Social Support and Success at Stopping Smoking

Barriers and Facilitators for Smoking Cessation in Chinese Smokers with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Qualitative Study

Background

Smoking cessation is recommended as a key intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) smokers. However, in China, few COPD smokers quit successfully. The aim of this study was to explore in depth the barriers and facilitators for smoking cessation among smokers with COPD in China.

Methods

A purposive sample of 32 hospitalized smokers with COPD were included, 17 ex-smokers and 15 current smokers, participated in the semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analyzed thematically and using a deductive approach guided by Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) framework.

Results

Three inter-related themes were generated: smokers’ motivation was a prerequisite for quitting, maintaining capability to quit smoking, and opportunities that facilitated smokers to quit. Motivation to quit for most participants was activated by COPD-related symptoms, although they had a limited knowledge of COPD. Physical benefits from quitting and strong willpower were facilitators for maintaining quitting, while exposure to smoking environment and strong addiction to nicotine were frequent reasons for relapse. Most ex-smokers quit smoking by their own willpower rather than professionally delivered smoking cessation interventions. Smokers’ attitudes toward these interventions depended on their effectiveness and convenience. Very few participants had experienced pharmacotherapy or behavioral support from physicians. However, interviewees preferred auricular acupressure to pharmacotherapy.

Conclusion

Motivation to quit among smokers with COPD was usually initiated by COPD-related symptoms. Physical benefits observed by quitting and strong willpower facilitated smoking cessation, while exposure to smoking environment and strong addiction to nicotine led to relapse. COPD smokers in China preferred auricular acupressure to pharmacotherapy.

Kick.it: The development of an evidence-based smoking cessation smartphone app

Currently, the evidence for mobile health (mHealth) smoking cessation interventions is limited and heterogeneous, warranting the need for innovative rigorously developed solutions. The aim of this study was to describe the development of a smoking cessation smartphone application (app) developed using evidence-based principles. The app (Kick.it) was designed using the Intervention Mapping framework, incorporating an extensive literature review and qualitative study, in combination with the Behavioural Change Taxonomy v1, the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Persuasive System Design framework. Kick.it provides quit smoking education, skills training, motivational content and self-regulation functionality for smokers, as well as their social support network. By logging cravings and cigarettes smoked, users will create their own smoking profile, which will be used to provide tailored interventions. It hosts a social network to allow 24/7 social support and provides in-app tools to help with urges to smoke. The app aims to motivate smokers to retry if they slip-up or relapse, allowing them to learn from previous smoking cessation attempts. Rather than basing the app on a singular behavioral change approach, Kick.it will use elements stemming from a variety of behavioral approaches by combining methods of multiple psychological theories. The use of best-practice intervention development frameworks in conjunction with evidence-based behavioral change techniques is expected to result in a smartphone app that has an optimal chance of helping people to quit smoking.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or 'buddies' may encourage abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component.

SEARCH METHODS

We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One of these studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly. We judged one of the included studies to be at high risk of selection bias, but a sensitivity analysis suggests that this did not have an impact on the results. There were also potential issues with detection bias due to a lack of validation of abstinence in five of the 14 studies; however, this is not apparent in the statistically homogeneous results across studies. Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for the two primary outcomes as low. We downgraded due to the risk of bias, as we judged studies with a high weighting in analyses to be at a high risk of detection bias. In addition, a study in both analyses was insufficiently randomised. We also downgraded the quality of the evidence for indirectness, as very few studies provided any evidence that the interventions tested actually increased the amount of partner support received by participants in the relevant intervention group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to enhance partner support appear to have no impact on increasing long-term abstinence from smoking. However, most interventions that assessed partner support showed no evidence that the interventions actually achieved their aim and increased support from partners for smoking cessation. Future research should therefore focus on developing behavioural interventions that actually increase partner support, and test this in small-scale studies, before large trials assessing the impact on smoking cessation can be justified.

Smoking cessation intervention delivered by social service organisations for a diverse population of Australian disadvantaged smokers: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

There remains a need to identify effective smoking cessation interventions in severely disadvantaged populations. This trial aimed to examine the effectiveness of an intervention (Call it Quits) developed to promote smoking cessation and delivered by community social service case-workers.

METHODS

Call it Quits was a pragmatic, parallel randomised trial of a case-worker delivered smoking cessation intervention conducted in a non-government community social service organisation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Adult smokers requiring financial assistance were randomly assigned to the five-session Call it Quits intervention or usual care control group. Of the 618 eligible individuals, 300 were randomised to the intervention group, of whom 187 (62%) consented and 318 were randomised to the control group, of whom 244 (77%) consented, resulting in 431 participants. The primary outcome measure was self-reported continuous abstinence up to 6-month follow-up with biochemical verification. Primary analysis was performed using all the available data from participants under the assumption the data is missing completely at random, followed by sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in the primary outcome were found (1.4% in the control group versus 1.0% in the intervention group, OR = 0.77, p = 0.828).

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-component smoking cessation intervention delivering motivational interviewing-based counselling and free NRT by a trained case-worker within a community social service setting was not effective at achieving abstinence in a highly disadvantaged sample of smokers but increased attempts to stop and led to a reduction in number of cigarettes smoked daily.

Tackling obesity in areas of high social deprivation: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a task-based weight management group programme - a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of people require help to manage their weight. The NHS recommends weight loss advice by general practitioners and/or a referral to a practice nurse. Although this is helpful for some, more effective approaches that can be disseminated economically on a large scale are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not a task-based weight management programme [Weight Action Programme (WAP)] has better long-term effects than a 'best practice' intervention provided in primary care by practice nurses.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

General practices in east London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and thirty adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² or a BMI of ≥ 28 kg/m² plus comorbidities were recruited from local general practices and via media publicity. Those who had a BMI of > 45 kg/m², had lost > 5% of their body weight in the previous 6 months, were currently pregnant or taking psychiatric medications were excluded. Participants were randomised (2 : 1) to the WAP or nurse arms.

INTERVENTIONS

The WAP intervention was delivered in eight weekly group sessions that combined dietary and physical activity, advice and self-monitoring in a group-oriented intervention. The initial course was followed by 10 monthly group maintenance sessions open to all participants in this study arm. The practice nurse intervention (best usual care) consisted of four one-to-one sessions delivered over 8 weeks, and included standard advice on diet and physical activity based on NHS 'Change4Life' materials and motivational support.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was weight change at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included change in BMI, waist circumference and blood pressure, and proportion of participants losing at least 5% and 10% of baseline body weight. Staff collecting measurements at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, and included all participants with at least one recorded outcome at either 1, 2, 6 or 12 months. The analysis employed a mixed-effects linear regression model, adjusted for baseline weight, age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and general practice. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels questionnaire was completed and used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within the cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESULTS

There were 330 participants (WAP arm, n = 221; nurse arm, n = 109; 72% women). A total of 291 (88%) participants (WAP arm, n = 194; nurse arm, n = 97) were included in the main analysis for the primary outcome. Weight loss at 12 months was greater in the WAP arm than in the nurse intervention arm [-4.2 kg vs. -2.3 kg; difference -1.9 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -0.1 kg; p = 0.04]. Participants in the WAP arm were more likely than participants in the nurse arm to have lost at least 5% of their baseline body weight at 12 months (41% vs. 27%; odds ratio 14.61, 95% CI 2.32 to 91.96; p = 0.004). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for WAP over and above the nurse arm is £7742 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

A WAP delivered in general practice better promotes weight loss over 12 months than a best usual practice nurse-led weight loss programme.

LIMITATIONS

The trial recruited mostly women. Research is needed into factors that would make weight loss programmes more attractive to men.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45820471.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 79. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Practical support aids addiction recovery: the positive identity model of change

BACKGROUND

There is a need for studies that can highlight principles of addiction recovery. Because social relationships are involved in all change processes, understanding how social motivations affect the recovery process is vital to guide support programs.

METHODS

The objective was to develop a model of recovery by examining addicted individuals' social motivations through longitudinal assessment of non-professional support dyads. A qualitative, longitudinal study design was used, combining focus groups and in-depth interviews with addicted individuals and their sponsors. Data were analyzed using the principles of grounded theory: open coding and memos for conceptual labelling, axial coding for category building, and selective coding for theory building. The setting was an addiction recovery social support program in Oslo, Norway. The informants included nine adults affected by addiction, six sponsors, and the program coordinator. The participants were addicted to either alcohol (2), benzodiazepines (1), pain killers (1) or polydrug-use (5). The sponsors were unpaid, and had no history of addiction problems.

RESULTS

Support perceived to be ineffective emerged in dyads with no operationalized goal, and high emotional availability with low degree of practical support. Support perceived to be effective was signified by the sponsor attending to power imbalance and the addict coming into position to help others and feel useful.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings appear best understood as a positive identity-model of recovery, indicated by the pursuit of skill building relevant to a non-drug using identity, and enabled by the on-going availability of instrumental support. This produced situations where role reversals were made possible, leading to increased self-esteem. Social support programs should be based on a positive identity-model of recovery that enable the building of a life-sustainable identity.

Motivating Latino smokers to quit: does type of social support matter?

PURPOSE

Social support may help smokers quit and buffer against factors that hinder quitting. The study's aims are to examine which types of social support are effective for quitting smoking among Latino smokers and whether social support buffers the effects of depressed mood on smoking cessation.

DESIGN, SETTING, SUBJECTS

Participants were Latino smokers with children with asthma (N = 131, mean age = 37 years, 73% female). They did not have to want to quit smoking to participate. Smoking status was biochemically verified at a 3-month follow-up.

MEASURES

Social support was assessed as whether or not the participant had a significant other, level of perceived general support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List) and level of perceived partner support for smoking cessation (Partner Interaction Questionnaire). Depressed mood was assessed with the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale.

ANALYSIS

Hierarchical logistic regression.

RESULTS

Thirty percent of those with a partner quit smoking versus 14.3% of those without a partner. 43.5% of those with high levels of perceived positive partner support quit smoking vs. 17.4% of those with low levels. There was a significant interaction between whether or not a smoker had a partner and depressed mood on quitting: among those not partnered, quit rates were higher among those with low levels of depressed mood (37%) than among those with high levels of depressed mood (9%; odds ratio = 1.147, 95% confidence interval = 1.031-1.276, p < .02). Among those partnered, quit rates were not significantly different between those with high vs. low levels of depressed mood.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper is the first to examine multiple sources of support for smoking cessation in Latino smokers; partner support and the presence of a significant other are associated with quitting smoking.

RCT of a client-centred, caseworker-delivered smoking cessation intervention for a socially disadvantaged population

BACKGROUND

Disadvantaged groups are an important target for smoking cessation intervention. Smoking rates are markedly higher among severely socially disadvantaged groups such as indigenous people, the homeless, people with a mental illness or drug and alcohol addiction, and the unemployed than in the general population. This proposal aims to evaluate the efficacy of a client-centred, caseworker delivered cessation support intervention at increasing validated self reported smoking cessation rates in a socially disadvantaged population.

METHODS/DESIGN

A block randomised controlled trial will be conducted. The setting will be a non-government organisation, Community Care Centre located in New South Wales, Australia which provides emergency relief and counselling services to predominantly government income assistance recipients. Eligible clients identified as smokers during a baseline touch screen computer survey will be recruited and randomised by a trained research assistant located in the waiting area. Allocation to intervention or control groups will be determined by time periods with clients randomised in one-week blocks. Intervention group clients will receive an intensive client-centred smoking cessation intervention offered by the caseworker over two face-to-face and two telephone contacts. There will be two primary outcome measures obtained at one, six, and 12 month follow-up: 1) 24-hour expired air CO validated self-reported smoking cessation and 2) 7-day self-reported smoking cessation. Continuous abstinence will also be measured at six and 12 months follow up.

DISCUSSION

This study will generate new knowledge in an area where the current information regarding the most effective smoking cessation approaches with disadvantaged groups is limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN: ISRCTN85202510.