Motivational interviewing versus brief advice for cigarette smokers in residential alcohol treatment

Development of a Personalized Tobacco Cessation Intervention Package (PTCIP) for Persons with Schizophrenia in India

Background

Among persons with schizophrenia (PwS), tobacco use is higher in comparison to the general population, contributing to greater morbidity and mortality. Pharmacological interventions combined with psychosocial interventions are effective in tobacco cessation. While the effectiveness of extant psychosocial interventions-when used in isolation-seems limited, developing better combinations of interventions could help treatment providers deliver tobacco cessation services to PwS at different stages of motivation to quit. We aimed to develop a personalized tobacco cessation intervention package (PTCIP) for PwS.

Methods

The stage-based intervention package was developed through a systematic review of interventions for tobacco cessation, the authors' clinical experience, and expert validation. The components of the intervention package, developed for PwS visiting the outpatient psychiatric department, were retained, removed, or added based on the content validity ratio (CVR).

Results

The final components included brief advice, principles of motivational interviewing, psychoeducation, decisional balance matrix, positive reinforcement, offering various treatment options, personalized feedback using a smoking-risk calculator, and prediction of cardiovascular risk using the WHO package of essential noncommunicable disease (PEN). The delivery of the intervention package was refined based on pilot testing in eight participants.

Conclusion

The tailored package was designed to be delivered by a mental health professional as a single comprehensive 40 min to 45 min face-to-face session, integrated with routine follow-up visits, followed by two telephonic conversations in the second and third week of the initial session. The package needs to be tested in a randomized controlled trial for its effectiveness.

Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing and Brief Interventions on tobacco use among healthy adults: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of a brief intervention and motivational interviewing in reducing the use of different tobacco-related products in adults.

METHODS

For this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO databases were electronically searched for randomized controlled trialson the effect of a brief intervention and / or motivational interview on tobacco reduction among healthy adults published between January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2021. Data from eligible studies were extracted and analyzed. CONSORT guidelines were used to assess the quality of the studies by two reviewers for the included studies. The titles and abstracts of the search results were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers for eligibility criteria per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cochrane review criteria were used to assess the risk of bias in included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the final data extraction of 1406 studies. The brief intervention and motivational interviewing showed varied effects on tobacco use reduction among adults at different follow-ups. Seven of the 12 studies (58.3%) reported a beneficial impact on reducing tobacco use. Pieces of evidence on biochemical estimation on tobacco reduction are limited compared to self-reports, and varied results on quitting and tobacco cessation with different follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence supports the effectiveness of a brief intervention and motivational interviewing to quit tobacco use. Still, it suggests using more biochemical markers as outcome measures to reach an intervention-specific decision. While more initiatives to train nurses in providing non-pharmacological nursing interventions, including brief interventions, are recommended to help people quit smoking.

Preparing for the Quit Day: Comparing Beliefs of Nondaily Versus Daily Young Adult Smokers as They Prepare for a Quit Attempt

INTRODUCTION

Most smoking cessation approaches are modeled on heavy daily smoking. With increasing prevalence of nondaily smoking, it may be necessary to modify these approaches for nondaily smokers.

AIMS

To provide information about beliefs and attitudes relevant to smoking cessation for nondaily smokers.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of two prospective studies on young adult smokers (18-24 years of age) provided brief advice to quit smoking. Measures include baseline levels of constructs relevant to smoking cessation counseling and perceived benefits of and barriers to smoking cessation.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 40 nondaily, 122 daily smokers) were predominantly White (70% and 84%, respectively), gender-balanced (50% and 43% female), full-time college students (89% and 95%). At baseline, nondaily smokers reported lower levels of nicotine dependence (p < .001; nondaily: Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) = 0.8 ± 1.5, daily: FTND = 3.1 ± 1.9), lower urge to smoke (p < .001), greater self-efficacy when facing external smoking stimuli (p = .03), expecting to experience fewer positive effects (reduced negative affect, p = <.001, stimulation, p = .02), and valuing the importance of smoking effects less (ps < .01) than daily smokers. During counseling, nondaily smokers generated both fewer benefits of cessation (Wald X2(df = 1) = 4.91, p = .027) and fewer barriers (Wald X2(df = 1) = 5.99, p =.014) than daily smokers. Withdrawal was not listed by nondaily smokers as a barrier (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Constructs relevant to smoking cessation for daily smokers were less salient to young nondaily smokers, compared with moderately addicted young daily smokers, as indicated by responses to standardized scales and by the generation of fewer benefits and barriers in counseling. Interventions may need to find novel ways to engage nondaily smokers, particularly young adult, in smoking cessation efforts.

IMPLICATIONS

This study is unique in eliciting benefits and barriers from nondaily smokers as they are about to make a quit attempt. This is a critically important point in time, as this is the point in time in which an action plan is formed and can be informed and enhanced by smoking cessation support. Our study further allowed direct comparison to daily smokers undergoing the same procedures, which allowed the identification of unique factors that may impact nondaily smokers in their quit attempt, which may guide intervention efforts. Use of a mixed method design further strengthen the rigor of this study.

Internet-based intervention compared to brief intervention for smoking cessation in Brazil: a pilot study (Preprint)

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry treatment facilities: A review

•

Smoking rates are high among people with psychiatric illness.

•

Smoking cessation interventions are rarely available in inpatient psychiatry settings.

•

Smokers with psychiatric illness are just as interested in quitting smoking.

Background

Tobacco-related diseases are a leading cause of death among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), yet interventions to address tobacco cessation are rare in inpatient settings where persons with SMI are hospitalized. While cigarette smoking rates have declined in the general population, they remain high in persons with SMI. Inpatient settings would be a prime location to intervene on tobacco consumption among persons with SMI. The objective of this review was to examine evidence of smoking cessation interventions in psychiatric inpatient facilities.

Method

Using narrative overview guidelines, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for smoking cessation RCT studies published between 1950 and 2018. Studies included had to have at least started in inpatient psychiatry settings. Examples of search terms included: smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry, smoking cessation in inpatient mental health treatment facilities, and smoking cessation and mental health.

Results

Following the inclusion criteria, eight RCT studies were reviewed. One study was among adolescent psychiatric inpatient smokers ages 13–17, and 7 were among adult psychiatric inpatients with mean age 41 years. Treatment periods lasting 8 to 12 weeks started in inpatient settings and continued post discharge. A combination of behavioral and pharmacological interventions were used. Pharmacological interventions were nicotine replacement therapies, and at least one study used varenicline. At baseline, participants smoked an average of 18.1 cigarettes per day.

Conclusion

Smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry settings is rare or delayed. There is a need for more tailored treatments among this population to help them quit smoking.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I2 = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I2 = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I2 = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I2 = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I2 = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Predictors of reduced smoking quantity among recovering alcohol dependent men in a smoking cessation trial

INTRODUCTION

Adults with alcohol dependence (AD) have exceptionally high smoking rates and poor smoking cessation outcomes. Discovery of factors that predict reduced smoking among AD smokers may help improve treatment. This study examined baseline predictors of smoking quantity among AD smokers in a pharmacotherapy trial for smoking cessation.

METHODS

The sample includes male, AD smokers (N = 129) with 1-32 months of alcohol abstinence who participated in a 12-week trial of medication (topiramate vs. placebo) and adjunct counseling with 6 months of follow-up. Baseline measures of nicotine dependence, AD severity, psychopathology, motivation to quit smoking, and smoking-related cognitions were used to predict smoking quantity (cigarettes per day) at post-treatment and follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, the sample had statistically significant reductions in smoking quantity. Greater nicotine dependence (Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) = 0.82-0.90), motivation to quit (IRRs = 0.65-0.85), and intrinsic reasons for quitting (IRRs = 0.96-0.98) predicted fewer cigarettes/day. Conversely, greater lifetime AD severity (IRR = 1.02), depression severity (IRRs = 1.05-1.07), impulsivity (IRRs = 1.01-1.03), weight-control expectancies (IRRs = 1.10-1.15), and childhood sexual abuse (IRRs = 1.03-1.07) predicted more cigarettes/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with AD can achieve large reductions in smoking quantity during treatment, and factors that predict smoking outcomes in the general population also predict greater smoking reductions in AD smokers. Treatment providers can use severity of nicotine dependence and AD, motivation to quit, smoking-related cognitions, and severity of depression to guide treatment and improve outcomes among AD smokers.

Motivational interviewing to improve the self-care behaviors for patients with chronic heart failure: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effect of motivational interviewing on the self-care behaviours in patients with chronic heart failure.

Methods

Sixty-two hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure were recruited in this study from April 2014 to April 2015 from a hospital. Twenty-nine patients were in the intervention group, and 33 patients were in the control group. Patients in the intervention group received four sessions of motivational interviewing, whereas those in the control group received traditional health education. At 2, 4, and 8 weeks post-discharge, the intervention group underwent telephone follow-up based on motivational interviewing, whereas the control group underwent routine telephone follow-up. Primary outcome was measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index at baseline and at 2 months post-discharge.

Results

Before intervention, the self-care behaviours scores were 79.00 ± 48.80 in the intervention group and 88.68 ± 29.26in the control group. No statistically significant differences were found between two groups in scores for each subscale and total scale (P > 0.05). After intervention, the scores of self-care behaviours in the two groups were both improved at 155.13 ± 35.65 for the intervention group and 115.44 ± 22.82 for the control group with statistically significance (P < 0.01). The score of self-care behaviours increased by 76.13 point in the intervention group on average, whereas 26.76 point in the control group. There was significant difference between increases in scores of self-care behaviours in two groups (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The self-care behaviours of patients with chronic heart failure could be improved effectively through motivational interviewing.

Varenicline versus nicotine patch with brief advice for smokers with substance use disorders with or without depression: effects on smoking, substance use and depressive symptoms

AIMS

Varenicline was compared with transdermal nicotine (NRT) for smokers with current substance use disorders (SUD) for effects on 3-month smoking abstinence (primary outcome) and, secondarily, on 3- and 6 month abstinence while adjusting for medication adherence, and on additional smoking and substance use outcomes. Moderation by major depressive disorder history (MDD) and adherence were investigated.

DESIGN

Double-blind double-placebo-controlled randomized design, stratifying by MDD, gender and nicotine dependence, with 3 and 6 months follow-up.

SETTING

University offices in Rhode Island, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n = 137), in SUD treatment, substance abstinent <12 months (n = 77 varenicline, 60 NRT).

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Twelve weeks of varenicline (2 mg/day, after 1-week dose run-up) or NRT (21 mg/day decreasing to 7 mg/day).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary: point-prevalence smoking abstinence (7-day, confirmed) at 3 months. Secondary: point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, quantity and frequency of smoking and substance use at 3 and 6 months, and within-treatment abstinence, medication adherence and depressive symptoms. Smoking outcome analyses were repeated controlling for adherence and investigating adherence as a moderator.

FINDINGS

Effects on 3-month abstinence were P < 0.065 without a covariate (Bayes factor 3.35, supporting the effect strongly) and differed significantly when controlling for baseline smoking [varenicline: 13%, NRT: 3%; odds ratio (OR) = 4.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00, 23.13, P < 0.05]. The threefold difference at 6 months was not significant. Medication effect on abstinence across time was significant (P < 0.05) covarying adherence and baseline smoking (OR = 6.40, 95% CI = 1.00, 40.93). Medication differences in 3-month abstinence occurred among participants with ≥ 77% adherence (P < 0.02). No significant medication effects on heavy drinking, drug use or depressive symptoms were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline appears to improve the chances of achieving at least 3 months of smoking abstinence in smokers with substance use disorders trying to stop, compared with transdermal nicotine patches, the effect being independent of history of depressive disorder.

Perceived barriers to smoking cessation among adults with substance use disorders

The majority of adults seeking substance use disorder treatment also smoke. Smoking is associated with greater substance use disorder severity, poorer treatment outcome, and increased mortality among those with substance use disorders. Yet, engaging this population in smoking cessation treatment is a significant challenge. The aim of this study was to examine perceived barriers to smoking cessation among treatment-seeking adults with alcohol or opioid use disorder. Additionally, we examined whether anxiety sensitivity - a known risk factor for barriers to smoking cessation in the general population - was associated with more barriers to smoking cessation in this sample. A sample of 208 adults was recruited for a one-time study and completed self-report measures of anxiety sensitivity and perceived barriers to smoking cessation. Results indicated that the most common barriers were anxiety (82% of the sample), tension/irritability (76%), and concerns about the ability to maintain sobriety from their primary substance of abuse (64%). Those who reported more barriers also reported lower confidence in the ability to change their smoking behavior. Higher anxiety sensitivity was associated with more perceived barriers to smoking cessation, even when controlling for cigarette dependence severity. These results suggest that there are several perceived barriers to smoking cessation among treatment-seeking adults with substance use disorders. In addition to psychoeducational interventions aimed to modify negative beliefs about smoking cessation, anxiety sensitivity may be a promising therapeutic target in this population.

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in people with alcohol and other drug dependencies are two to four times those of the general population. Concurrent treatment of tobacco dependence has been limited due to concern that these interventions are not successful in this population or that recovery from other addictions could be compromised if tobacco cessation was combined with other drug dependency treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether interventions for tobacco cessation are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in concurrent treatment for or in recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, with the most recent search completed in August 2016. A grey literature search of conference abstracts from the Society on Nicotine Research and Treatment and the ProQuest database of digital dissertations yielded one additional study, which was excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions among people in concurrent treatment for alcohol or other drug dependence or in outpatient recovery programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from tobacco use at the longest period of follow-up, and the secondary outcome was abstinence from alcohol or other drugs, or both. We reported the strictest definition of abstinence. We summarised effects as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two clustered studies did not provide intraclass correlation coefficients, and were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. We used the I² statistic to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trials, one ongoing, involving 5796 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of tobacco cessation interventions, including counselling, and pharmacotherapy consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT, or the two combined, in both inpatient and outpatient settings for participants in treatment and in recovery. Most studies did not report information to assess the risk of allocation, selection, and attrition bias, and were classified as unclear.Analyses considered the nature of the intervention, whether participants were in treatment or recovery and the type of dependency. Of the 34 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11 assessed counselling, 11 assessed pharmacotherapy, and 12 assessed counselling in combination with pharmacotherapy, compared to usual care or no intervention. Tobacco cessation interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for two types of interventions. Pharmacotherapy appeared to increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, 11 studies, 1808 participants, low quality evidence), as did combined counselling and pharmacotherapy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18, 12 studies, 2229 participants, low quality evidence) at the period of longest follow-up, which ranged from six weeks to 18 months. There was moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 56% with pharmacotherapy and 43% with counselling plus pharmacotherapy). Counselling interventions did not significantly increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.95).Interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for both people in treatment (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.50) and people in recovery (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67), and for people with alcohol dependence (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.81) and people with other drug dependencies (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.40).Offering tobacco cessation therapy to people in treatment or recovery for other drug dependence was not associated with a difference in abstinence rates from alcohol and other drugs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03, 11 studies, 2231 participants, moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 66%)).Data on adverse effect of the interventions were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that providing tobacco cessation interventions targeted to smokers in treatment and recovery for alcohol and other drug dependencies increases tobacco abstinence. There was no evidence that providing interventions for tobacco cessation affected abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. The association between tobacco cessation interventions and tobacco abstinence was consistent for both pharmacotherapy and combined counselling and pharmacotherapy, for participants both in treatment and in recovery, and for people with alcohol dependency or other drug dependency. The evidence for the interventions was low quality due primarily to incomplete reporting of the risks of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the nature of treatment. Certain results were sensitive to the length of follow-up or the type of pharmacotherapy, suggesting that further research is warranted regarding whether tobacco cessation interventions are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in recovery, and the outcomes associated with NRT versus non-NRT or combined pharmacotherapy. Overall, the results suggest that tobacco cessation interventions incorporating pharmacotherapy should be incorporated into clinical practice to reduce tobacco addiction among people in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

Treating Smokers in Substance Treatment With Contingent Vouchers, Nicotine Replacement and Brief Advice Adapted for Sobriety Settings

Treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) provides an opportunity to use voucher-based treatment for smoking. Nicotine replacement (NRT) could improve outcomes previously observed with vouchers without NRT.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial compared contingent vouchers (CV) for smoking abstinence to noncontingent vouchers (NV), when all received counseling and NRT. Smokers who had not sought smoking treatment (n=340) in residential SUD treatment were provided 14days of vouchers for complete smoking abstinence per exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) after a 5-day smoking reduction period, or vouchers only for breath samples, plus brief advice (four sessions) and 8weeks of NRT.

RESULTS

Within treatment, 20% had complete abstinence with CV, 5% with NV (p<.001), and participants showed 50% of days abstinent in CV compared to 22% in NV (p<.001). Across 1, 3, 6 and 12months after randomization, CV resulted in significantly fewer cigarettes per day (p<.01) and fewer days smoking (p<.01), but with small effects. Point-prevalence abstinence differences across follow-up (e.g., 4% CV, 2% in NV at 6 and 12months) were not significant. No differences in substance use were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Within-treatment effects on abstinence are stronger than in a prior study of the same CV with BA but without NRT, but NRT does not improve abstinence after vouchers end. Implications for voucher-based treatment include investigating effects when combined with stronger smoking medications and using motivational interviewing. Smoking treatment does not harm SUD recovery.

A Randomized Trial of Contingency Management for Smoking Cessation During Intensive Outpatient Alcohol Treatment

INTRODUCTION

This randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of contingency management (CM) for smoking cessation for smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence delivered concurrently with intensive outpatient alcohol treatment. The study also explored the indirect effects of CM smoking treatment and smoking cessation on alcohol and drug use outcomes.

METHODS

Alcohol abuse/dependent smokers were randomized to cognitive behavioral therapy plus nicotine replacement therapy plus contingency management (CBT+NRT+CM) or to cognitive behavior therapy plus nicotine replacement therapy (CBT+NRT) delivered concurrent with a three-week intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program.

RESULTS

Participants in the CBT+NRT+CM condition were significantly more likely to be cigarette abstinent at the end of treatment (χ²(1)=8.48, p=.004) with approximately double the carbon monoxide confirmed quit rate (60%) compared with the CBT+NRT condition (29%). At the one-month and six-month time-points there were nonsignificant differences in smoking abstinence outcomes by condition. Smoking treatment condition did not directly affect alcohol abstinence outcomes, but we observed an indirect effect of smoking treatment on alcohol and drug abstinence at one-month follow-up that was mediated by smoking cessation at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding CM to an evidence-based smoking cessation treatment that included medication and behavioral counseling doubled the quit rate at the end of treatment. This finding provides strong evidence for the efficacy of CM for helping alcohol dependent smokers reach the milestone of initial smoking abstinence.

A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Adults in Substance Abuse Treatment or Recovery

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for patients with substance use disorders. The secondary aim was to evaluate impact on substance use treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving adult smokers, recently or currently receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for substance use disorders were reviewed. Databases, grey literature, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant studies between 1990 and August 2014. Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence from smoking at 6 or 12 months, secondary outcomes were biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 6 or 12 months and substance use outcomes. Heterogeneity between studies precluded pooled analyses of the data.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 847 publications were included. Five studies reported significant effects on smoking cessation: (1) nicotine patches improved continuous abstinence at 6 months; (2) nicotine gum improved continuous abstinence at 12 months; (3) counseling, contingency management and relapse prevention improved continuous abstinence at 6 and 12 months; (4) cognitive behavioral therapy, plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), improved PPA at 6 months; and (5) a combination of bupropion, NRT, counseling and contingency management improved PPA at 6 months. Two studies showed some evidence of improved substance use outcomes with the remaining eight studies measuring substance use outcomes showing no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NRT, behavioral support, and combination approaches appear to increase smoking abstinence in those treated for substance use disorders. Higher quality studies are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Barriers to Quitting Smoking Among Substance Dependent Patients Predict Smoking Cessation Treatment Outcome

For smokers with substance use disorders (SUD), perceived barriers to quitting smoking include concerns unique to effects on sobriety as well as usual concerns. We expanded our Barriers to Quitting Smoking in Substance Abuse Treatment (BQS-SAT) scale, added importance ratings, validated it, and then used the importance scores to predict smoking treatment response in smokers with substance use disorders (SUD) undergoing smoking treatment in residential treatment programs in two studies (n=184 and 340). Both components (general barriers, weight concerns) were replicated with excellent internal consistency reliability. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with pretreatment nicotine dependence, smoking variables, smoking self-efficacy, and expected effects of smoking. General barriers significantly predicted 1-month smoking abstinence, frequency and heaviness, and 3-month smoking frequency; weight concerns predicted 1-month smoking frequency. Implications involve addressing barriers with corrective information in smoking treatment for smokers with SUD.

Comparative effectiveness of motivation phase intervention components for use with smokers unwilling to quit: a factorial screening experiment

AIMS

To screen promising intervention components designed to reduce smoking and promote abstinence in smokers initially unwilling to quit.

DESIGN

A balanced, four-factor, randomized factorial experiment.

SETTING

Eleven primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 517 adult smokers (63.4% women, 91.1% white) recruited during primary care visits who were willing to reduce their smoking but not quit.

INTERVENTIONS

Four factors contrasted intervention components designed to reduce smoking and promote abstinence: (1) nicotine patch versus none; (2) nicotine gum versus none; (3) motivational interviewing (MI) versus none; and (4) behavioral reduction counseling (BR) versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any point during the study.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was percentage change in cigarettes smoked per day at 26 weeks post-study enrollment; the secondary outcomes were percentage change at 12 weeks and point-prevalence abstinence at 12 and 26 weeks post-study enrollment.

FINDINGS

There were few main effects, but a significant four-way interaction at 26 weeks post-study enrollment (P = 0.01, β = 0.12) revealed relatively large smoking reductions by two component combinations: nicotine gum combined with BR and BR combined with MI. Further, BR improved 12-week abstinence rates (P = 0.04), and nicotine gum, when used without MI, increased 26-week abstinence after a subsequent aided quit attempt (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Motivation-phase nicotine gum and behavioral reduction counseling are promising intervention components for smokers who are initially unwilling to quit.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Contingent vouchers and motivational interviewing for cigarette smokers in residential substance abuse treatment

Residential drug treatment provides an opportunity to intervene with smokers with substance use disorders (SUD). A randomized controlled clinical trial compared: (1) contingent vouchers (CV) for smoking abstinence to noncontingent vouchers (NCV), crossed with (2) motivational interviewing (MI) or brief advice (BA), for 184 smokers in SUD treatment. During the voucher period, 36% of carbon monoxide readings indicated smoking abstinence for those receiving CV versus 13% with NCV (p < .001). Post-treatment (3-9 months) point-prevalence abstinence rates were low (3-4% at each follow up), with more abstinence when CV was combined with MI (6.6% on average) than with BA (0% on average). No differential effects on drug use or motivation to quit smoking occurred. Thus, CV had limited effects on long-term smoking abstinence in this population but effects were improved when CV was combined with MI. More effective methods are needed to increase motivation to quit smoking and quit rates in this high-risk population.

Heavy-Drinking Smokers' Treatment Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-Methods Study

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to describe the smoking and psychological characteristics of heavy-drinking smokers, their perceptions of smoking and drinking, and their smoking and alcohol treatment preferences to inform an integrated smoking and alcohol intervention. Heavy-drinking smokers (N=26) completed standardized surveys and participated in semi-structured focus group interviews. Participants reported a strong association between their smoking and drinking. Participants were more motivated to quit smoking than to reduce their drinking but perceived greater barriers to smoking cessation. Stress/negative affect was closely linked with both behaviors. They expressed overall enthusiasm for a smoking and alcohol intervention but had specific format and content preferences. Half preferred an integrated treatment format whereas others preferred a sequential treatment model. The most preferred content included personalized health feedback and a way to monitor health gains after behavior changes.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) promotes smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. Date of the most recent search: August 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which motivational interviewing or its variants were offered to tobacco users to assist cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. We counted participants lost to follow-up as continuing smoking or relapsed. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 studies published between 1997 and 2014, involving over 16,000 participants. MI was conducted in one to six sessions, with the duration of each session ranging from 10 to 60 minutes. Interventions were delivered by primary care physicians, hospital clinicians, nurses or counsellors. Our meta-analysis of MI versus brief advice or usual care yielded a modest but significant increase in quitting (risk ratio (RR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.36; 28 studies; N = 16,803). Subgroup analyses found that MI delivered by primary care physicians resulted in an RR of 3.49 (95% CI 1.53 to 7.94; 2 trials; N = 736). When delivered by counsellors the RR was smaller (1.25; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63; 22 trials; N = 13,593) but MI still resulted in higher quit rates than brief advice or usual care. When we compared MI interventions conducted through shorter sessions (less than 20 minutes per session) to controls, this resulted in an RR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.12; 9 trials; N = 3651). Single-session treatments might increase the likelihood of quitting over multiple sessions, but both regimens produced positive outcomes. Evidence is unclear at present on the optimal number of follow-up calls.There was variation across the trials in treatment fidelity. All trials used some variant of motivational interviewing. Critical details in how it was modified for the particular study population, the training of therapists and the content of the counselling were sometimes lacking from trial reports.  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may assist people to quit smoking. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, due to variations in study quality, treatment fidelity, between-study heterogeneity and the possibility of publication or selective reporting bias.