Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (COSTED): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Supporting people to quit smoking is one of the most powerful interventions to improve health. The Emergency Department (ED) represents a potentially valuable opportunity to deliver a smoking cessation intervention if it is sufficiently resourced. The objective of this trial was to determine whether an opportunistic ED-based smoking cessation intervention can help people to quit smoking.

METHODS

In this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted between January and August 2022, adults who smoked daily and attended one of six UK EDs were randomised to intervention (brief advice, e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services) or control (written information on stop smoking services). The primary outcome was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months.

RESULTS

An intention-to-treat analysis included 972 of 1443 people screened for inclusion (484 in the intervention group, 488 in the control group). Of 975 participants randomised, 3 were subsequently excluded, 17 withdrew and 287 were lost to follow-up. The 6-month biochemically-verified abstinence rate was 7.2% in the intervention group and 4.1% in the control group (relative risk 1.76; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.01; p=0.038). Self-reported 7-day abstinence at 6 months was 23.3% in the intervention group and 12.9% in the control group (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.38; p<0.001). No serious adverse events related to taking part in the trial were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

An opportunistic smoking cessation intervention comprising brief advice, an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services is effective for sustained smoking abstinence with few reported adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04854616.

Characterising smoking and nicotine use behaviours among women of reproductive age: a 10-year population study in England

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking affects women's fertility and is associated with substantial risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study explored trends by socioeconomic position in patterns of smoking, use of non-combustible nicotine products, and quitting activity among women of reproductive age in England.

METHODS

Data come from a nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey. Between October 2013 and October 2023, 197,266 adults (≥ 18 years) were surveyed, of whom 44,052 were women of reproductive age (18-45 years). Main outcome measures were current smoking, vaping, and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and nicotine pouches; mainly/exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes and level of dependence among current smokers; past-year quit attempts among past-year smokers; and success of quit attempts among those who tried to quit. We modelled time trends in these outcomes, overall and by occupational social grade (ABC1 = more advantaged/C2DE = less advantaged).

RESULTS

Smoking prevalence among women of reproductive age fell from 28.7% [95%CI = 26.3-31.2%] to 22.4% [19.6-25.5%] in social grades C2DE but there was an uncertain increase from 11.7% [10.2-13.5%] to 14.9% [13.4-16.6%] in ABC1. By contrast, among all adults and among men of the same age, smoking prevalence remained relatively stable in ABC1. Vaping prevalence among women of reproductive age more than tripled, from 5.1% [4.3-6.0%] to 19.7% [18.0-21.5%], with the absolute increase more pronounced among those in social grades C2DE (reaching 26.7%; 23.3-30.3%); these changes were larger than those observed among all adults but similar to those among men of the same age. The proportion of smokers mainly/exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes increased from 40.5% [36.3-44.9%] to 61.4% [56.5-66.1%] among women of reproductive age; smaller increases were observed among all adults and among men of the same age. Patterns on other outcomes were largely similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women of reproductive age, there appears to have been a rise in smoking prevalence in the more advantaged social grades over the past decade. Across social grades, there have been substantial increases in the proportion of women of reproductive age who vape and shifts from use of manufactured to hand-rolled cigarettes among those who smoke. These changes have been more pronounced than those observed in the general adult population over the same period.

A smoking cessation smartphone app that delivers real-time 'context aware' behavioural support: the Quit Sense feasibility RCT

Background

During a quit attempt, cues from a smoker's environment are a major cause of brief smoking lapses, which increase the risk of relapse. Quit Sense is a theory-guided Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention smartphone app, providing smokers with the means to learn about their environmental smoking cues and provides 'in the moment' support to help them manage these during a quit attempt.

Objective

To undertake a feasibility randomised controlled trial to estimate key parameters to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial of Quit Sense.

Design

A parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial with a qualitative process evaluation and a 'Study Within A Trial' evaluating incentives on attrition. The research team were blind to allocation except for the study statistician, database developers and lead researcher. Participants were not blind to allocation.

Setting

Online with recruitment, enrolment, randomisation and data collection (excluding manual telephone follow-up) automated through the study website.

Participants

Smokers (323 screened, 297 eligible, 209 enrolled) recruited via online adverts on Google search, Facebook and Instagram.

Interventions

Participants were allocated to 'usual care' arm (n = 105; text message referral to the National Health Service SmokeFree website) or 'usual care' plus Quit Sense (n = 104), via a text message invitation to install the Quit Sense app.

Main outcome measures

Follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months post enrolment was undertaken by automated text messages with an online questionnaire link and, for non-responders, by telephone. Definitive trial progression criteria were met if a priori thresholds were included in or lower than the 95% confidence interval of the estimate. Measures included health economic and outcome data completion rates (progression criterion #1 threshold: ≥ 70%), including biochemical validation rates (progression criterion #2 threshold: ≥ 70%), recruitment costs, app installation (progression criterion #3 threshold: ≥ 70%) and engagement rates (progression criterion #4 threshold: ≥ 60%), biochemically verified 6-month abstinence and hypothesised mechanisms of action and participant views of the app (qualitative).

Results

Self-reported smoking outcome completion rates were 77% (95% confidence interval 71% to 82%) and health economic data (resource use and quality of life) 70% (95% CI 64% to 77%) at 6 months. Return rate of viable saliva samples for abstinence verification was 39% (95% CI 24% to 54%). The per-participant recruitment cost was £19.20, which included advert (£5.82) and running costs (£13.38). In the Quit Sense arm, 75% (95% CI 67% to 83%; 78/104) installed the app and, of these, 100% set a quit date within the app and 51% engaged with it for more than 1 week. The rate of 6-month biochemically verified sustained abstinence, which we anticipated would be used as a primary outcome in a future study, was 11.5% (12/104) in the Quit Sense arm and 2.9% (3/105) in the usual care arm (estimated effect size: adjusted odds ratio = 4.57, 95% CIs 1.23 to 16.94). There was no evidence of between-arm differences in hypothesised mechanisms of action. Three out of four progression criteria were met. The Study Within A Trial analysis found a £20 versus £10 incentive did not significantly increase follow-up rates though reduced the need for manual follow-up and increased response speed. The process evaluation identified several potential pathways to abstinence for Quit Sense, factors which led to disengagement with the app, and app improvement suggestions.

Limitations

Biochemical validation rates were lower than anticipated and imbalanced between arms. COVID-19-related restrictions likely limited opportunities for Quit Sense to provide location tailored support.

Conclusions

The trial design and procedures demonstrated feasibility and evidence was generated supporting the efficacy potential of Quit Sense.

Future work

Progression to a definitive trial is warranted providing improved biochemical validation rates.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN12326962.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/92/31) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Selecting an e-cigarette for use in smoking cessation interventions and healthcare services: findings from patient and public consultation for the COSTED trial

OBJECTIVES

The Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (COSTED) trial aims to ascertain whether brief advice, the provision of an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services (SSS), increases smoking cessation in people attending the emergency department. Patient and public involvement (PPI) and scoping work were undertaken to select an appropriate e-cigarette for the trial.

DESIGN AND SETTING

PPI consultation and feasibility scoping about potential devices with a professional and lay panel, all based in England. Consultation was via email, telephone or video interview. This work took place between April and July 2021, prior to recruitment commencing for the COSTED trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A professional panel (n=7) including representatives from academia, SSS and the independent vaping industry, and a PPI lay panel (n=3) who smoke or vape.

RESULTS

The professional panel recommended a shortlist of devices which were tested by the PPI lay panel. Key criteria for selecting an appropriate e-cigarette for smoking cessation intervention include satisfaction, usability, affordability and availability. Simplicity of use was highlighted by the PPI lay panel, who found refillable devices complex, and availability of consumables was highlighted as more important than price by both panels. The pod device selected for inclusion was rated highly for satisfaction and usability and had mid-price range and consumables which were widely available.

CONCLUSIONS

To select the most appropriate device for the COSTED trial, each criterion required assessment to ensure the best fit to the intervention context and needs of the target population. There is a need for guidance to help enable decision-making about choice of vape products, tailored to service users' needs. We propose a bespoke checklist template, based on our findings, to assist with this process. This has applicability to the recent government announcement of a 'Swap to Stop' programme, offering a vaping starter kit to smokers across England, allowing services flexibility to shape their own programmes and models of delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trial number NCT04854616; pre-results.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Systematic review: Interventions for alcohol use disorder in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated hepatitis

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use is the most important factor in determining the prognosis of patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and alcohol-associated hepatitis.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review of interventions for alcohol use disorder specific to patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated hepatitis.

METHODS

We searched five databases between inception and November 2022. The primary outcomes were abstinence, hepatic decompensation and mortality. We included randomised and non-randomised studies. Risk of bias was assessed using validated tools. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria including six randomised trials and 17 non-randomised studies of interventions. These included 104,298 patients with a mean/median age range from 44 to 65, of whom 75% were male. Interventions included psychological therapy, pharmacological therapies, specialist clinics, patient education and low alcohol drinks. Baclofen was the only intervention to demonstrate a statistically significant impact on the primary outcomes in a randomised trial (abstinence OR: 6.3, 95% CI: 2.4-16.1). Three non-randomised studies reported reductions in episodes of hepatic decompensation that were significant in multivariate models. This was in response to psychological therapy, use of any pharmacotherapy, and use of any treatment. A meta-analysis of non-randomised studies that examined the impact of psychological therapies revealed statistically non-significant improvements in abstinence (4 studies, OR: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.38-9.23) and mortality (4 studies, OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.12-1.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Baclofen is the only intervention with randomised trial evidence for significant benefit in patients with cirrhosis. Non-randomised studies also point to non-pharmaceutical interventions possibly improving clinical outcomes.

Mobile Phone Text Messages to Support People to Stop Smoking by Switching to Vaping: Codevelopment, Coproduction, and Initial Testing Study

BACKGROUND

SMS text messages are affordable, scalable, and effective smoking cessation interventions. However, there is little research on SMS text message interventions specifically designed to support people who smoke to quit by switching to vaping.

OBJECTIVE

Over 3 phases, with vapers and smokers, we codeveloped and coproduced a mobile phone SMS text message program. The coproduction paradigm allowed us to collaborate with researchers and the community to develop a more relevant, acceptable, and equitable SMS text message program.

METHODS

In phase 1, we engaged people who vape via Twitter and received 167 responses to our request to write SMS text messages for people who wish to quit smoking by switching to vaping. We screened, adjusted, refined, and themed the messages, resulting in a set of 95 that were mapped against the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behavior constructs. In phase 2, we evaluated the 95 messages from phase 1 via a web survey where participants (66/202, 32.7% woman) rated up to 20 messages on 7-point Likert scales on 9 constructs: being understandable, clear, believable, helpful, interesting, inoffensive, positive, and enthusiastic and how happy they would be to receive the messages. In phase 3, we implemented the final set of SMS text messages as part of a larger randomized optimization trial, in which 603 participants (mean age 38.33, SD 12.88 years; n=369, 61.2% woman) received SMS text message support and then rated their usefulness and frequency and provided free-text comments at the 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

For phase 2, means and SDs were calculated for each message across the 9 constructs. Those with means below the neutral anchor of 4 or with unfavorable comments were discussed with vapers and further refined or removed. This resulted in a final set of 78 that were mapped against early, mid-, or late stages of quitting to create an order for the messages. For phase 3, a total of 38.5% (232/603) of the participants provided ratings at the 12-week follow-up. In total, 69.8% (162/232) reported that the SMS text messages had been useful, and a significant association between quit rates and usefulness ratings was found (χ21=9.6; P=.002). A content analysis of free-text comments revealed that the 2 most common positive themes were helpful (13/47, 28%) and encouraging (6/47, 13%) and the 2 most common negative themes were too frequent (9/47, 19%) and annoying (4/47, 9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we describe the initial coproduction and codevelopment of a set of SMS text messages to help smokers stop smoking by transitioning to vaping. We encourage researchers to use, further develop, and evaluate the set of SMS text messages and adapt it to target populations and relevant contexts.

BabyBreathe trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to prevent postpartum return to smoking

INTRODUCTION

Many people quit smoking during pregnancy, but postpartum smoking relapse is common. Maintaining smoking abstinence achieved during pregnancy is key to improving maternal and child health. There are no evidence-based interventions for preventing postpartum smoking relapse. This trial aims to determine whether an intervention to prevent postpartum relapse is effective and cost-effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to prevent postpartum smoking relapse (BabyBreathe), with internal pilot, economic and process evaluations. Participants are adults who are pregnant and who report having quit smoking in the 12 months before, or during pregnancy. Participants are eligible if they read and understand English, and provide informed consent. Following consent and biochemical validation of smoking abstinence, participants are randomised to intervention or usual care/control (no specific relapse prevention support). The BabyBreathe intervention consists of manualised advice from a trained member of the health visiting service, health information leaflets for participants and partners, access to the BabyBreathe website and app. At the time of birth, participants are posted the BabyBreathe box and support is provided by text message for up to 12 months postpartum. Target sample size is 880, recruiting across midwifery services at four hubs in England and Scotland and through remote advertising in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Outcomes are collected at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported sustained smoking abstinence at 12 months, carbon monoxide verified. Secondary outcomes include self-reported abstinence, time to relapse, partner smoking status and quality of life.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the North West Preston Research Ethics committee (21/NW/0017). Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at academic and public conferences including patient and public involvement and to policymakers and practitioners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN70307341.

Do respiratory physicians not care about people who smoke?

Nicotine containing vapes (e-cigarettes) are an effective tool to support people who smoke to quit tobacco. Despite this clinicians are wary of promoting vaping to their patients due to concerns that there may not be 'enough' evidence and about youth uptake of vaping. In this opinion article we discuss clinicians' views of vaping and consider the implications that harm misperceptions may have for public health.

Lest we forget. Illuminating lived experience of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated 'lockdowns' profoundly impacted people's lives in 2020-2021 and beyond. This study sought to understand unique person-centred insights into health and wellbeing during the restrictive measures in the United Kingdom and to enable us to remember and give testimony to these lived experiences. Using photo-methods, participants from a larger cohort study which tracked people's behaviours during the pandemic were invited to share photographs and short text to visually illustrate their ephemeral and unique COVID-19 experiences. In total 197 participants shared 398 photographs. Using a critical realist approach in our design and analysis, we sought to gain an alternative viewpoint on what 'lockdown' and the pandemic meant. Our major findings revealed starkly contrasting experiences illustrated in our two major themes. Firstly loss, including ambiguous losses and a sense of loss, loss of freedoms and death. Secondly, salutogenesis (what makes us well) whereby participants were able to draw on assets which helped to keep them well by maintaining social connection, 'making the best of it', reconnecting with nature and appreciating the outdoors, creativity for pleasure and faith. Our findings illuminate widely differing experiences and indicate the powerful effect of assets that were perceived by our participants to protect their wellbeing. Understanding differential vulnerability will be essential going forward to target resources appropriately to those who have the least control over their lives, those with the greatest vulnerabilities and least assets which in turn could support a self-perpetuating recovery.

Biochemical Verification of Tobacco-Use as an Inclusion Criterion in Smoking Cessation Trials- Lessons From the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Biochemical verification of smoking status prior to recruitment into smoking cessation trials is widely used to confirm smoking status, most commonly using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO). There is variation in the level of CO used as a biochemical inclusion criterion, and thus the possibility for people reporting to be current smokers to be incorrectly excluded from trials.

METHODS

As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department, people attending the Emergency Department (ED) who reported being current daily smokers underwent CO testing to confirm eligibility. Elective semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the researchers who recruited participants. As part of the interviews, researchers were asked their views and experiences with CO testing.

RESULTS

Of the 1320 participants who reported being current daily smokers and underwent CO testing, 300 (22.7%) blew a CO reading of 7 ppm or less and were excluded from taking part. Possible explanations offered by researchers for participants blowing low CO readings were (1) long wait times in the ED, therefore a long period having elapsed since people had last smoked and (2) patients having reduced smoking for the period before the ED attendance due to ill health.

CONCLUSIONS

Biochemical verification has the potential to improve internal validity of smoking cessation for inclusion in trials, but at the cost of reduced generalisability through exclusion of participants who would receive the intervention if it were implemented in practice. We would recommend researchers carefully consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to include biochemical verification as an inclusion criterion.

Medicalisation of vaping in the UK? E-cigarette users' perspectives on the merging of commercial and medical routes to vaping

BACKGROUND

In the UK, most smokers choosing e-cigarettes to quit smoking will access vaping via commercial routes. In recent years, however, a shift towards medicalisation of vaping has become apparent, with public health guidance supporting e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and increased partnership working between healthcare professionals and the vaping industry. To achieve the UK's Smokefree 2030 target, the UK Government has set out measures to use e-cigarettes in National Health Service (NHS) settings and to move towards streamlining processes to make e-cigarettes available to a million smokers. This article aims to understand acceptability of different approaches by seeking perspectives of people with lived experience of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation.

METHODS

Mixed methods data collected between March 2018 and March 2019 as part of a broader study of e-cigarette use trajectories (ECtra study). Data here relate to the views of partnership working and medicalisation of vaping extracted from 136 interviews/extended surveys of people who had used e-cigarettes to try to stop smoking. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Participant ratings of interventions were presented descriptively, and differences in participant characteristics and ratings were reported.

RESULTS

Three qualitative themes were identified: pro-partnership, anti-partnership and medicalisation dissonance. Medicalisation was discussed for its potential to reassure smokers about e-cigarette harms and its potential to reach smokers from disadvantaged backgrounds. Concerns were raised about cost-effectiveness, quality of support, conflicts of interest and limiting product choice. Most participants rated interventions involving partnership working as potentially helpful in switching from smoking to vaping. There were no statistically significant associations between age, gender and socioeconomic status, and helpfulness ratings.

CONCLUSION

Both commercial and medical routes to vaping offer perceived benefits to vapers and may complement and reinforce each other to support smoking cessation.

Comparing the Effects of the EU- Versus the US-JUUL Pod in a Sample of UK Smokers: Nicotine Absorption, Satisfaction, and Other Nicotine-Related Subjective Effects

INTRODUCTION

Pod Vaping Devices (PVD) such as JUUL have become extremely popular in the United States although their uptake and use in the United Kingdom remain lower. A key difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is the nicotine strength legally permitted, typically 59 mg/mL in the United States but capped at 20 mg/mL in the United Kingdom and European Union. This may limit the ability of EU vaping devices to deliver satisfactory nicotine levels. The primary aim was to compare the EU- (18 mg/mL nicotine strength) with the U.S.-JUUL (59 mg/mL) on daily smokers' subjective experiences, craving relief, and blood nicotine levels.

AIMS AND METHODS

Double-blind, counterbalanced within-participants design with two conditions: 18 mg/mL versus 59 mg/mL. On two separate occasions, UK smokers (N =19, 10 males, 9 females) vaped ad libitum for 60 mins and provided blood samples at baseline 5, 15, 30, and 60 min. Subjective effects (incl. satisfaction) were measured at 10 and 60 min and, craving and withdrawal symptoms (WS) at baseline, 10 and 60 min.

RESULTS

Satisfaction did not differ between conditions. There was a significant interaction between Time and Nicotine concentration for Nicotine Hit (p = .045). Mean self-report of Nicotine Hit increased under the use of the 59 mg/mL from 10 to 60 min and decreased under the 18 mg/mL. Participants reported higher Throat Hits following use of the 59 mg/mL (p = .017). There were no differences in other subjective effects including craving, WS relief (ps > .05). Liquid consumption was doubled under the 18 versus the 59 mg/mL (p = .001) and nicotine boost was significantly higher in the 59 mg/mL at all time-points (p ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results did not support our hypotheses that satisfaction, craving, and withdrawal reduction would be higher with the 59 mg/mL JUUL. This could be because of the doubling of liquid consumption in the 18 mg/mL. Whether satisfaction and craving relief persist over the longer-term outside of the lab remains to be determined.

IMPLICATIONS

In a 60-min ad-lib vaping session, the EU-JUUL was found to produce comparable satisfaction, craving- and withdrawal relief as the U.S.-JUUL in this sample of UK smokers. These findings could suggest that the higher nicotine concentrations available in PVDs in the United States are not necessary for providing satisfaction and improving craving and WS. However, this was at the expense of a considerable increase in liquid consumption indicative of compensatory puffing.

An Automated, Online Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of a Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention for Smoking Cessation (Quit Sense)

INTRODUCTION

Learned smoking cues from a smoker's environment are a major cause of lapse and relapse. Quit Sense, a theory-guided Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention smartphone app, aims to help smokers learn about their situational smoking cues and provide in-the-moment support to help manage these when quitting.

METHODS

A two-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial (N = 209) to estimate parameters to inform a definitive evaluation. Smoker's willing to make a quit attempt were recruited using online paid-for adverts and randomized to "usual care" (text message referral to NHS SmokeFree website) or "usual care" plus a text message invitation to install Quit Sense. Procedures, excluding manual follow-up for nonresponders, were automated. Follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months included feasibility, intervention engagement, smoking-related, and economic outcomes. Abstinence was verified using cotinine assessment from posted saliva samples.

RESULTS

Self-reported smoking outcome completion rates at 6 months were 77% (95% CI 71%, 82%), viable saliva sample return rate was 39% (95% CI 24%, 54%), and health economic data 70% (95% CI 64%, 77%). Among Quit Sense participants, 75% (95% CI 67%, 83%) installed the app and set a quit date and, of those, 51% engaged for more than one week. The 6-month biochemically verified sustained abstinence rate (anticipated primary outcome for definitive trial), was 11.5% (12/104) among Quit Sense participants and 2.9% (3/105) for usual care (adjusted odds ratio = 4.57, 95% CIs 1.23, 16.94). No evidence of between-group differences in hypothesized mechanisms of action was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation feasibility was demonstrated alongside evidence supporting the effectiveness potential of Quit Sense.

IMPLICATIONS

Running a primarily automated trial to initially evaluate Quit Sense was feasible, resulting in modest recruitment costs and researcher time, and high trial engagement. When invited, as part of trial participation, to install a smoking cessation app, most participants are likely to do so, and, for those using Quit Sense, an estimated one-half will engage with it for more than 1 week. Evidence that Quit Sense may increase verified abstinence at 6-month follow-up, relative to usual care, was generated, although low saliva return rates to verify smoking status contributed to considerable imprecision in the effect size estimate.

An exploration of flavours in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: secondary analyses of a systematic review with meta-analyses

AIMS

To estimate associations between e-cigarette flavour and smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a living systematic review, with meta-analyses and narrative synthesis, incorporating data up to January 2022. Included studies provided people who smoked combustible cigarettes with nicotine e-cigarettes for the purpose of smoking cessation compared with no treatment or other stop smoking interventions. Measurements included smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); and flavour use at any time-points.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (n = 10 336); 14 contributed to subgroup analyses and 10 provided participants with a choice of e-cigarette flavour. We judged nine, five and two studies at high, low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed no clear associations between flavour and cessation or product use. In all but one analysis, tests for subgroup differences resulted in I2 values between 0 and 35%. In the comparison between nicotine e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (I2  = 65.2% for subgroup differences), studies offering tobacco flavour e-cigarettes showed evidence of a greater proportion of participants still using at 6 months or longer (RR = 3.81; 95% CI = 1.45-10.05; n = 1181; I2  = 84%), whereas there was little evidence for greater 6-month use when studies offered a choice of flavours (RR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.80-2.56; n = 454; I2  = 82%). However, substantial statistical heterogeneity within subgroups makes interpretation of this result unclear. In the 10 studies where participants had a choice of flavours, and this was tracked over time, some switching between flavours occurred, but there were no clear patterns in flavour preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a clear association between e-cigarette flavours and smoking cessation or longer-term e-cigarette use, possibly due to a paucity of data. There is evidence that people using e-cigarettes to quit smoking switch between e-cigarette flavours.

Toward an ontology of identity-related constructs in addiction, with examples from nicotine and tobacco research

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to create a basic set of definitions and relationships for identity-related constructs, as part of the Addiction Ontology and E-Cigarette Ontology projects, that could be used by researchers with diverse theoretical positions and so facilitate evidence synthesis and interoperability.

METHODS

We reviewed the use of identity-related constructs in psychological and social sciences and how these have been applied to addiction with a focus on nicotine and tobacco research. We, then, used an iterative process of adaptation and review to arrive at a basic set of identity-related classes with labels, definitions and relationships that could provide a common framework for research.

RESULTS

We propose that 'identity' be used to refer to 'a cognitive representation by a person or group of themselves', with 'self-identity' referring to an individual's identity and 'group identity' referring to an identity held by a social group. Identities can then be classified at any level of granularity based on the content of the representations (e.g. 'tobacco smoker identity', 'cigarette smoker identity' and 'vaper identity'). We propose distinguishing identity from 'self-appraisal' to capture the distinction between the representation of oneself (e.g. as an 'ex-smoker') and (i) the importance and (ii) the positive or negative evaluation that we attach to what is represented. We label an identity that is appraised as enduring as a 'core identity', related to 'strong identity' because of the appraisal as important. Identities that are appraised positively or negatively involve 'positive self-appraisal' and 'negative self-appraisal' respectively. This allows us to create 'logically defined classes' of identity by combining them (e.g. 'positive core cigarette smoker identity' to refer to a cigarette smoker self-identity that is both positive and important). We refer to the totality of self-identities of a person as a 'composite self-identity'.

CONCLUSIONS

An ontology of identity constructs may assist in improving clarity when discussing theories and evidence relating to this construct in addiction research.

A Pilot E-Cigarette Voucher Scheme in a Rural County of the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

E-Cigarette voucher schemes have been piloted across the UK to support populations to quit smoking. This short report evaluates a scheme that targets vulnerable and disadvantaged smokers who had failed to quit smoking by other means.

METHODS

Descriptive summary evaluation of service data on smoking outcomes and qualitative data from selected participants, as "key-informants" (n = 4) and key stakeholders (stop smoking staff, vape shop staff, and general practitioners [GPs]).

RESULTS

In total, 668 participants were referred to the scheme, and 340 participants redeemed a voucher. By intention to treat analysis (ITT) 143/668 (21%) were recorded as quit smoking at 4 weeks. At 12 weeks, 7.5% of participants had quit, by ITT. Overall, the pilot project was well received by clients as it offered an affordable route into vaping for smoking cessation. GPs supported the scheme and appreciated being able to offer an alternative to entrenched smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

The scheme shows promise in supporting entrenched smokers to quit smoking. The offer of similar voucher schemes across the UK suggests the potential to reduce overall smoking prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality.

IMPLICATIONS

Working with GPs in a deprived area, it was possible to set-up a vape shop voucher scheme for smoking cessation. Patients with comorbidities who had tried and failed to quit smoking previously were referred to receive a vape shop voucher to be redeemed for an initial starter kit, alongside support from the stop smoking service. This innovative scheme enabled 42% of entrenched smokers who redeemed a voucher to successfully quit smoking within 4 weeks.

Cessation of smoking trial in the emergency department (CoSTED): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Attendees of emergency departments (EDs) have a higher than expected prevalence of smoking. ED attendance may be a good opportunity to prompt positive behaviour change, even for smokers not currently motivated to quit. This study aims to determine whether an opportunist smoking cessation intervention delivered in the ED can help daily smokers attending the ED quit smoking and is cost-effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-arm pragmatic, multicentred, parallel-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation and mixed methods process evaluation. The trial will compare ED-based brief smoking cessation advice, including provision of an e-cigarette and referral to local stop smoking services (intervention) with the provision of contact details for local stop smoking services (control). Target sample size is 972, recruiting across 6 National Health Service EDs in England and Scotland. Outcomes will be collected at 1, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome at 6 months is carbon monoxide verified continuous smoking abstinence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the South Central-Oxford B Research Committee (21/SC/0288). Dissemination will include the publication of outcomes, and the process and economic evaluations in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will also be appropriately disseminated to relevant practice, policy and patient representative groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04854616; protocol V.4.2.

Toward an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ontologies are ways of representing information that improve clarity and the ability to connect different data sources. This paper proposes an initial version of an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products with the aim of reducing ambiguity and confusion in the field.

METHODS

Terms related to tobacco, nicotine and vaping products were identified in the research literature and their usage characterised. Basic Formal Ontology was used as a unifying upper-level ontology to describe the domain, and classes with definitions and labels were developed linking them to this ontology. Labels, definitions and properties were reviewed and revised in an iterative manner until a coherent set of classes was agreed by the authors.

RESULTS

Overlapping, but distinct classes were developed: 'tobacco-containing product', 'nicotine-containing product' and 'vaping device'. Subclasses of tobacco-containing products are 'combustible tobacco-containing product', 'heated tobacco product' and 'smokeless tobacco-containing product'. Subclasses of combustible tobacco-containing product include 'cigar', 'cigarillo', 'bidi' and 'cigarette' with further subclasses including 'manufactured cigarette'. Manufactured cigarettes have properties that include 'machine-smoked nicotine yield' and 'machine-smoked tar yield'. Subclasses of smokeless tobacco product include 'nasal snuff', 'chewing tobacco product', and 'oral snuff' with its subclass 'snus'. Subclasses of nicotine-containing product include 'nicotine lozenge' and 'nicotine transdermal patch'. Subclasses of vaping device included 'electronic vaping device' with a further subclass, 'e-cigarette'. E-cigarettes have evolved with a complex range of properties including atomiser resistance, battery power, properties of consumables including e-liquid nicotine concentration and flavourings, and the ontology characterises classes of product accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products should help reduce ambiguity and confusion in tobacco control research and practice.

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Evaluating the effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with usual care for smoking cessation when offered to smokers at homeless centres: protocol for a multi-centre cluster-randomized controlled trial in Great Britain

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smoking is extremely common among adults experiencing homelessness, but there is lack of evidence for treatment efficacy. E-cigarettes are an effective quitting aid, but they have not been widely tested in smokers with complex health and social needs. Here we build upon our cluster feasibility trial and evaluate the offer of an e-cigarette or usual care to smokers accessing a homeless centre.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Multi-centre two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with mixed-method embedded process and economic evaluation in homeless centres in England, Scotland and Wales. Adult smokers (18+ years; n = 480) accessing homeless centres and who are known to centre staff and willing to consent.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Clusters (n = 32) will be randomized to either an e-cigarette starter pack with weekly allocations of nicotine containing e-liquid for 4 weeks [choice of flavours (menthol, fruit and tobacco) and strengths 12 mg/ml and 18 mg/ml] or the usual care intervention, which comprises very brief advice and a leaflet signposting to the local stop smoking service.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome is 24-week sustained carbon monoxide-validated smoking cessation (Russell Standard defined, intention-to-treat analysis).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

(i) 50% smoking reduction (cigarettes per day) from baseline to 24 weeks; (ii) 7-day point prevalence quit rates at 4-, 12- and 24-week follow-up; (iii) changes in risky smoking practices (e.g. sharing cigarettes, smoking discarded cigarettes) from baseline to 4, 12 and 24 weeks; (iv) cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (v) fidelity of intervention implementation; mechanisms of change; contextual influences and sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study, to our knowledge, to randomly assign smokers experiencing homelessness to an e-cigarette and usual care intervention to measure smoking abstinence with embedded process and economic evaluations. If effective, its results will be used to inform the larger-scale implementation of offering e-cigarettes throughout homeless centres to aid smoking cessation.

Youth use of e-liquid flavours-a systematic review exploring patterns of use of e-liquid flavours and associations with continued vaping, tobacco smoking uptake or cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is concern that young people may be attracted to e-liquid flavours, prompting long-term vaping in naive users and potentially subsequent tobacco smoking. We aimed to review the use of e-liquid flavours by young people and describe associations with uptake or cessation of both regular vaping and tobacco smoking, adverse effects and subjective experiences.

DESIGN

Systematic review, including interventional, observational and qualitative studies reporting on the use of e-cigarette flavours by young people (aged < 18 years).

SETTING

Studies published in English language from any country or cultural setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Young people and their carers (aged < 18 years).

MEASUREMENTS

A meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity, inconsistency in reporting of flavour categorizations and non-interventional study designs; thus, we narratively report findings.

FINDINGS

In total, 58 studies were included. The quality of the evidence was extremely low. Most (n = 39) studies were cross-sectional survey designs. In total, 11 longitudinal cohort studies assessed trajectories; eight qualitative studies reported on user experiences. Studies reported views and experiences of a total of 512 874 young people. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies suggested that flavours are important for initiation and continuation of vaping. Qualitative evidence shows interest and enjoyment in flavours. There was judged to be insufficient evidence that use of e-liquid flavours specifically is associated with uptake of smoking. No studies found clear associations between flavours and cessation in this population. We found no included reports of adverse effects of flavours.

CONCLUSIONS

Flavours may be an important motivator for e-cigarette uptake, but the role of flavours in tobacco smoking uptake or cessation is unclear. The quality of the evidence on use of e-cigarette flavours by young people is low overall.

Disruption and adaptation in response to the coronavirus pandemic - Assets as contextual moderators of enactment of health behaviours

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 UK first national lockdown (March-July 2020) enactment of healthy behaviours was fundamentally changed due to social restrictions. This study sought to understand perspectives on health behaviour change, as part of a wider study tracking reported health behaviour change over time.

METHODS

A purposive sample was selected. N = 40 qualitative interviews were conducted remotely (phone/video) from participants across England and Wales, and transcribed verbatim. Descriptive case studies were shared at regular analysis meetings. Inductive reflexive thematic coding was undertaken and coding was discussed using a team approach to agreeing analytical codes. A multiple lens theoretical perspective was adopted to illuminate the perceived influences and restrictions on participants' reports of health behaviour change.

RESULTS

There was a clear progressive narrative for all participants, through initial responses and reactions to the pandemic, framed as 'disruption', then, as lockdown was acclimatized to, evidence of 'adaptation'. Adaptation was seen in terms of modification, substitution, adoption, discontinuation/cessation, stultification, maintenance and recalibration of health behaviours. An illustrative case study exemplifies the narrative encompassing these features and demonstrating the complex non-linear interactions between context and enacted health behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals responded to pandemic-related social restrictions in complex ways. Those in contexts with existing social assets, community links and established patterns of healthy behaviours were able to respond positively, adapting by modifying behaviour and using technology to engage in healthy behaviours in new and innovative ways. For those in more vulnerable contexts, enacting (negative) health behaviour change was an expression of frustration at the limitations imposed by social restrictions.

Development of a Smoke-Free Home Intervention for Families of Babies Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care

Neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have a disproportionately higher number of parents who smoke tobacco compared to the general population. A baby’s NICU admission offers a unique time to prompt behaviour change, and to emphasise the dangerous health risks of environmental tobacco smoke exposure to vulnerable infants. We sought to explore the views of mothers, fathers, wider family members, and healthcare professionals to develop an intervention to promote smoke-free homes, delivered on NICU. This article reports findings of a qualitative interview and focus group study with parents whose infants were in NICU (n = 42) and NICU healthcare professionals (n = 23). Thematic analysis was conducted to deductively explore aspects of intervention development including initiation, timing, components and delivery. Analysis of inductively occurring themes was also undertaken. Findings demonstrated that both parents and healthcare professionals supported the need for intervention. They felt it should be positioned around the promotion of smoke-free homes, but to achieve that end goal might incorporate direct cessation support during the NICU stay, support to stay smoke free (relapse prevention), and support and guidance for discussing smoking with family and household visitors. Qualitative analysis mapped well to an intervention based around the ‘3As’ approach (ask, advise, act). This informed a logic model and intervention pathway.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.

AIMS

We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.

METHOD

A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.

RESULTS

We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Social recovery therapy for young people with emerging severe mental illness: the Prodigy RCT

BACKGROUND

Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Without intervention, their social problems can persist and have large economic and personal costs. Thus, more effective evidence-based interventions are needed. Social recovery therapy is an individual therapy incorporating cognitive-behavioural techniques to increase structured activity as guided by the participant's goals.

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to test whether or not social recovery therapy provided as an adjunct to enhanced standard care over 9 months is superior to enhanced standard care alone. Enhanced standard care aimed to provide an optimal combination of existing evidence-based interventions.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, single-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial was conducted in three UK centres: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants were aged 16-25 years with persistent social disability, defined as < 30 hours per week of structured activity with social impairment for at least 6 months. Additionally, participants had severe and complex mental health problems, defined as at-risk mental states for psychosis or non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems indicated by a Global Assessment of Functioning score ≤ 50 persisting for ≥ 6 months. Two hundred and seventy participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either enhanced standard care plus social recovery therapy or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome was weekly hours spent in structured activity at 15 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included subthreshold psychotic, negative and mood symptoms. Outcomes were collected at 9 and 15 months post randomisation, with maintenance assessed at 24 months.

RESULTS

The addition of social recovery therapy did not significantly increase weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months (primary outcome treatment effect -4.44, 95% confidence interval -10.19 to 1.31). We found no evidence of significant differences between conditions in secondary outcomes at 15 months: Social Anxiety Interaction Scale treatment effect -0.45, 95% confidence interval -4.84 to 3.95; Beck Depression Inventory-II treatment effect -0.32, 95% confidence interval -4.06 to 3.42; Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States symptom severity 0.29, 95% confidence interval -4.35 to 4.94; or distress treatment effect 4.09, 95% confidence interval -3.52 to 11.70. Greater Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States for psychosis scores reflect greater symptom severity. We found no evidence of significant differences at 9 or 24 months. Social recovery therapy was not estimated to be cost-effective. The key limitation was that missingness of data was consistently greater in the enhanced standard care-alone arm (9% primary outcome and 15% secondary outcome missingness of data) than in the social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care arm (4% primary outcome and 9% secondary outcome missingness of data) at 15 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy as an adjunct to enhanced standard care. Both arms made large improvements in primary and secondary outcomes. Enhanced standard care included a comprehensive combination of evidence-based pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions. Some results favoured enhanced standard care but the majority were not statistically significant. Future work should identify factors associated with the optimal delivery of the combinations of interventions that underpin better outcomes in this often-neglected clinical group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47998710.

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. 25, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

How a sample of English stop smoking services and vape shops adapted during the early COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic in England led to major changes in the delivery of support via stop smoking services (SSS) and to the widespread temporary closure of bricks and mortar e-cigarette retailers (vape shops herein). The impact of disruptions across the smoking cessation support landscape has not been fully documented. The purpose of this study was to capture how SSS and vape shops in England were affected and adapted their 'business as usual' during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2020. Surveys were disseminated through online networks, professional forums and contacts. Open-ended qualitative responses were coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Responses from 46 SSS and 59 vape shops were included. SSS were able to adapt during this period, e.g. offering a remote service. A high percentage (74.6%) of vape shops had to close and were unable to make changes; 71.2% reported business declining. For both vape shops and SSS qualitative data revealed practical challenges to adapting, but also new pathways to support and co-working.

CONCLUSION

The closure of vape shops appears to have most impacted smaller bricks and mortar shops affecting businesses by decline in customers and impacting staff (furlough). For those services that could stay open there may be lessons learned in how to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people who smoke by considering new pathways to support.

A feasibility trial of an intervention in alcohol dependence for structured preparation before detoxification versus usual care: the SPADe trial results

BACKGROUND

Individuals who are 'moderately' or 'severely' dependent consume alcohol at levels that are likely to have a severe impact on their own health and mortality, the health and behaviours of others (family members) and to have economic and social implications. Treatment guidelines suggest that treatment needs to be planned with medically assisted withdrawal (also referred to as detoxification), and aftercare support but outcomes are poor with low proportions engaging in after care and high relapse rates. An approach of structured preparation before alcohol detoxification (SPADe) puts an emphasis on introducing lifestyle changes, development of coping strategies for cravings, stress and emotions as well as introducing changes to the immediate family and social environment in advance of alcohol cessation. Such a pre-habilitation paradigm compliments the established treatment approach. The key research question was: can we design a large scale, randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will answer whether such an approach is more effective than usual care in helping individuals to maintain longer periods of alcohol abstinence?

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, parallel, two-arm, feasibility RCT comparing SPADe and usual care against usual care only in maintaining alcohol abstinence in adults with alcohol dependence receiving care in two community addiction services in London. Feasibility outcomes, exploration of primary and secondary clinical outcomes and health economic outcomes are analysed. The trial follows the guidelines of phase 2 of the Medical Research Council (MRC) for complex interventions.

RESULTS

We were able to recruit 48/50 participants during a period of 9 months. Retention in the trial for the whole period of the 12 months was 75%. Treatment compliance was overall 44%. Data completion for the primary outcome was 65%, 50% and 63% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. The intervention group had more days abstinent in the previous 90 days at the 12 months (n = 54.5) versus control (n = 41.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this feasibility trial indicate that with the appropriate modifications, a full multicentred trial would be possible to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pre-habilitation approach such as the SPADe group intervention in addition to usual care against usual care only.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of registry: ISRCTN; Trial Registration Number: 14621127 ; Date of Registration: 22/02/2017.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the UK: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to explore how people adapted to these measures over time.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods investigation comprising a national online longitudinal survey and embedded qualitative study.

SETTING

UK online survey and interviews with community-dwelling individuals in the East of England.

PARTICIPANTS

People in the UK with RMDs were invited to participate in an online survey. A subsection of respondents were invited to participate in the embedded qualitative study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The online survey, completed fortnightly over 10 weeks from April 2020 to August 2020, investigated changes in symptoms, social isolation and loneliness, resilience and optimism. Qualitative interviews were undertaken assessing participant's perspectives on changes in symptoms, exercising, managing instrumental tasks such a shopping, medication and treatment regimens and how they experienced changes in their social networks.

RESULTS

703 people with RMDs completed the online survey. These people frequently reported a deterioration in symptoms as a result of COVID-19 pandemic social restrictions (52% reported increase vs 6% reported a decrease). This was significantly worse for those aged 18-60 years compared with older participants (p=0.017). The qualitative findings from 26 individuals with RMDs suggest that the greatest change in daily life was experienced by those in employment. Although some retired people reported reduced opportunity for exercise outside their homes, they did not face the many competing demands experienced by employed people and people with children at home.

CONCLUSIONS

People with RMDs reported a deterioration in symptoms when COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures were enforced. This was worse for working-aged people. Consideration of this at-risk group, specifically for the promotion of physical activity, changing home-working practices and awareness of healthcare provision is important, as social restrictions continue in the UK.

Are researchers getting the terms used to denote different types of recreational cannabis right?-a user perspective

BACKGROUND

While current cannabis research has advanced our understanding into the effects of its individual components, there is a pressing need to identify simple terminology that is understood in the same way by researchers and users of cannabis. Current categorisation in research focuses on the two main cannabinoids: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD); and two different species of cannabis: indica and sativa. Recreational cannabis has also been categorised by researchers as 'skunk' or 'hash'. Focusing on individuals who use cannabis frequently, this study aimed to identify views on current terms used to denote different types of cannabis and to identify terms validated by participants. These views were extracted from responses of the Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), a widely used instrument in the literature.

METHODS

We qualitatively analysed 236 free-text responses from Question 23 of the CEQ survey (using Iterative Categorisation) relating to categorization and consumption methods. Data was used from a previous study (Sami et al., Psychol Med 49:103-12, 2019), which recruited a convenience sample of 1231 participants aged 18 years and above who had previously used cannabis.

RESULTS

Regarding type of cannabis used, specific strain names (n = 130), concentrates (n = 37), indica/sativa (n = 22) and THC/CBD terms (n = 22) were mentioned. Other terms used were hybrids (n = 10), origins of specific strains (n = 17), edibles (n = 8), and herbal cannabis (n = 7). Regarding problems with specific terms, participants were skeptical about terms such as skunk and super skunk (n = 78) preferring terms like THC/CBD, indica/sativa, specific marketed strains and references to preparation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a disparity between the common terms used by researchers in academia and those used by cannabis consumers. While there are advantages and limitations of using these terms to bridge views of researchers and individuals who use cannabis, this study underscores the importance of formally assessing chemical constituents rather than relying on self-report data and of incorporating cannabis user views on current terms used in research, potentially also incorporating descriptors of preparation and consumption methods.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Randomised controlled trial of a just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) smoking cessation smartphone app: the Quit Sense feasibility trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

A lapse (any smoking) early in a smoking cessation attempt is strongly associated with reduced success. A substantial proportion of lapses are due to urges to smoke triggered by situational cues. Currently, no available interventions proactively respond to such cues in real time. Quit Sense is a theory-guided just-in-time adaptive intervention smartphone app that uses a learning tool and smartphone sensing to provide in-the-moment tailored support to help smokers manage cue-induced urges to smoke. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to assess the feasibility of delivering a definitive online efficacy trial of Quit Sense.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

A two-arm parallel-group RCT allocating smokers willing to make a quit attempt, recruited via online adverts, to usual care (referral to the NHS SmokeFree website) or usual care plus Quit Sense. Randomisation will be stratified by smoking rate (<16 vs ≥16 cigarettes/day) and socioeconomic status (low vs high). Recruitment, enrolment, baseline data collection, allocation and intervention delivery will be automated through the study website. Outcomes will be collected at 6 weeks and 6 months follow-up via the study website or telephone, and during app usage. The study aims to recruit 200 smokers to estimate key feasibility outcomes, the preliminary impact of Quit Sense and potential cost-effectiveness, in addition to gaining insights on user views of the app through qualitative interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Wales NHS Research Ethics Committee 7 (19/WA/0361). The findings will be disseminated to the public, the funders, relevant practice and policy representatives and other researchers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12326962.

User pathways of e-cigarette use to support long term tobacco smoking relapse prevention: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

E-cigarettes are the most popular consumer choice for support with smoking cessation in the United Kingdom. However, there are concerns that long-term e-cigarette use may sustain concurrent tobacco smoking or lead to relapse to smoking in ex-smokers. We aimed to explore vaping trajectories, establishing e-cigarette users' perspectives on continued e-cigarette use in relation to smoking relapse or abstinence.

DESIGN

Qualitative longitudinal study collecting detailed subjective data at baseline and ~12 months later.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

E-cigarette users (n = 37) who self-reported that they had used e-cigarettes to stop smoking at baseline.

MEASUREMENTS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews (face-to-face or telephone) collected self-reported patterns of e-cigarette use. Thematic analysis of transcripts and a mapping approach of individual pathways enabled exploration of self-reported experiences, motives, resources, and environmental and social influences on vaping and any concurrent tobacco smoking.

FINDINGS

Three broad participant pathways were identified: 'maintainer' (e-cigarette use and not smoking), 'abstainer' (neither smoking nor using e-cigarettes), and 'relapser' (dual-using, or relapsed back to tobacco smoking only). In each pathway, individual experiences with vaping nicotine appeared to play an important role and appeared to be related to psychological and social factors. A social context supportive of vaping was important for the maintainers, as was a belief in the need to overcome nicotine addiction for the abstainers, and dislike of the 'vaping culture' expressed by some in the relapser group. Dual-users held beliefs such as a need for cigarettes at time of acute stress that affirmed dependence on tobacco.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of UK e-cigarette users who report having used e-cigarettes to quit smoking, a social context that supports continued vaping was perceived to be helpful in preventing relapse to smoking.

Healthcare Professionals' Beliefs, Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Around Vaping in Pregnancy and Postpartum: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Finding effective ways to help pregnant women quit smoking and maintain long-term abstinence is a public health priority. Electronic cigarettes (ie, vaping) could be a suitable cessation tool in pregnancy for those who struggle to quit; however, healthcare professionals (HCP) must be informed about these devices to offer appropriate advice. This study used the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore HCP attitudes towards vaping in pregnancy and postpartum; beliefs about the health risks of vaping; perceived barriers and facilitators of vaping in pregnancy; knowledge of current guidelines and policies; and training needs.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 60) were conducted with midwives (n = 17), health visitors (n = 10), general practitioners (n = 15) and stop smoking specialists (n = 18) across the United Kingdom. Interview transcriptions were analyzed thematically using the framework approach and the COM-B.

RESULTS

Discussing vaping as a tool for quitting smoking in pregnancy was prevented by a lack of capability (limited knowledge of vaping, lack of training in smoking cessation); lack of opportunity (restricted by organizational policies and guidelines, lack of time and financial issues impacting on training), and negative social influences (sensationalist media and stigma associated with vaping in pregnancy); and lack of motivation (fear of future litigation and comebacks should adverse effects from vaping arise).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors related to capability, opportunity, and motivation were identified that influence HCPs attitudes and behaviors towards vaping in pregnancy. Gaps in knowledge and training needs were identified, which could inform the development of targeted vaping training.

IMPLICATIONS

Vaping could be suitable in pregnancy for those struggling to quit smoking. However, HCPs must be informed about these devices to offer appropriate advice. These data extend our knowledge of factors influencing HCP attitudes and behaviors towards vaping in pregnancy. Generally, vaping was perceived as safer than cigarettes, but a perceived lack of evidence, health and safety risks, dependency, and regulation issues were concerning. Considering our findings, greater efforts are needed to ensure HCPs are sufficiently informed about vaping and guidelines available. More importance should be placed on training for all HCPs who have contact with pregnant women.

Combined individual and family therapy in comparison to treatment as usual for people at-risk of psychosis: A feasibility study (IF CBT): Trial rationale, methodology and baseline characteristics

AIMS

Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for psychosis recommend psychological therapy with or without family intervention for individuals at-risk of developing psychosis. NICE guidelines have a specific research recommendation to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of combined individual and family intervention. We report the rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a feasibility study which aimed to investigate combined Individual and Family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (IFCBT) for those at-risk of developing psychosis.

METHODS

The IFCBT study was a single blind, pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare a combined individual and family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) intervention to treatment as usual. Participants were assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of the At-risk Mental State (CAARMS) and randomly allocated to either therapy or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). All participants were followed up at 6 and 12 months. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention of participants. Secondary outcomes included transition to psychosis and assessment of mood, anxiety and the relationship of the individual and nominated family member.

RESULTS

We report data showing entry into the study from initial enquiry to randomization. We report the characteristics of the recruited sample of individuals (n = 70) and family members (n = 70) at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The study recruited to 92% of target demonstrating it is feasible to identify and recruit participants. Our study aimed to add to the current evidence base regarding the utility of family interventions for people at-risk of psychosis.

Responsibility, normalisation and negotiations of harm: E-cigarette users' opinions and experiences of vaping around children

BACKGROUND

Concern about youth uptake of vaping is widespread. Regulation and education campaigns aim to protect children from initiating use, yet it is likely that children will be primarily influenced by the behaviour of people in their immediate environment. This is the first known study exploring e-cigarette users' views and reported experiences of vaping around children.

METHODS

Following informed consent, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 adults who had attempted to give up smoking by vaping. Participants were recruited from England as part of a wider study into e-cigarette use trajectories and smoking relapse (ECtra study). Data were extracted from 28 interviews where participants had spontaneously discussed vaping around children. Extracted data were analysed thematically and situated in previous analysis of vaping identity which distinguished between recreational and medicinal vapers.

RESULTS

Vaping behaviour around children was in part a habituated replication of smoking norms but also guided by broad vaping identity; recreational users were more permissive and medicinal users more secretive. Vaping in the home appeared to be determined by caregivers' need to reconcile vaping behaviour so that it was congruent with parental identity as a responsible caregiver. Participant perspectives reflected existing moral discourses applied to e-cigarettes around the use of "harm reduction for smokers" and "potential for youth harm".

CONCLUSION

Vaping is likely to be role modelled within the community and home despite attempts by e-cigarette users to conceal the behaviour. The ambivalent contextualisation of e-cigarettes means that e-cigarette users may lack a clear narrative to draw on when discussing vaping with children. Public health guidance for vaping around children could be helpful, but to be most effective, should take into consideration users' vaping identity.

Review: Delivering mental health support within schools and colleges - a thematic synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation of indicated psychological interventions for adolescents

BACKGROUND

Increasing the role of schools and colleges in the provision of mental health services for young people has the potential to improve early intervention and access to treatment. We aimed to understand what factors influence the successful implementation of indicated psychological interventions within schools and colleges to help guide increased provision of mental health support within education settings.

METHODS

Systematic search for studies that have reported barriers or facilitators to the implementation of indicated interventions for adolescent emotional disorders delivered within schools and further education/sixth form colleges (CRD42018102830). Databases searched were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, ASSIA, ERIC and British Education Index. A thematic synthesis of factors reported to impact implementation was conducted.

RESULTS

Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine records and 177 full texts were screened. Fifty studies were identified for inclusion, all of which were of school-based interventions. Eleven analytic themes were developed encompassing intervention characteristics, organisational capacity, training and technical assistance, provider characteristics and community-level factors. Findings indicate the need to select appropriate interventions, consider logistical challenges of the school context and provide training and supervision to enable staff to deliver interventions with fidelity. However, structural and environmental support is required for these facilitators to have the greatest impact on successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing indicated school-based mental health interventions is challenging. Those involved in planning school-based mental health initiatives must be alert to the impact of factors on multiple interacting levels. There is a lack of research on implementing mental health support within further education and sixth form colleges.

KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE

Increased utilisation of schools and colleges as a setting for early intervention has been proposed as a means of improving access to mental health treatment, but successful implementation of mental health interventions within educational settings is challenging. Based on a synthesis of current evidence, we recommend that young people and education professionals should be involved in the selection of school-based interventions to ensure they are acceptable and practical to deliver within the logistical constraints of the school environment. Those delivering interventions within schools, as well as staff involved in identifying young people who might benefit from these interventions, must receive high-quality ongoing training and support. Senior school leaders play an important role in championing mental health interventions and developing a school culture that prioritises mental well-being. Health and education policy should be designed to promote a cross-sector focus on the emotional health of young people. There is a lack of evidence on the implementation of indicated psychological interventions within sixth form and further education colleges.

Health behaviour change during the UK COVID‐19 lockdown: Findings from the first wave of the C‐19 health behaviour and well‐being daily tracker study

Objectives

To provide baseline cohort descriptives and assess change in health behaviours since the UK COVID‐19 lockdown.

Design

A prospective cohort (N = 1,044) of people recruited online, purposively targeting vulnerable populations.

Methods

After a baseline survey (April 2020), participants completed 3 months of daily ecological momentary assessments (EMA). Dietary, physical activity, alcohol, smoking, vaping and substance use behaviours collected retrospectively for the pre‐COVID‐19 period were compared with daily EMA surveys over the first 30 days during early lockdown. Predictors of behaviour change were assessed using multivariable regression models.

Results

30% of the cohort had a COVID‐19 at risk health condition, 37% were classed as deprived and 6% self‐reported a mental health condition. Relative to pre‐pandemic levels, participants ate almost one portion of fruit and vegetables less per day (vegetables mean difference −0.33, 95% CI −0.40, −0.25; fruit −0.57, 95% CI −0.64, −0.50), but showed no change in high sugar portions per day (−0.03, 95% CI −0.12, 0.06). Participants spent half a day less per week doing ≥30 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity (−0.57, 95% CI −0.73, −0.40) but slightly increased days of strength training (0.21, 95% CI 0.09, 0.34), increased alcohol intake (AUDIT‐C score change 0.25, 95% CI 0.13, 0.37), though did not change smoking, vaping or substance use behaviour. Worsening health behaviour change was associated with being younger, female and higher body mass index.

Conclusions

The cohort reported worsening health behaviours during early lockdown. Longer term changes will be investigated using further waves of data collection.

Negotiating cancer preventative health behaviours and adapting to motherhood: the role of technology in supporting positive health behaviours

PURPOSE

Across the UK and USA, postpartum smoking relapse rates are high, and rates of breastfeeding and physical activity are low. This project aimed to explore these interrelated health behaviours and technology use, for intervention development to support postpartum cancer prevention.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews with 26 purposively selected women (15 in Vermont, USA and 11 in Norfolk, UK). Recruitment was from deprived areas experiencing multiple disadvantage. Qualitative data were thematically analysed from dual cultural perspectives, underpinned by the social ecological model.

RESULTS

Women negotiate interrelated lifestyle behaviours as part of managing an identity in transition, moving through stages of disturbance, adaptation, acceptance and integration towards "becoming" a new Mother. Technology was integral to women's process of engagement with mothering identities. Intersectionality underpins complex patterns of interrelated behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scope to improve electronic/digital support for postpartum women cross-nationally to promote interrelated cancer-preventative lifestyle behaviours. Abbreviations CDC: Center for Disease Control, US; PA: Physical activity; SES: Socioeconomic status; SVI: Social Vulnerability Index; UK: UK; US: USA; WIC: Women infants and children office.

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques within Interventions to Reduce Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure for Children

Children are particularly vulnerable to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). There is no routine support to reduce ETS in the home. We systematically reviewed trials to reduce ETS in children in order to identify intervention characteristics and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to inform future interventions. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register from January 2017 to June 2020 to update an existing systematic review. We included controlled trials to reduce parent/caregiver smoking or ETS in children <12 years that demonstrated a statistically significant benefit, in comparison to less intensive interventions or usual care. We extracted trial characteristics; and BCTs using Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. We defined "promising" BCTs as those present in at least 25% of effective interventions. Data synthesis was narrative. We included 16 trials, of which eight were at low risk of bias. All trials used counselling in combination with self-help or other supporting materials. We identified 13 "promising" BCTs centred on education, setting goals and planning, or support to reach goals. Interventions to reduce ETS in children should incorporate effective BCTs and consider counselling and self-help as mechanisms of delivery.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Reported patterns of vaping to support long-term abstinence from smoking: a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of vapers

BACKGROUND

E-cigarettes are the most popular aid to smoking cessation attempts in England and the USA. This research examined associations between e-cigarette device characteristics and patterns of use, tobacco-smoking relapse, and smoking abstinence.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 371 participants with experience of vaping, and tobacco-smoking abstinence and/or relapse completed an online cross-sectional survey about e-cigarettes. Factors associated with smoking relapse were examined using multiple linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Most participants were self-reported long-term abstinent smokers (86.3%) intending to continue vaping. Most initiated e-cigarette use with a vape pen (45.8%) or cig-a-like (38.7%) before moving onto a tank device (89%). Due to missing data, managed through pairwise deletion, only around 70 participants were included in some of the main analyses. Those using a tank or vape pen appeared less likely to relapse than those using a cig-a-like (tank vs. cig-a-like OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.64, p = 0.019). There was an inverse association between starting self-reported e-cigarette liquid nicotine concentration and relapse, interacting with device type (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, p = 0.047), suggesting that risk of relapse may have been greater if starting with a low e-cigarette liquid nicotine concentration and/or cig-a-like device. Participants reported moving from tobacco-flavored cig-a-likes to fruit/sweet/food flavors with tank devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of how people have successfully maintained tobacco-smoking abstinence using vaping could help other tobacco smokers wishing to quit tobacco smoking through vaping.