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

Incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives (money, vouchers, or self-deposits) can be used to positively reinforce smoking cessation. They may be used as one-off rewards, or in various schedules to reward steps towards sustained smoking abstinence (known as contingency management). They have been used in workplaces, clinics, hospitals, and community settings, and to target particular populations. This is a review update. The previous version was published in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

Primary To assess the long-term effects of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation in mixed and pregnant populations. Secondary To assess the long-term effects of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation in mixed populations, considering whether incentives were offered at the final follow-up point. To assess the difference in outcomes for pregnant populations, considering whether rewards were contingent on abstinence or guaranteed.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and two trials registers on 2 November 2023, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register on March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to smoking cessation incentive schemes or control conditions. We included studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community-, work-, clinic- or institution-based), studies with specific populations (e.g. those with diagnosed mental health conditions), and studies in pregnant people who smoke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up (at least six months from the start of the intervention). In the trials of pregnant people, we used abstinence from smoking measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. Where available, we pooled outcome data using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using adjusted estimates for cluster-randomised trials. We analysed studies carried out in mixed populations separately from those carried out in pregnant populations.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, recruiting more than 21,924 participants; 15 of these are new to this version of the review. Studies were set in varying locations, including community settings, clinics or health centres, workplaces, and outpatient drug clinics. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias, and 16 to be at high risk of bias, with the remaining 24 studies at unclear risk. Thirty-three of the trials were run in the USA, two in Thailand, one in the Philippines, one in Hong Kong, and one in South Africa. The rest were European. Incentives offered included cash payments, self-deposits, or vouchers for goods and groceries, offered directly or collected and redeemable online. The pooled RR for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.52 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.74; I2 = 23%; 39 studies, 18,303 participants; high-certainty evidence). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of seven studies that offered an incentive for cessation at long-term follow-up (result excluding those studies: RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; I2 = 26%; 32 studies, 15,082 participants), suggesting the impact of incentives continues for at least some time after incentives cease (at least six months). For this update, we included an adjusted analysis incorporating three cluster-RCTs. The pooled odds ratio was 1.57 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.79; I2 = 30%; 43 studies, 23,960 participants; high-certainty evidence). Although not always clearly reported, the total financial amount of incentives varied considerably between trials, from zero (self-deposits), to a range of between 45 US dollars (USD) and USD 1185. There was no clear difference in effect between trials offering low or high total value of incentives, nor those encouraging redeemable self-deposits. We ran an updated exploratory meta-regression and found no significant association between the outcome and the total value of the financial incentive (P = 0.963). Any such indirect comparison is particularly crude in this context, due to differences in the cultural significance of financial amounts (e.g. USD 50 might have different significance in different contexts). We included 14 studies of 4314 pregnant people (11 conducted in the USA, one in France, and two in the UK). We judged four studies to be at low risk of bias, two at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear risk. When pooled, the 13 trials with usable data delivered a risk ratio at longest follow-up (up to 48 weeks postpartum) of 2.13 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.86; I2 = 31%; 13 studies, 3942 participants; high-certainty evidence), in favour of incentives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our conclusion from this latest review update remains that there is high-certainty evidence that incentives improve smoking cessation rates at long-term follow-up in mixed population studies. The evidence demonstrates that the effectiveness of incentives is sustained even when the last follow-up occurs after the withdrawal of incentives. There is also now high-certainty evidence that incentive schemes conducted amongst pregnant people who smoke improve smoking cessation rates, both at the end of pregnancy and postpartum. This represents a change from the previous update in which we rated this evidence as moderate certainty. Current and future research might more precisely explore differences between trials offering low or high cash incentives and self-incentives (deposits), within a variety of smoking populations, focusing on low- and middle-income countries where the burden of tobacco use remains high.

Effects of large financial incentives on motivation to quit smoking and on cigarette dependence

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives enhance long-term smoking cessation rates, but their effects on motivation to quit in those who fail to quit are not well documented.

AIM

To test the effects of large financial incentives on motivation to quit smoking and on cigarette dependence in smokers who failed to quit despite receiving incentives.

PARTICIPANTS

Low-income smokers in the general population in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2011-2013.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial with follow-up after three, six and 18 months. Participants were assigned to receive either booklets plus access to a smoking cessation website (control group, n = 404), or the same intervention plus financial incentives (intervention group, n = 401). Incremental financial rewards, to a maximum of CHF 1500 (USD 1650, GBP 1000), were offered for biochemically verified smoking abstinence. No in-person counselling, telephone counselling, or medications were provided.

MEASUREMENTS

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to quit, intention to quit, cigarette dependence.

FINDINGS

In smokers at 6-month follow-up, intrinsic motivation decreased in the control group (-0.24 SD units, p < 0.001), extrinsic motivation increased in the intervention group (+0.35 SD units, p = 0.001), and twice as many participants in the intervention group (35 %) than in the control group (17 %, p < 0.001) said they intended to quit smoking in the next 30 days. Quit attempts were more frequent and their duration was longer in the intervention group than in the control group. The intervention had no impact on cigarette dependence scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Large financial incentives increased motivation to quit smoking in smokers who failed to quit smoking despite receiving incentives.

A Preliminary Evaluation of the Effects of a Contingency Management + Deposit Contract Intervention on Problematic Smartphone Use With College Students

Problematic smartphone use (PSU) is smartphone usage that is, in some way, damaging to the user. PSU represents a growing public health concern that could be addressed via behavioral intervention. We recruited six college students who reported negative side effects of smartphone use and sought to decrease their PSU. The effects of a contingency management (CM) + deposit contract intervention on PSU was evaluated. During the CM + deposit contract condition, participants deposited $40 and had the opportunity to earn back their entire deposit by meeting daily smartphone usage goals. To promote adherence to study protocols, participants also had the opportunity to earn a $20 cooperation bonus. For all participants, lower levels of PSU were observed during intervention relative to baseline. The CM + deposit contract intervention produced consistent decreases in PSU for four participants (mean reduction percentages above 40% were obtained) and had inconsistent effects on PSU for two participants (mean reduction percentages below 20%). Maintenance of intervention effects was limited for all participants. Although preliminary, results suggest that CM + deposit contract interventions could be a viable, low-cost approach to addressing PSU. Potential explanations for our findings and avenues for future research are discussed.

Effectiveness of personalized tobacco cessation intervention package among patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders - A two-group experimental study

INTRODUCTION

Persons with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders (PwS) smoke more, and have twice the rate of mortality, with 10-25 years lower life expectancy than the general population. Evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions would help in quitting.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of a personalized tobacco cessation intervention package for patients attending the outpatient psychiatry department.

METHODS

The study adopted a two-group experimental design in PwS, using a simple randomization method. Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either the intervention group (n = 85) receiving the intervention package or the control group (n = 85) receiving brief advice to stop tobacco. The study outcomes were measured at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. SPSS 23 was used for data analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to manage missing data. The p-value of < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

At 6 months, there was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in 7 days point-prevalence abstinence (28 % vs 10.8 %), reduction of tobacco by at least 50 % (62.4 % vs 40.9 %) with an attrition rate of 15.3 % vs 30.5 % in intervention and control group respectively. Reduction in nicotine dependence and tobacco craving, an increase in motivation level, quit attempts and clinical improvement favored the intervention group. 16.5 % of participants expressed interest in pharmacotherapy for tobacco cessation, 3.5 % were referred to a specialized tobacco cessation center, two control group participants were hospitalized for drug default, and withdrawal symptoms reported were mild.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a tobacco cessation intervention based on the stage of motivation aids in abstinence and reduction of tobacco use in PwS.

A randomized controlled trial of contingency management for smoking cessation in substance use treatment patients

Background/Objective

Contingency management (CM) is one of the most effective interventions for smokers with substance use disorder (SUD), and no empirical assessment of its long-term efficacy has been conducted so far in a real-world context. The objectives were: (1) examine the additive effectiveness of CM on cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) for smoking cessation, and (2) examine the relationship between smoking cessation and substance use abstinence.

Method

A total of 80 participants (75.8% males; M_age = 45.31; SD = 9.64) were assigned to two smoking cessation treatments: CBT or CBT+CM. A set of generalized estimating equations were conducted to examine the effect of treatment condition on smoking outcomes, as well as the effect of smoking status on substance abstinence.

Results

Adding CM to CBT for smoking cessation improved tobacco abstinence rates at the end-of-treatment (p = .049). Tobacco abstinence rates declined over time (p = .012), but no significant effects of treatment condition were observed across follow-ups (p = .260). Smoking cessation was not significantly related to substance abstinence (p ≥ .488).

Conclusions

CM facilitates early abstinence in smokers with SUD, although effects subside after treatment termination. The lack of association between smoking abstinence and substance use suggests no jeopardizing effects as a result of quitting smoking.

Examining the effect of exercise on the relationship between affect and cravings among smokers engaged in cessation treatment

Cigarette smoking is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes. When smokers attempt to quit smoking, one of the leading predictors of relapse are cravings. Recent research shows a relationship between positive and negative affect, exercise, and cravings, but the exact nature of this relationship has yet to be understood. This study explored the relationships between positive and negative affect and cravings in a sample of participants with elevated levels of depressive symptoms (N = 202; 68.8% female; mean age = 46.1 years) who were enrolled in a smoking cessation trial to test the efficacy of a 12-week exercise intervention relative to a health education control on smoking outcomes. Data on affect and craving were gathered before weekly study intervention sessions, and data on cravings were gathered again after each session. The results showed that negative affect had a significant and positive association with cravings before an exercise or health education session. After the session, positive and negative affect were not significant predictors of changes in cravings from pre-session. However, regardless of level of positive or negative affect participants in the exercise condition showed greater reductions in craving pre- to post-class than those in the control condition. These findings suggest that negative affect is associated with cravings, but cravings can be mitigated by exercise.

Contingency management for smoking cessation among individuals with substance use disorders: In-treatment and post-treatment effects

INTRODUCTION

Smokers with substance use disorders (SUDs) show elevated tobacco prevalence, and smoking abstinence rates are considerably low. This randomized controlled trial sought to compare the effect of a cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) that includes an episodic future thinking (EFT) component with the same treatment protocol plus contingency management (CM). This study aims to examine the effect of CM on smoking outcomes and in-treatment behaviors (i.e., retention, session attendance and adherence to nicotine use reduction guidelines), and to analyze whether these in-treatment variables predicted days of continuous abstinence at end-of-treatment.

METHOD

A total of 54 treatment-seeking participants (75.9% males, M = 46.19 years old) were allocated to CBT + EFT (n = 30) or CBT + EFT + CM (n = 24). Intervention consisted of eight weeks of group-based sessions. Tobacco abstinence was verified biochemically by testing levels of carbon monoxide (≤4ppm) and urine cotinine (≤80 ng/ml).

RESULTS

CM intervention increased 24-hour tobacco abstinence (50% vs. 20%, χ²(1) = 5.4; p = .021) and days of continuous abstinence (M = 5.92 ± 7.67 vs. 5.53 ± 12.42; t(52) = -0.132; p = 0.89) at end-of-treatment in comparison with CBT + EFT intervention. Although not statistically significant, CBT + EFT + CM enhanced in-treatment behaviors, in terms of retention (83.3% vs. 70%; χ²(1) = 0.255; p = .208), sessions attended (12.29 ± 3.22 vs. 10.93 ± 3.26; t(52) = -1.527; p = .133) and adherence to weekly nicotine use reduction targets (41.07% ± 31.96 vs. 35% ±2 6.28; t(52) = -0.766; p = .447). A higher percentage of samples meeting reduction guidelines (β = 0.609; p<.001) predicted days of continuous abstinence at end-of-treatment.

CONCLUSION

Combining CM with CBT + EFT improves short-term quitting rates. Findings suggest the need to incorporate strategies for improving adherence to nicotine reduction guidelines.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

QuitNic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Nicotine Vaping Products With Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation Following Residential Detoxification

INTRODUCTION

The QuitNic pilot trial aimed to test the feasibility of providing a nicotine vaping product (NVP) compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers upon discharge from a smoke-free residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service.

METHODS

QuitNic was a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial. At discharge from residential withdrawal, 100 clients received telephone Quitline behavioral support and either 12-week supply of NRT or an NVP. Treatment adherence and acceptability, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), frequency of cravings, and severity of withdrawal symptoms were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks. Results are reported for complete cases and for abstinence outcomes, penalized imputation results are reported where missing is assumed smoking.

RESULTS

Retention on was 63% at 6 weeks and 50% at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, 68% of the NRT group reported using combination NRT while 96% of the NVP group used the device. Acceptability ratings for the products were high in both groups. At 12 weeks, 14% of the NVP group and 18% of the NRT group reported not smoking at all in the last 7 days. Mean CPD among continued smokers decreased significantly between baseline to 12 weeks in both groups; from 19.91 to 4.72 for the NVP group (p < .001) and from 20.88 to 5.52 in the NRT group (p < .001). Cravings and withdrawal symptoms significantly decreased for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Clients completing residential withdrawal readily engaged with smoking cessation post-treatment when given the opportunity. Further research is required to identify the most effective treatments postwithdrawal for this population at elevated risk of tobacco-related harm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12617000849392.

IMPLICATIONS

This pilot study showed that smoking cessation support involving options for nicotine replacement and Quitline-delivered cognitive behavioral counseling is attractive to people after they have been discharged from SUD treatment. Both nicotine vaping products and nicotine replacement therapies were highly acceptable and used by participants who reported reductions in cravings for cigarettes and perceptions of withdrawal symptoms and reductions in number of cigarettes smoked. Some participants self-reported abstinence from cigarettes-around one in five reported having quit smoking cigarettes at 12 weeks postdischarge. The results have significant public health implications for providing quit support following discharge from SUD treatment.

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.

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 (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.

Smoking and Tobacco-Free Policies in Women's Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities: A Community-Engaged Approach

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to (1) describe the role of smoking in the lives of women in residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and (2) explore perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to tobacco-free policy among women in residential SUD treatment.

Methods

This was a community-engaged study using qualitative descriptive methods. We first recruited women in a residential SUD treatment facility to participate on a community research team. Interviews with staff (N = 10) and focus groups with clients (N = 42) were conducted using guides informed by the community research team. Interviews and focus groups were analyzed using content analysis.

Results

There were two themes related to the role of smoking in the women's lives: (1) smoking facilitates socialization and (2) smoking as a coping mechanism. There were three themes related to the benefits of tobacco-free policy: (1) improved health, (2) support for continued abstinence from a previous tobacco-free placement (eg, prison), and (3) less grounds up-keep. Barriers to tobacco-free policy included (1) lack of an alternative coping mechanism to smoking, (2) fear that a tobacco-free policy would drive clients away, and (3) anticipation of implementation challenges.

Conclusions

Many women in residential SUD treatment smoke, which they attribute to the fact that smoking is used to facilitate socialization and cope with stress. Future research is needed to develop and test messages to counter the misperception that smoking is an effective method to cope with stress. Ultimately, evidence-based tobacco-free policies are needed to reduce tobacco-related disease among women with SUDs.

Implications

To promote smoking cessation among women with substance use disorders through evidence-based tobacco policy, it is necessary to first understand the role of smoking in their lives as well as facilitators and barriers to tobacco-free policy in residential treatment facilities. Participants reported that smoking facilitated socialization and served as a coping mechanism. Tobacco-free policies have many benefits, including improved health, support for continued abstinence from a previous tobacco-free placement (eg, prison), and less grounds up-keep. Barriers include the lack of an alternative coping mechanism, fear that a tobacco-free policy would drive away clients and anticipation of implementation challenges. To reduce the burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality among women and their children, it is necessary to catalyze a culture change in behavioral health settings to prioritize the treatment of tobacco alongside treatment of other addictions.

Perceived barriers to quitting cigarettes among hospitalized smokers with substance use disorders: A mixed methods study

AIMS

Smoking cessation may promote long-term recovery in patients with substance use disorders (SUD). Yet smoking rates remain alarmingly high in this population. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, we examined smoking rates among hospitalized patients with SUD at a large safety-net hospital, and then characterized factors associated with smoking behaviors both quantitatively and qualitatively.

METHOD

We abstracted data from all hospital admissions (7/2016-6/2017) and determined demographics, substance use type, and other characteristics associated with cigarette use among those with SUD. We then conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 hospitalized SUD smokers. We analyzed transcripts to characterize factors that affect patients' smoking habits, focusing on the constructs of the Health Belief Model.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cigarette smoking among hospitalized smokers with SUD was three times higher than those without SUD. Qualitative analyses showed that patients perceived that smoking cigarettes was a less serious concern than other substances. Some patients feared that quitting cigarettes could negatively impact their recovery and perceived that clinicians do not prioritize treating tobacco dependence. Almost all patients with heroin use disorder described how cigarette use potentiated their heroin high. Many SUD patients are turning to vaping and e-cigarettes to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with SUD have disproportionately high smoking rates and perceive multiple barriers to quitting cigarettes. When designing and implementing smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients with SUD, policymakers should understand and take into account how patients with SUD perceive smoking-related health risks and how that influences their decision to quit smoking.

Incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives, monetary or vouchers, are widely used in an attempt to precipitate, reinforce and sustain behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been used in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and within community programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term effect of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The most recent searches were conducted in July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to smoking cessation incentive schemes or control conditions. We included studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community, work-, clinic- or institution-based), and also studies in pregnant smokers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up (at least six months from the start of the intervention). In the trials of pregnant women we used abstinence measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. Where available, we pooled outcome data using a Mantel-Haenzel random-effects model, with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using adjusted estimates for cluster-randomised trials. We analysed studies carried out in mixed populations separately from those carried out in pregnant populations.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 21,600 participants; 16 of these are new to this version of the review. Studies were set in varying locations, including community settings, clinics or health centres, workplaces, and outpatient drug clinics. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias, and 10 to be at high risk of bias, with the rest at unclear risk. Twenty-four of the trials were run in the USA, two in Thailand and one in the Phillipines. The rest were European. Incentives offered included cash payments or vouchers for goods and groceries, offered directly or collected and redeemable online. The pooled RR for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.49 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.73; 31 RCTs, adjusted N = 20,097; I2 = 33%). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of six studies where an incentive for cessation was offered at long-term follow up (result excluding those studies: RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69; 25 RCTs; adjusted N = 17,058; I2 = 36%), suggesting the impact of incentives continues for at least some time after incentives cease.Although not always clearly reported, the total financial amount of incentives varied considerably between trials, from zero (self-deposits), to a range of between USD 45 and USD 1185. There was no clear direction of effect between trials offering low or high total value of incentives, nor those encouraging redeemable self-deposits.We included 10 studies of 2571 pregnant women. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, one at high risk of bias, and seven at unclear risk. When pooled, the nine trials with usable data (eight conducted in the USA and one in the UK), delivered an RR at longest follow-up (up to 24 weeks post-partum) of 2.38 (95% CI 1.54 to 3.69; N = 2273; I2 = 41%), in favour of incentives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall there is high-certainty evidence that incentives improve smoking cessation rates at long-term follow-up in mixed population studies. The effectiveness of incentives appears to be sustained even when the last follow-up occurs after the withdrawal of incentives. There is also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by some concerns about risks of bias, that incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improve smoking cessation rates, both at the end of pregnancy and post-partum. Current and future research might explore more precisely differences between trials offering low or high cash incentives and self-incentives (deposits), within a variety of smoking populations.

KLHL3 single-nucleotide polymorphism is associated with essential hypertension in Chinese Han population

Hypertension, including secondary and essential hypertension (EH) variants, is a multifactorial disease, affecting more than one billion people worldwide. Secondary hypertension results from mutations in the putative gene KLHL3 (Kelch-like protein 3); however, it has not been reported whether the KLHL3 gene polymorphisms are associated with EH. Here, we investigated the association between KLHL3 (rs2301708 and rs7444370) polymorphisms and EH in the Chinese Han population.This case-control study included 522 subjects-260 patients with EH and 262 normotensive controls matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), and levels of Na, K, and Cl. The distribution of functional rs2301708 and rs7444370 polymorphisms within the KLHL3 gene was assessed through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and restriction-fragment length polymorphism (RFLP).There was no significant difference in allelic and genotypic frequencies of KLHL3 rs2301708 between the EH and normotensive groups; however, the rs7444370 T allele and CT genotype in females was significantly associated with a protective effect against EH (P = .001, P = .002; P = .019, P = .052), and the haplotype CT of rs2301708 and rs7444370 among females in the EH group was less than in the normotensive group (P = .000; P = .007).The KLHL3 rs7444370 variant could be a protective factor in the pathogenesis of females' EH.

Profiles of Impulsivity in Problematic Internet Users and Cigarette Smokers

Problematic Internet use (PIU) has been gradually recognized as a mental health issue among adolescents and young students. PIU shows many similarities with substance use disorders, but the shared and distinct mechanisms underlying them are unclear. The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationships between impulsive traits and PIU as well as cigarette smoking behaviors among young adults. Two independent samples of university students (N 1 = 1281, N 2 = 1034, respectively) over 3 years were assessed with multiple measurements of impulsivity, including the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), the UPPSP Impulsive Behaviors Scale (UPPSP), and the Delay-discounting Test (DDT). Logistic regression models revealed that across the two independent samples, BIS-11 Attentional Impulsiveness was the common trait positively predicting both PIU and cigarette smoking. While BIS-11 Motor Impulsiveness as well as UPPSP Lack of Perseverance, Lack of Premeditation, and Negative Urgency were the typical traits linked to PIU as positive predictors, UPPSP Sensation Seeking was the unique trait linked to cigarette smoking as a positive predictor. These results suggested that specific dimensions of impulsivity might be concurrently implicated in PIU and cigarette smoking among young adults, putatively representing important trait marks for addictive behaviors.

Sequential and simultaneous treatment approaches to cannabis use disorder and tobacco use

Tobacco smoking among those seeking treatment for cannabis use disorder (CUD) is common and is a negative predictor of cannabis outcomes. Quitting tobacco may be beneficial for those seeking to quit cannabis use. This initial proof of concept, controlled trial was designed to compare a simultaneous versus sequential tobacco intervention among those seeking treatment for CUD. Sixty-seven adults received either a simultaneous (SIM) or sequential (SEQ) approach to tobacco cessation in the context of outpatient treatment for CUD. A tobacco intervention (TI) that combined web-based counseling with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was provided during weeks 1-12 for SIM and was delayed until weeks 13-24 for SEQ. During weeks 1-12, no between-condition significant differences were observed on treatment participation or cannabis use outcomes. The majority of SIM participants initiated TI counseling (62%), 50% made at least one quit attempt and 41% initiated NRT. Interestingly, 39% in SEQ made tobacco quit attempts and 18% initiated NRT on their own before the TI was offered to them. However, only 30% of those in SEQ continued treatment during weeks 13-24, which compromised between-condition comparisons following the TI, but illustrated a potential clinical concern with delaying the TI. Tobacco cessation outcomes generally were poor and did not differ between conditions. This initial controlled trial suggests that addressing tobacco use during CUD treatment is acceptable and generates action towards tobacco cessation. Additional trials testing more intensive TI models may be necessary to identify more efficacious interventions for co-use of cannabis and tobacco.

Cigarette use is increasing among people with illicit substance use disorders in the United States, 2002-14: emerging disparities in vulnerable populations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While cigarette smoking has declined over time, it is not known whether this decline has occurred similarly among individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) in the United States (US). The current study estimated trends in smoking from 2002 to 2014 among US individuals with and without SUDs.

DESIGN

Linear time trends of current smoking prevalence were assessed using logistic regression models.

SETTING

United States; data were drawn from the 2002 to 2014 National Household Survey on Drug Use (NSDUH), an annual US cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

A representative, population-based sample of US individuals age 12 yeas and older (total analytical population: n = 723 283).

MEASUREMENTS

Past-month current smoking was defined as having smoked at least 100 lifetime cigarettes and reporting smoking part or all of at least one cigarette during the past 30 days. Respondents were classified as having any SUD if they met criteria for abuse or dependence for one or more of the following illicit drugs: cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, tranquilizers, cocaine, heroin, pain relievers, simulants and sedatives. A second SUD variable included all drugs listed above excluding cannabis use disorder (CUD). An additional variable included respondents who met criteria for cannabis abuse or dependence.

FINDINGS

Among those with any SUD, the prevalence of smoking did not change from 2002 to 2014 (P = 0.08). However, when CUDs were separated from other SUDs, a significant increase in prevalence of smoking was observed among those with SUDs excluding CUDs (P < 0.001), while smoking decreased among those with CUDs (P < 0.001). Smoking declined among those without SUDs (P < 0.001). In 2014, smoking remained significantly more common among those with any SUD (55.48%), SUDs excluding CUDs (63.34%) and CUDs (51.34%) compared with those without these respective disorders (18.16, 18.55 and 18.64%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of cigarette smoking in the United States increased from 2002 to 2014 among people with substance use disorders (SUDs) excluding cannabis use disorders (CUDs) and declined among those with CUDs and without SUDs. In 2014, the prevalence of smoking was multifold higher among those with SUDs, including CUDs, compared with those without SUDs.

Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go?

Contingency management (CM) interventions consistently improve substance abuse treatment outcomes, yet CM remains a highly controversial intervention and is rarely implemented in practice settings. This article briefly outlines the evidence base of CM and then describes 4 of the most often-cited concerns about it: philosophical, motivational, durability, and economic. Data supporting and refuting each of these issues are reviewed. The article concludes with suggestions to address these matters and other important areas for CM research and implementation, with the aims of improving uptake of this efficacious intervention in practice settings and outcomes of patients with substance use disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record

Innovative approaches to support smoking cessation for individuals with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of death in the US, accounting for over 520,000 deaths annually. While the smoking prevalence has declined over the past 50 years, those with mental illness and addictive disorders continue to smoke at high levels and with significant tobacco-related health problems. Areas covered: This review highlights the epidemiology, contributing factors, and evidence-base for intervening upon tobacco use in those with mental illness and addictive disorders. Historically underprioritized, a growing body of literature supports treating tobacco within mental health and addiction treatment settings. Critically, treating tobacco use appears to support, and not harm, mental health recovery and sobriety. This review also summarizes novel, emerging approaches to mitigate the harms of cigarette smoking. Expert commentary: People with mental illness and addictive disorders have a high prevalence of tobacco use with serious health harms. Treating tobacco use is essential. Evidence-based strategies include individual treatments that are stage-matched to readiness to quit and combine cessation medications with behavioral therapies, supported by smoke-free policies in treatment settings and residential environments. Emerging approaches, with a focus on harm reduction, are electronic nicotine delivery systems and tobacco regulatory efforts to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes, thereby reducing their addiction potential.

Contingency Management: New Directions and Remaining Challenges for An Evidence-Based Intervention

This article introduces the special issue on contingency management (CM), an efficacious intervention for the treatment of substance use disorders with low uptake in clinical settings that is not commensurate with evidence for efficacy. In this special issue of the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, we present 16 articles representing the latest research in efficacy, implementation, and technological advances related to CM. Combined, this collection of articles highlights the diverse populations, settings, and applications of CM in the treatment of substance use disorders. We conclude by highlighting directions for future research, particularly those that may increase CM's appeal and uptake in routine clinical care.