IntEgrating Smoking Cessation treatment As part of usual Psychological care for dEpression and anxiety (ESCAPE): protocol for a randomised and controlled, multicentre, acceptability, feasibility and implementation trial

IntEgrating Smoking Cessation treAtment into usual online Psychological care for people with common mEntal illness: Protocol for an online randomised feasibility and pilot study (ESCAPE digital)

BACKGROUND

In the UK, smoking prevalence in people with depression (34%) and anxiety (29%) is more than double that of the general population (13%). People who stop smoking improve their mental health with comparable effect sizes found for antidepressants. In England, online psychological therapy is a standard treatment for depression and anxiety. Online therapy is an acceptable setting for smoking cessation support; however, integrated smoking and mental health support is not available. This novel study aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an online smoking cessation intervention, and trial procedures, offered alongside online mental health treatment as it offers increased reach to people with common mental health difficulties who smoke.

METHODS

A two-armed; Intervention (Integrated SilverCloud smoking cessation support) and control group (SilverCloud usual care), pragmatic, randomised controlled feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 500 adult smokers eligible for online mental health treatment. Follow-up will be conducted at 3-months and 6-months. We will assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial procedures (i.e., recruitment, data completeness, self-reported acceptability and satisfaction) and the intervention (i.e., self-reported quit attempt, engagement with the smoking cessation and mental health programs, smoking cessation medicine and e-cigarette use, self-reported acceptability and satisfaction) and pilot clinical outcomes (i.e., biologically validated smoking abstinence, anxiety, depression, quality of health).

CONCLUSION

If the Trial is successful, a randomised controlled effectiveness trial will follow to examine whether integrated smoking cessation and mental health treatment increases smoking abstinence and improves depression and anxiety compared to usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN10612149 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10612149), 02/02/2023.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Service-user experiences of an integrated psychological intervention for depression or anxiety and tobacco smoking in improving access to psychological therapies services: A qualitative investigation into mechanisms of change in quitting smoking

INTRODUCTION

High smoking prevalence leads to increased morbidity and mortality in individuals with depression/anxiety. Integrated interventions targeting both smoking and mood have been found to be more effective than those targeting smoking alone, but the mechanisms of change of these interventions have not been investigated. This qualitative study aimed to understand participants' experiences of the mechanisms underlying change in smoking behaviour following an integrated cognitive behavioural technique-based intervention for smoking cessation and depression/anxiety.

METHODS

This study was embedded within an ongoing randomized-controlled acceptability and feasibility trial (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN99531779). Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 IAPT service users. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked open-ended questions about their quitting experience and perception of how the intervention aided their behaviour change.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified. Acquiring an increased awareness of smoking patterns: participants described an increased understanding of how smoking was contributing towards their mental health difficulty. Developing individualized strategies: participants described acquiring 'a couple of tricks up your sleeve' that were helpful in making smoking cessation feel more 'manageable'. Practitioner style as 'supportive but not lecture-y': participants expressed how important the therapeutic alliance was in helping change their smoking behaviour. Importance of regular sessions: participants expressed the importance of 'having someone that's checking in on you'. Having the opportunity to access the intervention at 'the right time': participants described the intervention as the 'push' that they 'needed'.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants identified key factors towards smoking behaviour change. Perceived increased awareness of how smoking negatively impacted participants' mental health, and the opportunity to be offered smoking cessation treatment in a 'non-judgemental', 'supportive' environment, with regular sessions and individualized strategies contributed to successful smoking cessation outcomes. If similar results are found in more diverse samples, these aspects should be embedded within integrated interventions for smoking cessation and depression/anxiety.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Persons with lived experience of depression, anxiety and tobacco addiction contributed towards the design of the interview schedule, participant information sheets and the debriefing process. This was to ensure that interview questions were relevant, nonjudgemental and acceptable for those who did not manage to quit smoking.

Acceptability of integrating smoking cessation treatment into routine care for people with mental illness: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPTs) Services could offer smoking cessation treatment to improve physical and psychological outcomes for service users, but it currently does not. This study aimed to understand participants' views and experiences of receiving a novel smoking cessation intervention as part of the ESCAPE trial (intEgrating Smoking Cessation treatment As part of usual Psychological care for dEpression and anxiety). We used the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to understand the (i) acceptability of the integrated smoking cessation treatment, (ii) views of psychological well-being practitioners' (PWPs) ability to deliver the smoking cessation treatment and (iii) positive and negative impacts of smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study embedded within a feasibility randomized-controlled trial (ESCAPE) in primary care services in the United Kingdom (IAPT). Thirty-six participants (53% female) from both usual care and intervention arms of the ESCAPE trial, including both quitters and nonquitters, were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a framework approach to thematic analysis, using the COM-B as a theoretical frame.

RESULTS

Psychological Capability: Integrated smoking cessation treatment was acceptable and encouraged participants to reflect on their mental health. Some participants found it difficult to understand nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

MOTIVATION

Participants were open to change during the event of presenting to IAPT. Some described being motivated to take part in the intervention by curiosity, to see whether quitting smoking would help their mental health. Physical Opportunity: IAPT has a natural infrastructure for supporting integrated treatment, but there were some barriers such as session duration and interventions feeling segmented. Social Opportunity: Participants viewed PWPs as having good interpersonal skills to deliver a smoking cessation intervention.

CONCLUSION

People with common mental illness generally accepted integrated smoking cessation and mental health treatment. Smoking cessation treatment fits well within IAPT's structure; however, there are barriers to implementation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Before data collection, we consulted with people with lived experience of smoking and/or mental illness and lay public members regarding the aims, design and interview schedules. After analysis, two people with lived experience of smoking and mental illness individually gave feedback on the final themes and quotes.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking cessation for improving mental health

BACKGROUND

There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes  included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool.  For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review.  Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.  For all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence);  mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).  These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate. For the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health.  These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.

Addressing concerns about smoking cessation and mental health: theoretical review and practical guide for healthcare professionals

Smoking rates in people with depression and anxiety are twice as high as in the general population, even though people with depression and anxiety are motivated to stop smoking. Most healthcare professionals are aware that stopping smoking is one of the greatest changes that people can make to improve their health. However, smoking cessation can be a difficult topic to raise. Evidence suggests that smoking may cause some mental health problems, and that the tobacco withdrawal cycle partly contributes to worse mental health. By stopping smoking, a person's mental health may improve, and the size of this improvement might be equal to taking anti-depressants. In this theoretical review and practical guide we outline ways in which healthcare professionals can raise the topic of smoking compassionately and respectfully to encourage smoking cessation. We draw on evidence-based methods like cognitive behavioural therapy, and outline approaches that healthcare professionals can use to integrate these methods into routine care.