Brief Smoking Cessation Intervention Research Articles

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with a brief intervention for smoking cessation: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Non-invasive brain stimulation methods are currently being evaluated for treatment of addictive disorders. Some evidence indicates that modulating left and right prefrontal brain activity by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can reduce craving and relapse rates in tobacco addiction. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of active and sham tDCS as an add-on treatment to a standardized brief intervention for smoking cessation. This randomized, double-blind study included 36 participants (22 women and 14 men) with nicotine dependence according to ICD-10 criteria. At five visits on alternate days, participants underwent a 20-min active or sham tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and subsequently participated in a 10-min brief intervention for smoking cessation. Patients were followed up after 3months. On each treatment day and at follow-up, abstinence was assessed as the smoking status nonsmoker and craving was assessed with the German version of the Questionnaire on Smoking Urges. At each visit, the number of cigarettes smoked per day was recorded and carbon monoxide in expired air and cotinine in saliva were measured. At follow-up, a study-specific questionnaire was used to assess tobacco use. All 36 participants completed the treatment sessions, but one participant in each group was lost to follow-up. Abstinence rates were not significantly different between the groups at any of the study visits, but craving was significantly lower in the active group at tDCS session 5 compared with session 1. tDCS combined with a brief intervention may support smoking cessation, but studies need to evaluate whether longer and more intensive treatment can achieve significant, sustainable effects.

Internet-Based Intervention Compared to Brief Intervention for Smoking Cessation in Brazil: Pilot Study.

Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death. Governments and health care providers should make available more accessible resources to help tobacco users stop. This study describes a pilot longitudinal study that evaluated the efficacy of an internet-based intervention compared to the brief intervention for smoking cessation among Brazilians. Eligible participants were recruited and randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Measures were drawn by comparing cessation rates, motivation scores, and sought treatment between groups, assessed 1 and 3 months after the intervention. Inferential analysis was performed to compare the participants' characteristics, and the intention to treat was calculated. A total of 49 smokers were enrolled in this study (n=25, 51% in the brief intervention group; n=24, 49% in the internet-based intervention group). Mean age was 44.5 (SD 13.3) years; most were male (n=29, 59.2%), had elementary school (n=22, 44.9%), smoked 14.5 cigarettes per day on average (SD 8.6), and had a mean score of 4.65 for nicotine dependence and 5.7 for motivation to quit. Moreover, 35 (71%) participants answered follow-up 1, and 19 (39%) answered follow-up 2. The results showed similar rates of cessation and reduction for both intervention groups. The internet-based intervention was slightly more effective for smoking cessation, while the brief intervention was more effective in reducing the number of cigarettes smoked per day. This difference was small and had no statistical significance even after adjusting for intention-to-treat analysis. These results should be interpreted with caution, especially due to the small sample size.

Brief opportunistic interventions by general practitioners to promote smoking cessation: A conversation analytic study

Very brief opportunistic interventions for smoking cessation are effective, cost-saving for health systems, and universally recommended in guidelines. However, evidence suggests that clinicians are reluctant to intervene, citing interactional difficulties. Only one UK study has specifically examined smoking discussions, within naturally occurring primary care consultations. However smoking cessation treatment was not available at the time. We examined existing datasets amounting to 519 video-recordings of GP consultations in England for instances of talk about smoking. We used conversation analytic methods to assess patients' responses to doctors asking about smoking, giving advice on smoking, and offering cessation treatment. In 31 recordings it was apparent that the patient smoked, and, in 25/31 consultations, doctors initiated the topic of smoking. They did so by asking about smoking status, commonly during the history-taking phase of the consultation. In many instances, these questions led to active resistance from patients against being placed in a discreditable category, for example by minimising their smoking. This was more pronounced when GPs pursued efforts to quantify the amount smoked. Thereafter, where doctors returned to the topic of smoking, they did so typically by linking smoking to the patient's medical condition, which likewise led to resistance. Guidance recommends that GPs advise on how best to quit smoking where patients are interested in doing so, but this was only evident in a minority of consultations. Where GPs offered support for cessation, they did so using interactional practices that minimised the need for the patient to respond and thereby accept. Interactional difficulties were found to be common in consultations between GPs and people who smoke when GPs actions aligned with some VBA guidelines. Future research should examine when and how advice on how best to quit, and offers of support, should be delivered within primary care consultations.

A Comprehensive Tobacco Control Policy Program in a Mining Industry in Indonesia: Did It Work?

BackgroundRisk factor controls, including smoking cessation and prevention, impact health costs. This study aimed to describe the Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC), one of Indonesia's largest coal mining operations, comprehensive tobacco control policy program in 2015 and its impact on smoking behavior among the employees.MethodA survey among 404 employees was conducted to assess the impact of the smoke-free KPC programs. In addition to the descriptive analysis, logistic regression was used to measure the association of intention to the smoking behavior change and the association between intention and the determinants using the Theory of Planned Behavior in 102 smokers.ResultsA series of tobacco control programs: advocacy, health education, brief interventions for smoking cessation, peer counselor training, media campaigns, and policy regulations were implemented. About 95.5% of the respondents attended the KPC Smoke-Free 2015 programs, and 97.8% reported they already knew that KPC is a total smoke-free area. Nearly 50% of the respondents expressed that the staff complied with the rules and no longer smoked in KPC. Majority of smokers (76.6%) reduced their consumption, and 5.6% of them quit smoking. Among smokers, we found that attitude toward smoking cessation, subjective norm, and perceived control for quitting were related to the intention to stop smoking.ConclusionsThe KPC smoke-free policy has been comprehensively implemented. Regulations on smoking and tobacco controls should be maintained, and monitoring should be consistently done. Media campaigns on the regulations and the availability of trained peer educators for smoking cessation help need to be applied continuously.

Factors associated with changes in inpatients' smoking pattern during hospitalization and one month after discharge: A cohort study.

Smokers are frequent users of healthcare services. Admissions to hospital can serve as a "teachable moment" for quitting smoking. Clinical guidelines recommend initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalization; however, in Southern European countries less than 5% of inpatients receive a brief intervention for smoking cessation. The aims of this study were (i) to examine rates of smoking abstinence during and after hospitalization; (ii) to measure changes in smoking patterns among persons who continued smoking after discharge; and (iii) to identify predictors of abstinence during hospitalization and after discharge. A cohort study of a representative sample of current adult smokers hospitalized in two Spanish and two Portuguese hospitals. We surveyed smokers during hospitalization and recontacted them one month after discharge. We used a 25-item ad hoc questionnaire regarding their smoking pattern, the smoking cessation intervention they have received during hospitalization, and hospital and sociodemographic characteristics. We performed a descriptive analysis using the chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regression to characterize the participant, hospital, and smoking cessation intervention (5As model) characteristics associated with smoking abstinence. Smoking patients from both countries presented high abstinence rates during hospitalization (Spain: 76.4%; Portugal: 70.2%); however, after discharge, their abstinence rates decreased to 55.3% and 46.8%, respectively. In Spain, smokers who tried to quit before hospital admission showed higher abstinence rates, and those who continued smoking reduced a mean of five cigarettes the number of cigarettes per day (p≤0.001). In Portugal, abstinence rates were higher among women (p=0.030), those not living with a smoker (p=0.008), those admitted to medical-surgical wards (p=0.035), who consumed their first cigarette within 60min after waking (p=0.006), and those who were trying to quit before hospitalization (p=0.043). Half of the smokers admitted into the Spanish hospitals are abstinent one month after discharge or have reduced their cigarettes per day. Nevertheless, success rates could be increased by implementing evidence-based tobacco cessation programs at the organizational-level, including post-discharge active quitting smoking support. Three-quarters of the inpatients who smoke remain abstinent during hospitalization and over half achieve to maintain their abstinence or at least reduce their consumption one month after discharge, proving that admission to hospitals is an excellent teachable moment to quit smoking.

To assess implementation of trust policy (smoke free policy) on an acute mixed mental health ward setting

AimsTo assess implementation of Trust Policy (Smoke Free Policy) on the acute adult mental health unit To evaluate barriers to implementation of local standards and NICE guidelines To evaluate if Q-Risk score is being calculated and noted.BackgroundThere are about 34,000 people residents in mental health facilities in England and Wales on any one day (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection 2005) and many of them smoke.Smoke free policy implemented in the GMMH since 1st of July 2018.Smoking is single largest preventable cause of ill health & premature mortality in England.Smoking prevalence is significantly higher among people admitted to hospital due to the mental illness i.e. 70%According to WHO SHS (second hand smoking), is a human carcinogen to which there is no safe level.MethodAn audit tool questionnaire was used to collect the data on the Acute Mixed mental health ward setting i.e. Bronte Ward, Laureate House, Wythenshawe HospitalIdentified method: interview with each patient, PARIS documentation review and Patient's Kardex review.Sample size: 23 and on re-audit 12.Method of data input: Microsoft ExcelData were analyzed by calculating percentageResultThe majority of the patients that took part in the Audit were smokers (91%), a high percentage overall. This indicate how important it is for a plan to be in place regarding smoking on the ward since there is a smoke free policy now in the GMMH. Our results showed that not everyone was asked regarding their smoking status (87%).An important figure that came out from the results was that only 50% of the patients asked about their smoking status were told that there is a smoke free policy.For a smoke free policy ward only 33% of the smokers that took part in the audit were provided with brief advice regarding smoking cessation which shows that there might be a need of a more precise implementation regarding support to receive brief intervention for smoking cessation, NRT and specialist advice.The results also showed that the QRisk is not calculated, a useful marker of cardiovascular risk.ConclusionGive leaflets regarding smoking cessation on admission, offer support and advice to all the patients being on the ward. And re-audit in due course to see the effect of this intervention.

Physicians' very brief (30-sec) intervention for smoking cessation on 13 671 smokers in China: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Background and aimsThree to 10 minutes of smoking cessation advice by physicians is effective to increase quit rates, but is not routinely practised. We examined the effectiveness of physicians’ very brief (approximately 30 sec) smoking cessation intervention on quit rates among Chinese outpatient smokers.DesignA pragmatic, open‐label, individually randomized controlled trial.SettingSeventy‐two medical outpatient departments of hospitals and/or community health centers in Guangdong, China.ParticipantsChinese adults who were daily cigarette smokers (n = 13 671, 99% males) were invited by their physician to participate during outpatient consultation. Smokers who were receiving smoking cessation treatment or were judged to need specialist treatment for cessation were excluded.InterventionsThe intervention group (n = 7015) received a 30‐sec intervention including physician's very brief advice, a leaflet with graphic warnings and a card with contact information of available cessation services. The control group (n = 6656) received a very brief intervention on consuming vegetables and fruit. A total of 3466 participants in the intervention group were further randomized to receive a brief booster advice from trained study personnel via telephone 1 month following their doctor visit.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was self‐reported 7‐day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) in the intervention and control groups at the 12‐month follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included self‐reported 30‐day abstinence and biochemically validated abstinence at 12‐month follow‐up.FindingsBy intention‐to‐treat, the intervention (versus control) group had greater self‐reported 7‐day abstinence [9.1 versus 7.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03–1.26, P = 0.008] and 30‐day abstinence (8.0 versus 6.9%, OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03–1.27, P = 0.01) at 12‐month follow‐up. The effect size increased when only participants who received the intervention from compliant physicians were included (7‐day PPA, OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.11–1.74). The group difference in biochemically validated abstinence was small (0.8 versus 0.8%, OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.71–1.42, P = 0.99).ConclusionA 30‐sec smoking cessation intervention increased self‐reported abstinence among mainly male smokers in China at 12‐month follow‐up (risk difference = 1.3%), and should be feasible to provide in most settings and delivered by all health‐care professionals.

Factors associated with receipt of the 5As model of brief intervention for smoking cessation among hospitalized patients.

Guidelines recommend the 5As model of brief intervention for providing smoking cessation support in clinical settings. This study assessed patient and hospital characteristics associated with self-reported receipt of the 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist and arrange). Multi-center cross-sectional study. Adult inpatients (n=1047) were randomly selected from 13 hospitals in the Barcelona province of Spain in 2014-2015. We explored participants' receipt of the 5As through a questionnaire. Given the progressiveness of the 5As, we recoded the fulfillment of the intervention as: A0 : no intervention; A1 : ask; A2 : ask and advise; A3 : A2 and assess; A4 : A3 and assist; and A5 : A4 and arrange a follow-up. We explored patient (e.g. age, sex, comorbidities) and hospital (e.g. type of hospital, unit) characteristics. We adjusted multi-level robust Poisson regression models to estimate the adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of the association between the recoded 5As intervention received. A total of 60.4% (n=624) of patients had been asked (A1 ) about their smoking status. Among smokers, 46.5% (n=90) were advised (A2 ), 26.6% (n=48) assessed (A3 ) and 4.6% (n=10) received all the components of the 5As (A5 ). Middle-aged smokers [aPR=3.63; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.69-7.79] with a respiratory disease (aPR=2.19; 95% CI=1.11-4.34) were most likely to have been asked, advised and assessed (A3 ). The cessation intervention was most frequently performed by physicians. In the Barcelona province of Spain, it appears that fewer than half of hospitalized patients who smoke were advised to quit and few received the full 'five As' brief intervention for smoking cessation.

Is It Feasible to Impact on Smoking Habits in HIV-Infected Patients? Mission Impossible From the STOPSHIV Project Cohort.

Assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of a brief intervention for smoking cessation in people living with HIV (PLWH). Multicenter cohort prospective study involving PLWH from 10 Italian infectious disease centers. During routine HIV care, clinicians delivered the 5As brief intervention (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) to each patient who enrolled in the study, following the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines. At study end, participating clinicians evaluated their own adherence to intervention: "standard" if counseling was delivered in at least half of the follow-up visits, "soft" if less. The main outcome measure was smoking abstinence ≥6 months. Abstinence predictors were evaluated using a Cox-proportional hazard regression model. One thousand eighty-seven PLWH-patients (age 47.9 ± 10.8, male 73.5%) were followed for a median of 23 months (interquartile range 21-25). At baseline, current smokers were 561 (51.6%). Standard intervention was performed in 4 of 10 centers and included 343 smokers; soft intervention was performed in 6 centers (218 smokers). At last visit, 35 patients in standard (10.8%) and 6 in soft intervention (2.8%) achieved self-reported tobacco abstinence ≥6 months (P = 0.0009). Overall, the 5As intervention led to 7.3% 6-month interruptions. In the multivariable analysis, significant predictors for 6-month smoking cessation were: lower Fagerström score, stage of change (preparation/contemplation vs. precontemplation), and standard intervention. Adherence to the 5As brief intervention emerged as a critical factor for success. In fact, compared with soft intervention, the standard intervention significantly increased abstinence, highlighting that clinicians need more time and supporting tools to encourage PLWH to quit smoking.

Catalyst for Change: Measuring the Effectiveness of Training of All Health Care Professionals to Provide Brief Intervention for Smoking Cessation to Cancer Patients

BackgroundSmoking cessation is recommended to prevent individuals from developing cancer, with additional benefits after a cancer diagnosis. Tobacco use during cancer treatments increases the risk of complications and may reduce the effectiveness of treatment; patients who quit smoking are less likely to experience recurrence. Health care professionals play a vital role in assessing and educating cancer patients on how to quit. We report on the effectiveness of peer-to-peer education of a brief smoking cessation intervention to patients. MethodsAn interprofessional team was created to implement and integrate smoking cessation best practices into daily clinical care. Health care providers were provided with peer-to-peer training to provide brief interventions of smoking cessation to patients. After training, participants were invited to complete an electronic survey to assess the effectiveness of the peer-to-peer training sessions. The survey consisted of 3 domains: confidence, comfort, and knowledge. Participants were asked to rate a series of statement questions using a Likert scale as well as to self-assess knowledge. The survey also included open-ended questions to invite respondents to share further comments and feedback. ResultsApproximately 90% of staff across the oncology program participated in a training session. This included nurses, radiation therapists, and patient and family support professionals. Sixty-one surveys were returned (30% response rate). Most respondents had >10 years of clinical experience (70%), 91% agreed it was important to support patients in their efforts to quit smoking, 88% agreed they have an impact on their patients' smoking cessation attempts, and 67% had opportunities in daily practice to support smoking cessation. Sixty-one percent would benefit from additional education. Fifty-three percent indicated they experienced challenges providing interventions and patients' responsiveness to the intervention. ConclusionsPeer-to-peer training for smoking cessation can increase confidence, comfort, and knowledge. Challenges include comfort level of clinician, determining the best time to ask patients, and having the confidence in knowing their scope of practice.

Patterns of cigarette, e-cigarette, and cannabis use among adult smokers in primary care 2014–2015

BackgroundPoly-use of tobacco, cannabis, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is an emerging problem in the general population. The current study investigated poly-use of these products and receipt of smoking cessation counseling in a primary care setting. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional secondary data analysis from a trial of a tablet intervention to increase provider delivery of the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange follow-up), a brief counseling intervention for smoking cessation, in 3 diverse primary care clinics in San Francisco, CA from 2014 to 2015. Participants were currently smoking cigarettes (N = 601; mean age = 50.8; 38.1% female) and reported information on past 30-day cigarette and e-cigarette use and past 3-month cannabis use. We classified participants into 4 groups: (1) cigarette-only, (2) dual-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, (3) dual-use of cigarettes and cannabis, (4) poly-use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cannabis, and examined correlates of use. ResultsOnly cigarette smoking was reported by 48.6% of participants, 30.4% reported use of cigarettes and cannabis, 10.5% reported use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and 10.5% reported use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cannabis. Cigarette-only smokers did not differ from other groups by cigarette smoking behavior and motivation to quit. Patients reporting dual-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes had a higher likelihood of receiving the Arrange step and all 5As compared to cigarette-only smokers. ConclusionsProviders should screen for co-use of cigarettes and other nicotine/cannabis products and consider co-use when delivering smoking cessation treatment and evaluating treatment outcomes. Development of guidelines to help facilitate provider training is needed.

Chat-based instant messaging support integrated with brief interventions for smoking cessation: a community-based, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial

Mobile instant messaging apps offer a modern way to deliver personalised smoking cessation support through real-time, interactive messaging (chat). In this trial, we aimed to assess the effect of chat-based instant messaging support integrated with brief interventions on smoking cessation in a cohort of smokers proactively recruited from the community. In this two-arm, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants aged 18 years or older who smoked at least one cigarette per day from 68 community sites in Hong Kong, China. Community sites were computer randomised (1:1) to the intervention group, in which participants received chat-based instant messaging support for 3 months, offers of referral to external smoking cessation services, and brief advice, or to the control group, in which participants received brief advice alone. The chat-based intervention included personalised behavioural support and promoted use of smoking cessation services. Masking of participants and the research team was not possible, but outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence validated by exhaled carbon monoxide concentrations lower than 4 parts per million and salivary cotinine concentrations lower than 10 ng/mL at 6 months after treatment initiation (3 months after the end of treatment). The primary analysis was by intention to treat and accounted for potential clustering effect by use of generalised estimating equation models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03182790. Between June 18 and Sept 30, 2017, 1185 participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=591) or control (n=594) groups. At the 6-month follow-up (77% of participants retained), the proportion of validated abstinence was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (48 [8%] of 591 in intervention vs 30 [5%] of 594 in control group, unadjusted odds ratio 1·68, 95% CI 1·03-2·74; p=0·040). Engagement in the chat-based support in the intervention group was low (17%), but strongly predicted abstinence with or without use of external smoking cessation services. Chat-based instant messaging support integrated with brief cessation interventions increased smoking abstinence and could complement existing smoking cessation services. Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health.

6. SMOKING AND SCHIZOPHRENIA: STILL A BURNING PROBLEM

The prevalence of tobacco use in schizophrenia is 3x that of the general population and the disparity is growing. Persons with schizophrenia die on average 10-15 years earlier than those in the general population and smoking is the largest preventable cause of this premature mortality. Understanding the association between smoking and schizophrenia is a high priority as is the development of more effective smoking cessation strategies for this population. In this symposium, we examine epidemiological aspects of smoking and schizophrenia. We also examine novel smoking cessation interventions that have been recently developed for persons with schizophrenia. While we typically consider the effects of cigarette smoking in persons with schizophrenia, there is new evidence that smoking may play a causal role in the development of psychosis. In the first presentation, Dr. Robin Murray presents data showing that daily tobacco use is associated with an increased risk of psychotic illness and also that smoking is associated with an earlier age at onset of psychotic illness. Data were drawn from a systematic review of the literature including studies with an overall sample of almost 300,000 persons and from two case control studies of persons with a first episode of psychosis. Tobacco smoking was significantly more common in the patient groups even after adjusting for cannabis use. Plausible biological explanations add weight to the causal hypothesis. In the second presentation, Dr. Faith Dickerson turns to the adverse effects of cigarette smoking in schizophrenia. Data are drawn from two cohorts looking at the cross sectional association between tobacco use and cognitive functioning and suicide attempts; a third and longitudinal cohort examined the association between smoking at baseline and subsequent natural cause morality. Smoking was significantly and inversely associated with total cognitive score and also with a history of suicide attempts. In the third cohort, smoking at baseline was the strongest predictor of subsequent natural cause mortality in a multivariate model including other demographic and clinical variables. These data contradict the notion that smoking is “self medication” for persons with schizophrenia. In the third presentation, Dr. Mary Brunette describes the results of a randomized trial with schizophrenia smokers comparing two brief web-based motivational interventions for smoking cessation adapted for people with cognitive impairments. Nearly 40% of the sample reported quit attempts at the 6-month follow-up though only 4% had verified abstinence. Brief web-based treatments can motivate schizophrenia smokers to use cessation treatments. In the final presentation, Dr. Gail Daumit describes an ongoing trial testing an 18-month intervention delivered in community mental health centers to smokers with serious mental illness who are interested in quitting. The intervention involves group and individual smoking cessation and weight management counseling, smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, and exercise. The intervention aims to promote smoking abstinence, improved physical activity, and weight control. Baseline results will be presented.The discussion will be led by Dr. Eden Evins, a leading expert in smoking cessation treatments for persons with schizophrenia.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative smoking cessation scenarios in Spain: results from the EQUIPTMOD.

AimsTo assess the cost‐effectiveness of alternative smoking cessation scenarios from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS).DesignWe used the European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD), a Markov‐based state transition economic model, to estimate the return on investment (ROI) of: (a) the current provision of smoking cessation services (brief physician advice and printed self‐helped material + smoking ban and tobacco duty at current levels); and (b) four alternative scenarios to complement the current provision: coverage of proactive telephone calls; nicotine replacement therapy (mono and combo) [prescription nicotine replacement therapy (Rx NRT)]; varenicline (standard duration); or bupropion. A rate of 3% was used to discount life‐time costs and benefits.SettingSpain.ParticipantsAdult smoking population (16+ years).MeasurementsHealth‐care costs associated with treatment of smoking attributable diseases (lung cancer, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary infection and stroke); intervention costs; quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were summarized using various ROI estimates.FindingsThe cost of implementing the current provision of smoking cessation services is approximately €61 million in the current year. This translates to 18 quitters per 1000 smokers and a life‐time benefit–cost ratio of 5, compared with no such provision. All alternative scenarios were dominant (cost‐saving: less expensive to run and generated more QALYs) from the life‐time perspective, compared with the current provision. The life‐time benefit–cost ratios were: 1.87 (proactive telephone calls); 1.17 (Rx NRT); 2.40 (varenicline‐standard duration); and bupropion (2.18). The results remained robust in the sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsAccording to the EQUIPTMOD modelling tool it would be cost‐effective for the Spanish authorities to expand the reach of existing GP brief interventions for smoking cessation, provide pro‐active telephone support, and reimburse smoking cessation medication to smokers trying to stop. Such policies would more than pay for themselves in the long run.

A Perioperative Smoking Cessation Intervention With Varenicline, Counseling, and Fax Referral to a Telephone Quitline Versus a Brief Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The effectiveness of perioperative interventions to quit smoking with varenicline has not been compared with brief interventions. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of a comprehensive smoking cessation program versus a brief intervention for smoking cessation. In this prospective, multicenter study, 296 patients were randomized to participate in a smoking cessation program (one 10- to 15-minute counseling session, pharmacotherapy with varenicline, an educational pamphlet, and a fax referral to a telephone quitline); or brief advice and self-referral to a telephone quitline. The primary outcome was the 7-day point prevalence (PP) abstinence at 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at 1, 3, and 6 months. Multivariable generalized linear regression was used to identify independent variables related to abstinence. The 7-day PP abstinence for the smoking cessation program versus brief advice group was 42.4% vs 26.2% (relative risk [RR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.25; P = .003) at 12 months. The 7-day PP abstinence at 1, 3, and 6 months was higher in the smoking cessation group versus the brief advice group: 45.7% vs 25.5% (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.29-2.49; P < .001), 46.4% vs 26.9% (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.37; P< .001), and 45.0% vs 26.2% (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.24-2.38; P < .001), respectively. Participating in the smoking cessation group predicted abstinence at 12 months (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.12-2.21; P = .0087). A perioperative smoking cessation program with counseling, pharmacotherapy with varenicline, an educational pamphlet, and a fax referral to a quitline increased abstinence from smoking 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery versus a brief intervention.

Evaluation of the Stop Smoking Wales NHS Dental Practice Incentive Scheme.

In December 2014, Public Health Wales introduced a proof-of-concept incentive scheme, aiming to encourage National Health Service (NHS) dental practitioners in Wales to provide brief intervention for smoking cessation and increase referrals to Stop Smoking Wales (SSW). The scheme ran for 11 weeks. Practitioners were advised to only refer patients who agreed with the referral. Practices were reimbursed £7 for every referral sent to SSW. Eighty-three dental practices signed up to participate, equating to 18% of NHS sites across Wales. SSW received 308 referrals, of which 297 (96%) were considered new contacts. One hundred and fifty-eight individuals (51%) accepted an assessment. Of these, 48 actually attended (30%). Thirty-two individuals became treated smokers (attending both an assessment and treatment session). Of these, 22 became self-reported quitters; 19 of these were validated through carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring. The cost to receive individuals into SSW via the dental incentive scheme was approximately £98 per self-reported quitter. The scheme greatly increased the number of referrals to SSW from dentists, compared to previous records and so fulfilled its aims. Amendments to the process could improve cost-effectiveness of a similar scheme.

Annals for Educators - 3 May 2016

<i>Annals</i> for Educators - 3 May 2016

Measuring the Effectiveness of Training on Changes to Clinical Practice: Educating Healthcare Professionals to Provide Brief Interventions for Smoking Cessation to Patients in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre

Smoking cessation (SC) is recommended to prevent individuals from developing cancer, with additional benefits following a cancer diagnosis. An interprofessional model has been implemented to integrate SC best practices into daily clinical care. Healthcare professionals were provided with peer-to-peer training to provide brief interventions of SC to patients. This study measured the effectiveness of peer-to-peer education by assessing confidence levels and importance rankings of clinical staff, post-training. An electronic survey was sent to healthcare professionals (nurses, radiation therapists, and patient and family supportive care professionals) at the cancer centre who received training in the brief intervention for smoking cessation. The survey was divided into three domains: confidence, comfort, and knowledge. Respondents were asked to rate a series of statements using Likert scales and open-ended questions. 61 surveys were returned (24% response rate). Majority of respondents had >10 years clinical experience (70%), 91% agreed it was important to support patients in their efforts to quit smoking, 88% agreed they have an impact on their patients' SC attempts, and 67% had opportunities in daily practice to support SC. 61% would benefit from additional education. 53% indicated they experienced challenges providing SC with respect to ownership, accountability of providing interventions and patients' responsiveness. Peer-to-peer training for SC can increase confidence, comfort, and knowledge. Challenges include: comfort level of clinicians, best time to ask patient, and confidence in knowing their scope of practice.

Misreporting in a randomized clinical trial for smoking cessation in adolescents

IntroductionMisreporting smoking behavior is common among younger smokers participating in clinical trials for smoking cessation. This study focused on the prevalence of and factors associated with adolescent misreporting of smoking behaviors within the context of a randomized clinical trial for smoking cessation. MethodsAdolescent smokers (N=129) participated in a randomized clinical trial that compared two brief interventions for smoking cessation. Following the final (6-month) follow-up, a confidential, self-administered exit questionnaire examined the extent to which participants admitted to having misreported smoking quantity, frequency and/or consequences during the study. Factors associated with under- and over-reporting were compared to accurate-reporting. ResultsOne in 4 adolescent smokers (25.6%) admitted to under-reporting during the study and 14.7% admitted to over-reporting; 10.9% of the adolescents admitted to both under- and over-reporting. Rates of admitted misreporting did not differ between treatment conditions or recruitment site. Compared to accurate-reporting, under- and over-reporting were significantly associated with home smoking environment and the belief among adolescents that the baseline interviewer wanted them to report smoking more or less than they actually smoked. Compared to accurate reporters, over-reporters were more likely to be non-White and to report being concerned with the confidentiality of their responses. ConclusionsA post-study confidential debriefing questionnaire can be a useful tool for estimating rates of misreporting and examining whether potential differences in misreporting might bias the interpretation of treatment effects. Future studies are needed to thoroughly examine potentially addressable reasons that adolescents misreport their smoking behavior and to develop methods for reducing misreporting.

Targeting tobacco in a community-based addiction recovery cohort: Results from a computerized, brief, randomized intervention trial

IntroductionNearly 80% of substance dependent individuals also use tobacco, and smoking cessation efforts during treatment for other substance use is associated with similar or even improved outcomes. However, smoking cessation is not routinely addressed during treatment for substance use disorders. The present study tested a computerized brief motivational intervention (C-BMI) for smoking cessation in an understudied population: a cohort recruited from a recovery community organization (RCO) center. MethodsFollowing baseline assessment, participants were randomly assigned to either a 30-minute C-BMI plus access to free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), or an information-only control group plus NRT access. ResultsReductions in CO were observed for both groups. Quit rates in the C-BMI group (5%–7%, vs. 0% for the control group) approximated those observed elsewhere for physician advice and minimal counseling. Participants in the C-BMI group were also more likely to express a desire to quit. ConclusionsComputer-delivered smoking cessation interventions within RCOs appear feasible. These organizations treat a wide variety of individuals, and C-BMIs for smoking in this context have the potential to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality.