A spit tobacco cessation intervention for college athletes: three-month results

Effectiveness of Behavioral Counseling in Smokeless Tobacco Cessation Among Adult Users Reporting to a Dental Hospital in Pune: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aim To assess the effectiveness of behavioral counseling for smokeless tobacco cessation among adult users in a dental hospital setting. Methods A total of 200 patients visiting a dental hospital who were exclusively using smokeless tobacco (SLT) were enrolled in the study. A randomized controlled trial with a concurrent parallel study design, which consisted of two arms, was conducted. Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence level and the transtheoretical stage of change was assessed at the baseline. Behavioral cessation counseling and motivational interviewing were provided in the study arm and brief advice was given to those in the control arm. The counseling was provided at baseline and followed up till six months through telephone to assess the change in the frequency of use of SLT products and abstinence from SLT use. A biochemical validation with a urine cotinine test was done to confirm abstinence. Results At six months, there was a significant difference within and between the study and control groups, indicating the role played by behavioral tobacco cessation in reducing the frequency of consumption. About 24.4% of participants in the study group and 10% in the control group abstained from the habit at the sixth month, with an odd's ratio (OR)=2.91 and with a loss to follow-up of 10% in each of the groups. The cotinine test, which was used for validation, revealed a significant difference between the study and the control group. The number needed to treat (NNT) shows that to motivate one additional person to give up the SLT habit, we need to intervene with about seven people. Conclusion Behavior intervention with motivational interviewing was considered an effective method in promoting smokeless tobacco cessation among adults. Transtheoretical stages of change have proven to be an effective model to assess the stage of behavior change of the population toward SLT use and was also helpful for changing the behavior.

Interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by dental professionals

BACKGROUND

Dental professionals are well placed to help their patients stop using tobacco products. Large proportions of the population visit the dentist regularly. In addition, the adverse effects of tobacco use on oral health provide a context that dental professionals can use to motivate a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, adverse events and oral health effects of tobacco cessation interventions offered by dental professionals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register up to February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by dental professionals in the dental practice or community setting, with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from all tobacco use (e.g. cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarised as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I² statistic. We summarised secondary outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty clinical trials involving 14,897 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Sixteen studies assessed the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco-use cessation in dental clinics and four assessed this in community (school or college) settings. Five studies included only smokeless tobacco users, and the remaining studies included either smoked tobacco users only, or a combination of both smoked and smokeless tobacco users. All studies employed behavioural interventions, with four offering nicotine treatment (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes) as part of the intervention. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, one to be at unclear risk of bias, and the remaining 16 studies to be at high risk of bias. Compared with usual care, brief advice, very brief advice, or less active treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural support provided by dental professionals, comprising either one session (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.41; I² = 66%; four studies, n = 6328), or more than one session (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.11; I² = 61%; seven studies, n = 2639), on abstinence from tobacco use at least six months from baseline. We found moderate-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural interventions provided by dental professionals combined with the provision of NRT or e-cigarettes, compared with no intervention, usual care, brief, or very brief advice only (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.82; I² = 0%; four studies, n = 1221). We did not detect a benefit from multiple-session behavioural support provided by dental professionals delivered in a high school or college, instead of a dental setting (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65; I² = 83%; three studies, n = 1020; very low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported adverse events or oral health outcomes, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that quit rates increase when dental professionals offer behavioural support to promote tobacco cessation. There is moderate-certainty evidence that tobacco abstinence rates increase in cigarette smokers if dental professionals offer behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy. Further evidence is required to be certain of the size of the benefit and whether adding pharmacological interventions is more effective than behavioural support alone. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence so as to preclude the risk of detection bias. There is insufficient evidence on whether these interventions lead to adverse effects, but no reasons to suspect that these effects would be specific to interventions delivered by dental professionals. There was insufficient evidence that interventions affected oral health.

Smokeless tobacco cessation interventions: A systematic review

Background & objectives:

Smokeless tobacco (SLT) consumption is a global health issue with about 350 million users and numerous adverse health consequences like oral cancer and myocardial disorders. Hence, cessation of SLT use is as essential as smoking cessation. An update on the available literature on SLT cessation intervention studies is provided here.

Methods:

Through an extensive literature search on SLT cessation intervention studies, using keywords such as smokeless tobacco, cessation, interventions, quitlines, brief advice, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine gum, nicotine lozenge, nicotine patch, bupropion, varenicline, mHealth, etc., 59 eligible studies were selected. Furthermore, efficacy of the interventions was assessed from the reported risk ratios (RRs) [confidence intervals (CIs)] and quit rates.

Results:

Studies were conducted in Scandinavia, India, United Kingdom, Pakistan and the United States of America, with variable follow up periods of one month to 10 years. Behavioural interventions alone showed high efficacy in SLT cessation; most studies were conducted among adults and showed positive effects, i.e. RR [CI] 0.87 [0.7, 1.09] to 3.84 [2.33, 6.33], quit rate between 9-51.5 per cent, at six months. Regular telephone support/quitlines also proved beneficial. Among pharmacological modalities, nicotine lozenges and varenicline proved efficacious in SLT cessation.

Interpretation & conclusions:

Globally, there is limited information available on SLT cessation intervention trials, research on which must be encouraged, especially in the low-resource, high SLT burden countries; behavioural interventions are most suitable for such settings. Appropriate training/sensitization of healthcare professionals, and school-based SLT use prevention and cessation programmes need to be encouraged.

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear.

Technology-based interventions for tobacco and other drug use in university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

University students have high levels of tobacco and other drug use, yet they are unlikely to seek traditional care. Technology-based interventions are highly relevant to this population. This paper comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized trials of technology-based interventions evaluated in a tertiary (university/college) setting for tobacco and other drug use (excluding alcohol). It extends previous reviews by using a broad definition of technology.

Methods

PubMed, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane databases were searched using keywords, phrases, and MeSH terms. Retrieved abstracts (n = 627) were double screened and coded. Included studies met the following criteria: (1) the study was a randomized trial or a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (2) the sample was composed of students attending a tertiary (e.g., university, college) institution; (3) the intervention was either delivered by or accessed using a technological device or process (e.g., computer/internet, telephone, mobile short message services [SMS]); (4) the age range or mean of the sample was between 18 and 25 years; and (5) the intervention was designed to alter a drug use outcome relating to tobacco or other drugs (excluding alcohol).

Results

A total of 12 papers met inclusion criteria for the current review. The majority of included papers examined tobacco use (n = 9; 75%), two studies targeted marijuana use (17%); and one targeted stress, marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco use. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted on the tobacco use studies using an abstinence outcome measure (n = 6), demonstrating that the interventions increased the rate of abstinence by 1.5 times that of controls (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.54; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.20–1.98). Across all 12 studies, a total of 20 technology-based interventions were reviewed. A range of technology was employed in the interventions, including stand-alone computer programs (n = 10), internet (n = 5), telephone (n = 3), and mobile SMS (n = 2).

Conclusions

Although technological interventions have the potential to reduce drug use in tertiary students, very few trials have been conducted, particularly for substances other than tobacco. However, the improvement shown in abstinence from tobacco use has the potential to impact substantially on morbidity and mortality.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13722-015-0027-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users.

OBJECTIVES

This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by oral health professionals and offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-November 2011), EMBASE (1988-November 2011), CINAHL (1982-November 2011), Healthstar (1975-November 2011), ERIC (1967-November 2011), PsycINFO (1984-November 2011), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-November 2011), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-November 2011), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-November 2011), and Web of Science (1993-November 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from smoking or all tobacco use (for users of smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. The effect was summarised as an odds ratio, with correction for clustering where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using an inverse variance fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or in a community school or college setting. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions among smokeless tobacco (ST) users, and eight studies evaluated interventions among cigarette smokers, six of which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. All studies employed behavioral interventions and only one required pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling all 14 studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals can increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44 to 2.03) at six months or longer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 61%). Within the subgroup of interventions for smokers, heterogeneity was smaller (I² = 51%), but was largely attributable to a large study showing no evidence of benefit. Within this subgroup there were five studies which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. Pooling these showed clear evidence of benefit and minimal heterogeneity (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.35, 5 studies, I² = 3%) but this was a posthoc subgroup analysis. Amongst the studies in smokeless tobacco users the heterogeneity was also attributable to a large study showing no sign of benefit, possibly due to intervention spillover to control colleges; the other five studies indicated that interventions for ST users were effective (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in conjunction with an oral examination was a consistent intervention component that was also provided in some control groups.

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to nicotine addiction and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts Online, and Scopus. Date of last search: October 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We summarised as odds ratios. For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

Data from one study suggest that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.36) among Swedish snus users.Two trials of bupropion SR did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57). Nicotine replacement therapy (patch, gum, and lozenge) was not observed to increase tobacco abstinence rates (OR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.42). There was statistical heterogeneity among the 14 trials of behavioural interventions; seven of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits, four suggested benefit but with wide CIs, whilst two had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by the design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. Most trials included either telephone counselling, an oral examination and feedback about any ST induced mucosal changes, or both. In a post-hoc subgroup analysis there was some evidence that behavioural interventions which include telephone counselling might increase abstinence rates more than interventions with less contact. In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Behavioural interventions incorporating telephone counselling or an oral examination are likely to increase abstinence rates.

Predictors of smokeless tobacco abstinence

OBJECTIVES

To investigate predictors of tobacco abstinence among smokeless tobacco (ST) users.

METHODS

Logistic regression analyses assessed characteristics associated with tobacco abstinence among ST users receiving bupropion SR.

RESULTS

Older age was associated with increased tobacco abstinence in both placebo and bupropion SR groups at end of treatment and one year. Abstinence was lower at one year for subjects with a history of major depression. At end-of-treatment, a 2-way interaction was detected suggesting bupropion SR may be efficacious for subjects with other household tobacco users.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger ST users and those with a history of depression are less likely to quit ST use.

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to nicotine addiction and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease and cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts Online, and Scopus. Date of last search: March, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials of bupropion SR did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.47 to 1.57). Four trials of nicotine patch did not detect a benefit (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.54), nor did two trials of nicotine gum (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.63). There was statistical heterogeneity among the results of 12 behavioural interventions included in the meta-analyses. Six trials showed significant benefits of intervention. In post-hoc subgroup analyses, behavioural interventions which include telephone counselling or an oral examination may increase abstinence rates more than interventions without these components.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions should be used to help ST users to quit and telephone counselling or an oral examination may increase abstinence rates. Pharmacotherapies have not been shown to affect long-term abstinence.

A 10-yr study of smokeless tobacco use in a professional baseball organization

PURPOSE

Professional baseball players frequently use smokeless tobacco and are at risk of oral leukoplakia. There are limited long-term data on current trends in tobacco use and resultant oral health in this high-risk group. The purpose of this study was to monitor the prevalence of smokeless tobacco use in a professional baseball organization over a 10-yr period, looking for changes in the patterns of use and resultant changes in the incidence of oral leukoplakia.

METHODS

During 10 successive spring training camps (1991-2000), players and management personnel were surveyed on their use of smokeless tobacco. A detailed mouth examination of each participant was performed by an examiner blinded to the questionnaire results. The main outcome measures were trends in self-reported tobacco use and the presence of oral leukoplakia on examination.

RESULTS

We performed 2266 mouth examinations on participants with a completed questionnaire, with the yearly sample size ranging from 190 to 259. The prevalence of smokeless tobacco use declined, falling from 41.1% in year 1 to 25.6% in year 10 (P=0.029). Tobacco use was strongly associated with the prevalence of oral leukoplakia. As the overall prevalence of smokeless tobacco use fell, the prevalence of oral leukoplakia in the entire population declined; falling from 22.6% of all participants in year 1 to only 9.4% in year 10 (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of smokeless tobacco use showed a steady decline in this professional baseball organization over the 10 yr of the study, with a concomitant decline in the prevalence of oral leukoplakia in this population. We postulate that changes in league rules regarding tobacco use and regular education and support for tobacco cessation might explain the declining use.

A systematic review of college student-athlete drinking: Prevalence rates, sport-related factors, and interventions

Alcohol use among college students has become a considerable public health problem. Among this group, intercollegiate athletes are at a particularly high risk for excessive alcohol consumption and resulting negative alcohol-related consequences. The purpose of our review was to systematically examine three main issues related to alcohol consumption among intercollegiate athletes: (a) the prevalence rates and alcohol consumption patterns of this group, especially in comparison with those of collegiate nonathletes; (b) the various factors that might motivate or encourage alcohol use among intercollegiate athletes, primarily sport-related individual and environmental variables; and (c) considerations for conducting alcohol-related interventions with intercollegiate athletes.

Multilevel analysis of group-randomized trials with binary outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Many dental studies have assessed the effectiveness of community- or group-based interventions such as community water fluoridation. These cluster trials, of which group-randomized trials (GRTs) are one type, have design and analysis considerations not found in studies with randomization of treatments to individuals (randomized controlled trials, RCTs). The purpose of this paper is to review analytic methods used for the analysis of binary outcomes from cluster trials and to illustrate these concepts and analytical methods using a school-based GRT.

METHODS

We examine characteristics of GRTs including intra-class correlation (ICC), their most distinctive feature, and review analytical methods for GRTs including group-level analysis, adjusted chi-square test and multivariable analysis (mixed effect models and generalized estimating equations) for correlated binary data. We consider two- and three-level modeling of data from a cross-sectional cluster design. We apply the concepts reviewed using a GRT designed to determine the effect of incentives on response rates in a school-based dental study. We compare the results of analyses using methods for correlated binary data with those from traditional methods that do not account for ICC.

RESULTS

Application of traditional analytic methods to the dental GRT used as an example for this paper led to a substantial overstatement of the effectiveness of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Ignoring the ICC among members of the same group in the analysis of public health intervention studies can lead to erroneous conclusions where groups are the unit of assignment. Special consideration is needed in the analysis of data from these cluster trials. Randomization of treatments to groups also should receive more consideration in the design of cluster trials in dental public health.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users.

OBJECTIVES

This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-2004), EMBASE (1988-2004), CINAHL (1982-2004), Healthstar (1975-2004), ERIC (1967-2004), PsycINFO (1984-2004), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-2004), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-2004), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-2004), and Web of Science (1993-2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Six clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or a school community setting. All studies assessed the efficacy of interventions for smokeless tobacco users, one of which included cigarettes smokers. All studies employed behavioural interventions and only one offered pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling of the studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 1.78) at 12 months or longer. Heterogeneity was evident (I(2) = 75%) and could not be adequately explained through subgroup or sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that behavioural interventions for tobacco use conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office and community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice.

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Tobacco Counseling by Health Care Providers

Given the proportion of American adults who smoke, even if health professionals only have a small effect on quit rates, the public health impact of this change could potentially be enormous. Yet, health care providers may differ in their cessation efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate recent rigorous trials of smoking cessation counseling among physicians, nurses, dentists, and teams of providers: (1) to compare providers on the efficacy of cessation and (2)to determine which intervention and study characteristics explain variations in intervention effects. Thirty-seven randomized clinical trials or quasi-experiments (with control groups) of health care provider–delivered smoking cessation interventions, out of over 200 articles that were published between 1990 and 2004 were collected through searches of Medline, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, and dissertation abstracts, as well as hand searches. The outcome modeled was the mean difference between intervention and control groups in the cessation rates using Hedges g. The univariate results revealed that receiving advice from any health care professional produced increases in quit rates. Multivariate analyses of intervention effects on cessation revealed that physicians were most effective, followed by multiprovider teams, dentists, and nurses. The findings suggest that contact with a health care professional will increase cessation; however, additional training in tobacco control for nurses is warranted. Longer-term studies of smoking cessation, particularly among dentists, are necessary.

Residential treatment for smokeless tobacco use: a case series

We developed and implemented a novel 8-day residential treatment program for smokeless tobacco (ST) use. A multidisciplinary team delivered behavioral treatment, nicotine patches were adjusted to achieve 100% replacement of baseline peak serum nicotine concentrations, and bupropion sustained-release was prescribed. Mean participant age (+/- SD) was 47.4 +/- 18.2 years. Mean nicotine patch dose at program end was 43.2 mg/day +/- 13.9 (range 14 to 66 mg/d). Median percent replacement by serum nicotine concentrations was 86.6% (IQR: 75-113.8%). At 1 year, the biochemically-confirmed (urine anabasine <2.0 ng/mL) self-reported 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence rate was 58% (14/24). A residential treatment program for ST users may be effective. More research is needed to replicate our findings and determine if comparable abstinence rates can be achieved with outpatient ST treatment programs using similar behavioral and pharmacotherapies.

Smokeless tobacco cessation guidelines for health professionals in England

Smokeless tobacco is used in the UK predominantly by members of the Indian, Pakistani and especially Bangladeshi communities. The most commonly used form is tobacco mixed with lime and additional psychoactive compounds, most notably areca nut. The resulting "quid" is chewed or held in the mouth. Studies from Asia indicate that use of this kind of product is linked with an increased risk of oral cancers and possibly low birth-weight infants. There is little high quality research evaluating interventions to promote cessation of smokeless tobacco use, especially of the forms used in the UK. However, what evidence there is suggests that advice to stop coupled with behavioural support and counselling may increase long-term abstinence rates by some 5-10%. It seems appropriate therefore to recommend that dentists, GPs and other relevant health professionals should routinely assess and record smokeless tobacco use in patients belonging to relatively high prevalence groups, that they ensure that smokeless tobacco users know the potential health risks (as well as the health risks of smoking) and that they advise them to stop and keep a record of the outcome. Dental professionals should also examine the oral cavity of smokeless tobacco users for lesions when the opportunity arises. Patients expressing an interest in stopping should be referred to specialist smoking cessation services for behavioural support and specialists in areas of high smokeless tobacco use will need to ensure that they are sufficiently knowledgeable and their services sufficiently accessible to these users. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion to aid smokeless tobacco cessation. Research is needed in the UK to quantify the personal and population health risks from smokeless tobacco, the benefits of stopping, the effectiveness of interventions aimed at promoting cessation and patterns of use, knowledge and attitudes of users.

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to nicotine addiction and health problems including periodontal disease and oral cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions to treat ST use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register (February 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966-February 2004), EMBASE (1988-January 2004), CINAHL (1982-February 2004), PsycINFO (1984-February 2004), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit, with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment after six months (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.23 to 4.37). Three trials of nicotine patch did not detect a benefit (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.54), nor did two trials of nicotine gum (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.63). There was statistical heterogeneity among the results of eight trials of behavioural interventions included in the meta-analysis. Three trials showed significant benefits of intervention. In a post-hoc analysis the trials of interventions which included an oral examination and feedback about ST-induced mucosal changes had homogeneous results and when pooled showed a significant benefit (OR 2.41 95% CI: 1.79 to 3.24).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions should be used to help ST users to quit. Pharmacotherapies have not been shown to affect long-term abstinence but larger trials are needed.

Treatments for spit tobacco use: a quantitative systematic review

AIMS

Spit tobacco use is prevalent in the United States and is associated with adverse health consequences. Health-care providers have neither evidence summaries nor evidence-based guidelines to assist them in treating patients who use spit tobacco.

DESIGN

We completed a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for the treatment of spit tobacco use.

FINDINGS

We found six randomized controlled trials testing pharmacological interventions and eight testing behavioral interventions. Using random-effects meta-analyses,bupropion sustained-release (SR) increased point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 12 weeks [odds ratio (OR) 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-4.2]. Nicotine replacement therapy with patch or gum increased point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6 months (OR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6). Behavioral interventions increased long-term (6 month)point prevalence tobacco abstinence (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9). Studies including an oral examination followed by feedback to the patient had the highest treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral interventions for ST users are effective for increasing ST abstinence rates. Bupropion SR is probably effective and nicotine replacement therapy may be effective. This evidence from randomized controlled trials provides health-care professionals with information necessary to effectively treat spit tobacco use.

Coaches' attitudes toward smokeless tobacco and intentions to intervene with athletes

Smokeless tobacco use among athletes is alarming. Most of these athletes report beginning smokeless tobacco use in middle or high school. West Virginia has significantly higher rates of smokeless tobacco use among adolescent and adult males than the general population. Since West Virginia athletes may be particularly vulnerable to smokeless tobacco use, West Virginia coaches can be critical agents in smokeless tobacco prevention and intervention. This study surveyed West Virginia middle and high school coaches' 1) attitudes toward smokeless tobacco, 2) actions toward athletes who use smokeless tobacco, 3) intentions to provide intervention for users, and 4) tobacco use history. Results indicated coaches had unfavorable attitudes toward smokeless tobacco, perceived it as a problem, and were willing to help athletes quit. These findings provide support for development of training programs for middle and high school coaches to act as smokeless tobacco intervention agents.

Smokeless tobacco cessation intervention for college athletes: results after 1 year

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a college-based smokeless tobacco cessation intervention targeting college athletes.

METHODS

Sixteen colleges were matched for prevalence of smokeless tobacco use in their combined baseball and football teams and randomly assigned within college pairs to the intervention or the control group. One-year prevalence of cessation among smokeless tobacco users was determined by self-report of abstinence for the previous 30 days. Differences between groups were analyzed in a weighted version of the Fisher 1-sided permutation test for paired samples after adjustment for significant predictors of quitting other than the intervention (i.e., smokeless tobacco uses per week and most frequently used brand).

RESULTS

Cessation prevalences were 35% in the intervention colleges and 16% in the control colleges when subjects with unknown quit status were defined as nonquitters. After adjustment for other significant predictors of quitting, the difference of 19% increased to 21%. The intervention effect increased with level of smokeless tobacco use.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention was effective in promoting smokeless tobacco cessation, especially among those who were more frequent users.