and how to interpret interactions. The use of factorial designs in clinical intervention research poses choices that differ from those typically considered in randomized clinical trial designs. However, the great information yield of the former encourages clinical researchers' increased and careful execution of such designs.

Toward precision smoking cessation treatment II: Proximal effects of smoking cessation intervention components on putative mechanisms of action

BACKGROUND

Understanding how smoking cessation treatments exert their effects can inform treatment development and use. Factorial designs allow researchers to examine whether multiple intervention components affect hypothesized change mechanisms, and whether the affected mechanisms are related to cessation.

METHODS

This is a secondary data analysis of smokers recruited during primary care visits (N=637, 55% women, 87% white) who were motivated to quit. Participants in this fractional factorial experiment were randomized to one level of each of six intervention factors: Prequit Nicotine Patch vs None, Prequit Nicotine Gum vs None, Preparation Counseling vs None, Intensive In-Person Counseling vs Minimal, Intensive Phone Counseling vs Minimal, and 16 vs 8 Weeks of Combination Nicotine Replacement (nicotine patch+nicotine gum). Data on putative mechanisms (e.g., medication use, withdrawal, self-efficacy) and smoking status were gathered using daily assessments and during follow-up assessment calls.

RESULTS

Some intervention components influenced hypothesized mechanisms. Prequit Gum and Patch each reduced prequit smoking and enhanced prequit coping and self-efficacy. In-Person Counseling increased prequit motivation to quit, postquit self-efficacy, and postquit perceived intratreatment support. Withdrawal reduction and reduced prequit smoking produced the strongest effects on cessation. The significant effect of combining Prequit Gum and In-Person Counseling on 26-week abstinence was mediated by increased prequit self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This factorial experiment identified which putative treatment mechanisms were influenced by discrete intervention components and which mechanisms influenced cessation. Such information supports the combined use of prequit nicotine gum and intensive in-person counseling as cessation interventions that operate via increased prequit self-efficacy.

Treating Nicotine Dependence and Preventing Smoking Relapse in Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the well-documented harmful effects of smoking, many cancer patients continue to smoke. Smoking cessation is critical to address in this population given the associated increase in treatment toxicity, risk of second primary tumors, decrease in treatment response and higher disease-specific and all-cause mortality with continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis. This review seeks to summarize the latest recommendations and guidelines on smoking cessation treatment for patients diagnosed with cancer, and the evidence behind those recommendations.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the latest evidence for smoking cessation treatments for cancer patients and the clinical guidelines and recommendation available for oncologists and health care providers. The unique aspects of nicotine dependence among patients diagnosed with cancer, and key challenges and barriers that cancer survivors and health care providers experience when considering smoking cessation treatments, and available clinical resources, are also discussed. Lastly, the authors summarize future directions in the field of smoking cessation treatment for cancer patients.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

While there are areas of improvement in research of smoking cessation treatment for cancer patients, critical under-explored areas remain. Nonetheless, providers should adhere to the NCCN guidelines and offer a brief counseling intervention to motivate patients to quit smoking when appropriate resources are not available.

Comparative effectiveness of motivation phase intervention components for use with smokers unwilling to quit: a factorial screening experiment

AIMS

To screen promising intervention components designed to reduce smoking and promote abstinence in smokers initially unwilling to quit.

DESIGN

A balanced, four-factor, randomized factorial experiment.

SETTING

Eleven primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 517 adult smokers (63.4% women, 91.1% white) recruited during primary care visits who were willing to reduce their smoking but not quit.

INTERVENTIONS

Four factors contrasted intervention components designed to reduce smoking and promote abstinence: (1) nicotine patch versus none; (2) nicotine gum versus none; (3) motivational interviewing (MI) versus none; and (4) behavioral reduction counseling (BR) versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any point during the study.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was percentage change in cigarettes smoked per day at 26 weeks post-study enrollment; the secondary outcomes were percentage change at 12 weeks and point-prevalence abstinence at 12 and 26 weeks post-study enrollment.

FINDINGS

There were few main effects, but a significant four-way interaction at 26 weeks post-study enrollment (P = 0.01, β = 0.12) revealed relatively large smoking reductions by two component combinations: nicotine gum combined with BR and BR combined with MI. Further, BR improved 12-week abstinence rates (P = 0.04), and nicotine gum, when used without MI, increased 26-week abstinence after a subsequent aided quit attempt (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Motivation-phase nicotine gum and behavioral reduction counseling are promising intervention components for smokers who are initially unwilling to quit.

Identifying effective intervention components for smoking cessation: a factorial screening experiment

AIMS

To identify promising intervention components intended to help smokers to attain and maintain abstinence in their quit smoking attempts.

DESIGN

A fully crossed, six-factor randomized fractional factorial experiment.

SETTING

Eleven primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 637 adult smokers (55% women, 88% white) motivated to quit smoking who visited primary care clinics.

INTERVENTIONS

Six intervention components designed to prepare smokers to quit, and achieve and maintain abstinence (i.e. for the preparation, cessation and maintenance phases of smoking treatment): (1) preparation nicotine patch versus none; (2) preparation nicotine gum versus none; (3) preparation counseling versus none; (4) intensive cessation in-person counseling versus minimal; (5) intensive cessation telephone counseling versus minimal; and (6) 16 versus 8 weeks of combination nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch  +  nicotine gum).

MEASUREMENTS

Seven-day self-reported point-prevalence abstinence at 16 weeks.

FINDINGS

Preparation counseling significantly improved week 16 abstinence rates (P = .04), while both forms of preparation nicotine replacement therapy interacted synergistically with intensive cessation in-person counseling (P < 0.05). Conversely, intensive cessation phone counseling and intensive cessation in-person counseling interacted antagonistically (P < 0.05)-these components produced higher abstinence rates by themselves than in combination.

CONCLUSIONS

Preparation counseling and the combination of intensive cessation in-person counseling with preparation nicotine gum or patch are promising intervention components for smoking and should be evaluated as an integrated treatment package.

Comparative effectiveness of intervention components for producing long-term abstinence from smoking: a factorial screening experiment

AIMS

To identify promising intervention components that help smokers attain and maintain abstinence during a quit attempt.

DESIGN

A 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 randomized factorial experiment.

SETTING

Eleven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 544 smokers (59% women, 86% white) recruited during primary care visits and motivated to quit.

INTERVENTIONS

Five intervention components designed to help smokers attain and maintain abstinence: (1) extended medication (26 versus 8 weeks of nicotine patch + nicotine gum); (2) maintenance (phone) counseling versus none; (3) medication adherence counseling versus none; (4) automated (medication) adherence calls versus none; and (5) electronic medication monitoring with feedback and counseling versus electronic medication monitoring alone.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day self-reported point-prevalence abstinence 1 year after the target quit day.

FINDINGS

Only extended medication produced a main effect. Twenty-six versus 8 weeks of medication improved point-prevalence abstinence rates (43 versus 34% at 6 months; 34 versus 27% at 1 year; P = 0.01 for both). There were four interaction effects at 1 year, showing that an intervention component's effectiveness depended upon the components with which it was combined.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-six weeks of nicotine patch + nicotine gum (versus 8 weeks) and maintenance counseling provided by phone are promising intervention components for the cessation and maintenance phases of smoking treatment.

Enhancing the effectiveness of smoking treatment research: conceptual bases and progress

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A chronic care strategy could potentially enhance the reach and effectiveness of smoking treatment by providing effective interventions for all smokers, including those who are initially unwilling to quit. This paper describes the conceptual bases of a National Cancer Institute-funded research program designed to develop an optimized, comprehensive, chronic care smoking treatment.

METHODS

This research is grounded in three methodological approaches: (1) the Phase-Based Model, which guides the selection of intervention components to be experimentally evaluated for the different phases of smoking treatment (motivation, preparation, cessation, and maintenance); (2) the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST), which guides the screening of intervention components via efficient experimental designs and, ultimately, the assembly of promising components into an optimized treatment package; and (3) pragmatic research methods, such as electronic health record recruitment, that facilitate the efficient translation of research findings into clinical practice. Using this foundation and working in primary care clinics, we conducted three factorial experiments (reported in three accompanying papers) to screen 15 motivation, preparation, cessation and maintenance phase intervention components for possible inclusion in a chronic care smoking treatment program.

RESULTS

This research identified intervention components with relatively strong evidence of effectiveness at particular phases of smoking treatment and it demonstrated the efficiency of the MOST approach in terms both of the number of intervention components tested and of the richness of the information yielded.

CONCLUSIONS

A new, synthesized research approach efficiently evaluates multiple intervention components to identify promising components for every phase of smoking treatment. Many intervention components interact with one another, supporting the use of factorial experiments in smoking treatment development.