Abstract

Clinicians have an opportunity to provide smoking cessation interventions to smokers who present to emergency departments (EDs). The effectiveness of a brief intervention based on self-determination theory for smoking cessation is uncertain. To examine the effectiveness of a brief intervention based on self-determination theory for smoking cessation (immediate or progressive) among Chinese smokers presenting at EDs in Hong Kong. This single-blind, multicenter intent-to-treat randomized clinical trial was conducted at the EDs of 4 major acute care hospitals in different districts of Hong Kong. In total, 1571 smokers 18 years or older who presented at 4 major EDs between July 4, 2015, and March 17, 2017, were randomized into an intervention group (n = 787) and a control group (n = 784). The intervention group received brief advice (about 1 minute) and could choose their own quit schedules (immediate or progressive). The control group received a smoking cessation leaflet. Follow-up visits were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure, by intent to treat, was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months. Participants (N = 1571) included 1381 men (87.9%); the mean (SD) age at baseline was 47.4 (16.4) years. Among participants who self-reported abstinence at 6 months, 50.3% (85 of 169) had biochemical validation by both an exhaled carbon monoxide test and a saliva cotinine test. Compared with the control group, the intervention group had statistically higher biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months: 6.7% (53 of 787) vs 2.8% (22 of 784) (P < .001), with an adjusted relative risk of 3.21 (95% CI, 1.74-5.93; P < .001). The intervention group also had higher self-reported quit rates at 6 months (12.2% [96 of 787] vs 9.3% [73 of 784], P = .04) and 12 months (13.0% [102 of 787] vs 8.5% [67 of 784], P < .01), as well as higher biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months (7.0% [55 of 787] vs 3.7% [29 of 784], P < .001). The additional cost for each intervention group participant was US $0.47, with an estimated gain of 0.0238 quality-adjusted life-year. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (US $19.53) fell within acceptable thresholds. This brief, low-cost self-determination theory-based intervention for smokers presenting at EDs effectively increased the biochemically validated quit rate at 6 months. If delivered routinely, such a simple intervention may offer a cost-effective and sustainable approach to help many smokers quit smoking. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02660957.

Highlights

  • DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This single-blind, multicenter intent-to-treat randomized clinical trial was conducted at the emergency departments (EDs) of 4 major acute care hospitals in different districts of Hong Kong

  • The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (US $19.53) fell within acceptable thresholds. This brief, low-cost self-determination theory–based intervention for smokers presenting at EDs effectively increased the biochemically validated quit rate at 6 months

  • Question What is the effect of a brief intervention based on self-determination theory compared with a smoking cessation leaflet on promoting abstinence in smokers presenting at emergency departments?. In this randomized clinical trial of 1571 smokers who presented at emergency departments, a self-determination theory–based intervention was effective in increasing the biochemically validated quit rate at 6 months compared with a smoking cessation leaflet (53 of 787 [6.7%] vs 22 of 784 [2.8%])

Read more

Summary

Methods

Study Design A single-blind, multicenter RCT was conducted at the EDs in 4 major acute-care hospitals in different districts of Hong Kong. This study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guideline. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (UW 14-528). The trial protocol is available in Supplement 1. Study Sample and Recruitment In Hong Kong EDs, patients are prioritized for treatment by a triage system with the following 5 different levels: critical

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call