Social support in a worksite smoking intervention. A test of theoretical models

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, three 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.

Decídetexto: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Smoking Cessation Intervention in Puerto Rico

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile smoking cessation intervention in Puerto Rico. This was a single-arm pilot study with 26 smokers in Puerto Rico who were enrolled in Decídetexto, a mobile smoking cessation intervention. Decídetexto incorporates three integrated components: (1) a tablet-based software that collects smoking-related information to develop an individualized quit plan, (2) a 24-week text messaging counseling program with interactive capabilities, and (3) pharmacotherapy support. Outcome measures included self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at Months 3 and 6, pharmacotherapy adherence, satisfaction with the intervention, and changes in self-efficacy. The average age of the participants was 46.8 years (SD 12.7), half of them (53.8%) were female. Most participants (92.3%) smoked daily and half of them (53.8%) used menthol cigarettes. All participants requested nicotine patches at baseline. However, only 13.0% of participants used the patch >75% of days. At Month 3, 10 participants (38.4%) self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (88.5% follow-up rate). At Month 6, 16 participants (61.5%) self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (76.9% follow-up rate). Most participants (90%, 18/20) reported being satisfied/extremely satisfied with the intervention at Month 6. Self-efficacy mean scores significantly increased from 40.4 (SD 12.1) at baseline to 57.9 (SD 11.3) at Month 3 (p < 0.01). The study suggests that Decídetexto holds promise for further testing among Puerto Rican smokers.

Decídetexto: Mobile cessation support for Latino smokers. Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Latinos, the largest minority group in the U.S., experience tobacco-related disparities, including limited access to cessation resources. Evidence supports the efficacy of mobile interventions for smoking cessation, which may be greater among Latinos, the highest users of text messaging.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the methodology of a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of Decídetexto, a culturally appropriate mobile smoking cessation intervention versus standard care on smoking abstinence (cotinine-verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence) at Month 6 among Latino smokers.

METHODS

Latino smokers (N = 618) will be randomized to one of two conditions: 1) Decídetexto or 2) standard of care. Decídetexto is a mobile smoking cessation intervention (available in English and Spanish) that incorporates three integrated components: 1) a tablet-based software that collects smoking-related information to develop an individualized quit plan, 2) a 24-week text messaging counseling program with interactive capabilities, and 3) pharmacotherapy support. Decídetexto follows the Social Cognitive Theory as theoretical framework. Standard of care consists of printed smoking cessation materials along with referral to telephone quitline. Participants in both groups are given access to free pharmacotherapy (nicotine patches or gum) by calling study phone number. Promotores de Salud will rely on community-based approaches and clinical settings to recruit smokers into the study. All participants will complete follow-up assessments at Week 12 and Month 6.

DISCUSSION

If successful, Decídetexto will be ready to be implemented in different community- and clinic-based settings to reduce tobacco-related disparities.

Predictors of Quitting Smoking in Cardiac Rehabilitation

Quitting smoking and participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are effective strategies in reducing morbidity and mortality. However, little is known about the predictors of quitting smoking in those who attend CR. This study aimed to determine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with the likelihood of CR attendees who are quitting smoking. Data from the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) database, between April 2013 and March 2016, were used. Smoking status is categorized as smokers and quitters, assessed by patient self-report. The study used patient demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and physical and psychosocial health measures. Binary logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors of quitting smoking among CR attendees. Of the 3290 patients who started CR and were entered into the NACR database, 2052 were continued smokers (mean age 58.59 ± 10.49 years, 73.6% men) and 1238 were quitters (mean age 57.63 ± 10.36 years, 75.8% men). The median duration of CR was 9 weeks. Compared to smokers, the quitters were younger, weighed more, were less anxious and depressed, and were more likely to be employed. Single patients had 0.60 times lower odds (95% CI 0.43 to 0.82) of quitting smoking than patients with partners, and low-risk patients had 1.71 times higher odds (95% CI 1.12 to 2.62) of quitting smoking than high-risk patients. Increasing number of comorbidities and depression scores were associated with decreasing likelihood of quitting. This study highlights the routine factors that determine smoking cessation outcomes, which could inform the delivery of CR to better help patients 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.

Competitions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Competitions might encourage people to undertake and/or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. Competitions involve individuals or groups having the opportunity to win a prize following successful cessation, either through direct competition or by entry into a lottery or raffle.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions lead to higher long-term smoking quit rates. We also aimed to examine the impact on the population, the costs, and the unintended consequences of smoking cessation competitions.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has merged two previous Cochrane reviews. Here we include studies testing competitions from the reviews 'Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation' and 'Quit & Win interventions for smoking cessation'. We updated the evidence by searching the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures in which participants were assigned to interventions by the investigators. Participants were smokers, of any age and gender, in any setting. Eligible interventions were contests, competitions, lotteries, and raffles, to reward cessation and continuous abstinence in smoking cessation programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, data from new studies were extracted independently by two review authors. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We performed meta-analyses to pool study effects where suitable data were available and where the effect of the competition component could be separated from that of other intervention components, and report other findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Five investigated performance-based reward, where groups of smokers competed against each other to win a prize (N = 915). The remaining 15 used performance-based eligibility, where cessation resulted in entry into a prize draw (N = 10,580). Five of these used Quit & Win contests (N = 4282), of which three were population-level interventions. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and the remainder quasi-randomized or controlled trials. Six had suitable abstinence data for a meta-analysis, which did not show evidence of effectiveness of performance-based eligibility interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.74, N = 3201, I2 = 57%). No trials that used performance-based rewards found a beneficial effect of the intervention on long-term quit rates.The three population-level Quit & Win studies found higher smoking cessation rates in the intervention group (4% to 16.9%) than the control group at long-term follow-up, but none were RCTs and all had important between-group differences in baseline characteristics. These studies suggested that fewer than one in 500 smokers would quit because of the contest.Reported unintended consequences in all sets of studies generally related to discrepancies between self-reported smoking status and biochemically-verified smoking status. More serious adverse events were not attributed to the competition intervention.Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for smoking cessation as 'very low', because of the high and unclear risk of bias associated with the included studies, substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the limited population investigated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness, or a lack of it, of smoking cessation competitions. This is due to a lack of well-designed comparative studies. Smoking cessation competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. The limited evidence suggesting that population-based Quit & Win contests at local and regional level might deliver quit rates above baseline community rates has not been tested adequately using rigorous study designs. It is also unclear whether the value or frequency of possible cash reward schedules influence the success of competitions. Future studies should be designed to compensate for the substantial biases in the current evidence base.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow may increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies, and to determine the comparative effectiveness of different components and characteristics of print-based self-help, such as computer-generated feedback, additional materials, tailoring of materials to individuals, and targeting of materials at specific groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the most recent search was March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested print-based materials providing self-help compared with minimal print-based self-help (such as a short leaflet) or a lower-intensity control. We defined 'self-help' as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in accordance with standard methodological procedures set out by Cochrane. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each study and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 75 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to allow judgement of risk of bias for some domains. We judged 30 studies (40%) to be at high risk of bias for one or more domains.Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Eleven studies compared self-help materials alone with no intervention and found a small effect in favour of the intervention (n = 13,241; risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.37; I² = 0%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for indirect relevance to populations in low- and middle-income countries because evidence for this comparison came from studies conducted solely in high-income countries and there is reason to believe the intervention might work differently in low- and middle-income countries. This analysis excluded two studies by the same author team with strongly positive outcomes that were clear outliers and introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further studies of structured self-help compared with brief leaflets did not show evidence of an effect of self-help materials on smoking cessation (n = 7023; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; I² = 21%). We found evidence of benefit from standard self-help materials when there was brief contact that did not include smoking cessation advice (4 studies; n = 2822; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; I² = 0%), but not when self-help was provided as an adjunct to face-to-face smoking cessation advice for all participants (11 studies; n = 5365; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28; I² = 32%).Thirty-two studies tested materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving no materials, or stage-matched or non-tailored materials. Most of these studies used more than one mailing. Pooling studies that compared tailored self-help with no self-help, either on its own or compared with advice, or as an adjunct to advice, showed a benefit of providing tailored self-help interventions (12 studies; n = 19,190; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.49; I² = 0%) with little evidence of difference between subgroups (10 studies compared tailored with no materials, n = 14,359; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.51; I² = 0%; two studies compared tailored materials with brief advice, n = 2992; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49; I² = 0%; and two studies evaluated tailored materials as an adjunct to brief advice, n = 1839; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.53; I² = 10%). When studies compared tailored self-help with non-tailored self-help, results favoured tailored interventions when the tailored interventions involved more mailings than the non-tailored interventions (9 studies; n = 14,166; RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.68; I² = 0%), but not when the two conditions were contact-matched (10 studies; n = 11,024; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30; I² = 50%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for risk of bias.Five studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy; pooling three of these provided no evidence of additional benefit (n = 1769; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Four studies evaluating additional written materials favoured the intervention, but the lower confidence interval crossed the line of no effect (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; I² = 73%). A small number of other studies did not detect benefit from using targeted materials, or find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that when no other support is available, written self-help materials help more people to stop smoking than no intervention. When people receive advice from a health professional or are using nicotine replacement therapy, there is no evidence that self-help materials add to their effect. However, small benefits cannot be excluded. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that self-help materials that use data from participants to tailor the nature of the advice or support given are more effective than no intervention. However, when tailored self-help materials, which typically involve repeated assessment and mailing, were compared with untailored materials delivered similarly, there was no evidence of benefit.Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high-income countries, where more intensive support is often available. Further research is needed to investigate effects of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries, where more intensive support may not be available.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or 'buddies' may encourage abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component.

SEARCH METHODS

We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One of these studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly. We judged one of the included studies to be at high risk of selection bias, but a sensitivity analysis suggests that this did not have an impact on the results. There were also potential issues with detection bias due to a lack of validation of abstinence in five of the 14 studies; however, this is not apparent in the statistically homogeneous results across studies. Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for the two primary outcomes as low. We downgraded due to the risk of bias, as we judged studies with a high weighting in analyses to be at a high risk of detection bias. In addition, a study in both analyses was insufficiently randomised. We also downgraded the quality of the evidence for indirectness, as very few studies provided any evidence that the interventions tested actually increased the amount of partner support received by participants in the relevant intervention group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to enhance partner support appear to have no impact on increasing long-term abstinence from smoking. However, most interventions that assessed partner support showed no evidence that the interventions actually achieved their aim and increased support from partners for smoking cessation. Future research should therefore focus on developing behavioural interventions that actually increase partner support, and test this in small-scale studies, before large trials assessing the impact on smoking cessation can be justified.

Invisible Support: Effects on the Provider's Positive and Negative Affect

BACKGROUND

Social support that goes unnoticed by receivers (i.e. invisible support) seems to be most beneficial for the receivers' well-being. The providers' well-being, however, has been neglected so far. This study examines how invisible support is related to the providers' well-being and whether this association is dependent on the providers' relationship satisfaction.

METHODS

Overall, 97 non-smoking partners of smokers who were about to quit smoking were examined. Invisible support was assessed dyadically: partners' reports on smoking-specific provided social support together with smokers' reports on received support were assessed at baseline. Partners' relationship satisfaction was also assessed at baseline. Partners' positive and negative affect were measured at baseline and six-week follow-up.

RESULTS

No main effects of invisible instrumental or emotional support occurred. However, partners' relationship satisfaction moderated the association between invisible instrumental support and change in partners' negative and positive affect: For partners with lower relationship satisfaction more invisible instrumental support was related to increased negative affect and decreased positive affect, whereas for partners with higher relationship satisfaction the inverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The study's results emphasise that invisible instrumental support might have emotional costs for the providers. Relationship satisfaction seems to serve as a protective factor.

Incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Material or financial incentives are widely used in an attempt to precipitate or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They operate in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. In this third update of our review we now include trials conducted in pregnant women, to reflect the increasing activity and resources now targeting this high-risk group of smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether incentives and contingency management programmes lead to higher long-term quit rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The most recent searches were in December 2014, although we also include two trials published in 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures. We include studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community-, work-, institution-based), and also, for this update, trials in pregnant smokers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author (KC) extracted data and a second (JH-B) checked them. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up, and at least six months from the start of the intervention. In the trials of pregnant smokers abstinence was measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 8400 participants. Ten studies were set in clinics or health centres, one in Thai villages served by community health workers, two in academic institutions, and the rest in worksites. All but six of the trials were run in the USA. The incentives included lottery tickets or prize draws, cash payments, vouchers for goods and groceries, and in six trials the recovery of money deposited by those taking part. The odds ratio (OR) for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.69; 17 trials, [20 comparisons], 7715 participants). Only three studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group at or beyond the six-month assessment: One five-arm USA trial compared rewards- and deposit-based interventions at individual and group level, with incentives available up to USD 800 per quitter, and demonstrated a quit rate in the rewards groups of 8.1% at 12 months, compared with 4.7% in the deposits groups. A direct comparison between the rewards-based and the deposit-based groups found a benefit for the rewards arms, with an OR at 12 months of 1.76 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.53; 2070 participants). Although more people in this trial accepted the rewards programmes than the deposit programmes, the proportion of quitters in each group favoured the deposit-refund programme. Another USA study rewarded both participation and quitting up to USD 750, and achieved sustained quit rates of 9.4% in the incentives group compared with 3.6% for the controls. A deposit-refund trial in Thailand also achieved significantly higher quit rates in the intervention group (44.2%) compared with the control group (18.8%), but uptake was relatively low, at 10.5%. In the remaining trials, there was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that contingent rewards enhanced success rates over fixed payment schedules. We rated the overall quality of the older studies as low, but with later trials (post-2000) more likely to meet current standards of methodology and reporting.Eight of nine trials with usable data in pregnant smokers (seven conducted in the USA and one in the UK) delivered an adjusted OR at longest follow-up (up to 24 weeks post-partum) of 3.60 (95% CI 2.39 to 5.43; 1295 participants, moderate-quality studies) in favour of incentives. Three of the trials demonstrated a clear benefit for contingent rewards; one delivered monthly vouchers to confirmed quitters and to their designated 'significant other supporter', achieving a quit rate in the intervention group of 21.4% at two months post-partum, compared with 5.9% among the controls. Another trial offered a scaled programme of rewards for the percentage of smoking reduction achieved over the course of the 12-week intervention, and achieved an intervention quit rate of 31% at six weeks post-partum, compared with no quitters in the control group. The largest (UK-based) trial provided intervention quitters with up to GBP 400-worth of vouchers, and achieved a quit rate of 15.4% at longest follow-up, compared to the control quit rate of 4%. Four trials confirmed that payments made to reward a successful quit attempt (i.e. contingent), compared to fixed payments for attending the antenatal appointment (non-contingent), resulted in higher quit rates. Front-loading of rewards to counteract early withdrawal symptoms made little difference to quit rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Incentives appear to boost cessation rates while they are in place. The two trials recruiting from work sites that achieved sustained success rates beyond the reward schedule concentrated their resources into substantial cash payments for abstinence. Such an approach may only be feasible where independently-funded smoking cessation programmes are already available, and within a relatively affluent and educated population. Deposit-refund trials can suffer from relatively low rates of uptake, but those who do sign up and contribute their own money may achieve higher quit rates than reward-only participants. Incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improved the cessation rates, both at the end-of-pregnancy and post-partum assessments. Current and future research might continue to explore the scale, loading and longevity of possible cash or voucher reward schedules, within a variety of smoking populations.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine: the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to print-based self help, such as computer-generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. Date of the most recent search April 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a print-based self-help intervention. We defined self help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face-to-face contact given to intervention and to control conditions, outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 trials which met the inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to judge risk of bias for some domains. Twenty-eight studies (38%) were judged at high risk of bias for one or more domains but the overall risk of bias across all included studies was judged to be moderate, and unlikely to alter the conclusions.Thirty-four trials evaluated the effect of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Pooling 11 of these trials in which there was no face-to-face contact and provision of structured self-help materials was compared to no intervention gave an estimate of benefit that just reached statistical significance (n = 13,241, risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 1.37). This analysis excluded two trials with strongly positive outcomes that introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further trials without face-to-face contact in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials (n = 7023, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04). When these two subgroups were pooled, there was no longer evidence for a benefit of standard structured materials (n = 20,264, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18). We failed to find evidence of benefit from providing standard self-help materials when there was brief contact with all participants (5 trials, n = 3866, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42), or face-to-face advice for all participants (11 trials, n = 5365, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.18).Thirty-one trials offered materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving either no materials, or stage matched or non-tailored materials. Most of the trials used more than one mailing. Pooling these showed a benefit of tailored materials (n = 40,890, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.37) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 32%). The evidence is strongest for the subgroup of nine trials in which tailored materials were compared to no intervention (n = 13,437, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.53), but also supports tailored materials as more helpful than standard materials. Part of this effect could be due to the additional contact or assessment required to obtain individual data, since the subgroup of 10 trials where the number of contacts was matched did not detect an effect (n = 11,024, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). In two trials including a direct comparison between tailored materials and brief advice from a health care provider, there was no evidence of a difference, but confidence intervals were wide (n = 2992, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49).Only four studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy, with no evidence of additional benefit (n = 2291, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25). A small number of other trials failed to detect benefits from using additional materials or targeted materials, or to find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Standard, print-based self-help materials increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We did not find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a healthcare professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are more effective than non-tailored materials, although the absolute size of effect is still small. Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high income countries; further research is needed to investigate their effect in contexts where more intensive support is not available.

An innovative team-based stop smoking competition among Māori and Pacific Island smokers: rationale and method for the study and its evaluation

BACKGROUND

Māori and Pacific Island people have significantly higher smoking rates compared to the rest of the New Zealand population. The main aim of this paper is to describe how knowledge of Indigenous people's practices and principles can be combined with proven effective smoking cessation support into a cessation intervention appropriate for Indigenous people.

METHODS/DESIGN

A literature review was conducted to identify what cultural principles and practices could be used to increase salience, and what competition elements could have an impact on efficacy of smoking cessation. The identified elements were incorporated into the design of a cessation intervention.

DISCUSSION

Cultural practices incorporated into the intervention include having a holistic family or group-centred focus, inter-group competitiveness, fundraising and ritual pledging. Competition elements included are social support, pharmacotherapy use, cash prize incentives and the use of a dedicated website and iPad application. A pre-test post-test will be combined with process evaluation to evaluate if the competition results in triggering mass-quitting, utilisation of pharmacotherapy and in increasing sustained smoking cessation and to get a comprehensive understanding of the way in which they contribute to the effect. The present study is the first to describe how knowledge about cultural practices and principles can be combined with proven cessation support into a smoking cessation contest. The findings from this study are promising and further more rigorous testing is warranted.

Predictors for successful smoking cessation in Korean adults

PURPOSE

A better understanding of the factors contributing to smoking cessation would be of substantial benefit to public health. The purpose of this study was to identify significant predictors of successful smoking cessation in the Korean population.

METHODS

We compared 1,181 successful quitters with 940 current smokers who made a recent attempt to quit but failed in the past 12 months using the fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We examined the relationship of sociodemographic, behavioral and environmental characteristics, comorbid conditions, and quitting methods to successful smoking cessation.

RESULTS

Older age, female, being married, having higher education, having a lower level of stress, having smoked 20 or more cigarettes per day, and one's own will for quitting have been identified as significant determinants of successful cessation. Frequency of alcohol consumption and trying numerous quitting methods was inversely related to stopping smoking.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that cessation programs need to take a holistic approach and should consider these factors in setting up.

Social support and smoking abstinence among incarcerated adults in the United States: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

In the United States, tobacco use among prisoners is nearly three times that of the general population. While many American prisons and jails are now tobacco-free, nearly all inmates return to smoking as soon as they are released back into the community.

METHODS

To better understand the role that personal relationships may play in enabling return to smoking, we enrolled former-smokers who were inmates in a tobacco-free prison. Baseline assessments were conducted six weeks prior to inmates' scheduled release and included measures of smoking prior to incarceration, motivation, confidence and plans for remaining quit after release. We also assessed global social support (ISEL) and a measure of social support specific to quitting smoking (SSQ). Smoking status was assessed three weeks after prison release and included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence validated by urine cotinine, days to first cigarette and smoking rate.

RESULTS

A diverse sample comprised of 35% women, 20% Hispanic, and 29% racial minorities (average age 35.5 years) provided baseline data (n = 247). Over 90% of participants provided follow up data at 3-weeks post-release. Prior to incarceration participants had smoked an average of 21.5 (SD = 11.7) cigarettes per day. Only 29.2% had definite plans to remain smoking-abstinent after release. Approximately half of all participants reported that "most" or "all" of their family (42.2%) and friends (68%) smoked, and 58.8% reported their spouse or romantic partner smoked.SSQ scores were not significantly predictive of smoking outcomes at three weeks, however, social support from family and friends were each significantly and positively correlated with motivation, confidence, and plans for remaining abstinent (all p values <0.05). These smoking-related attitudinal variables were significantly predictive of smoking outcomes (all p values <0.01). General social support (ISEL) was not associated with smoking-related attitudinal variables or smoking outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Inmates of smoke-free prisons have a head-start on being smoke-free for life. They have been abstinent well past the duration of nicotine withdrawal and have great financial incentive not to begin smoking again. However, this advantage may be offset by a lack of non-smoking role models among their family and friends, and perceived lack of support for remaining smoke-free.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01684995.

Social influences on smoking in middle-aged and older women

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of 2 types of social influence--general social support and living with a smoker--on smoking behavior among middle-aged and older women in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Observational Study. Participants were postmenopausal women who reported smoking at some time in their lives (N=37,027), who were an average age of 63.3 years at baseline. Analyses used multiple logistic regression and controlled for age, educational level, and ethnicity. In cross-sectional analyses, social support was associated with a lower likelihood and living with a smoker was associated with a higher likelihood of being a current smoker and, among smokers, of being a heavier smoker. Moreover, in prospective analyses among baseline smokers, social support predicted a higher likelihood and living with a smoker predicted a lower likelihood of smoking cessation 1-year later. Further, in prospective analyses among former smokers who were not smoking at baseline, social support predicted a lower likelihood and living with a smoker predicted a higher likelihood of smoking relapse 1-year later. Overall, the present results indicate that social influences are important correlates of smoking status, smoking level, smoking cessation, and smoking relapse among middle-aged and older women.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation programme, and to estimate the size of any effect.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, the search was limited to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. This was searched in December 2011. The Specialized Register includes reports of controlled trials of smoking cessation identified from electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to Issue 4, 2011, MEDLINE to update 20110826, EMBASE to 2011 week 33, PsycINFO to 20110822 and Web of Science. The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees and co-worker).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third author was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence, biochemically validated if possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals: six to nine months and 12 months or greater. Partner Interaction Questionnaire and Support Provided Measure scores were also analysed to assess partner support. A fixed-effect model was used to pool relative risks from each study and estimate a summary effect.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 57 articles were identified for this review. Twelve articles (13 studies, > 2000 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied between studies. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio for self-reported abstinence was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15) at six to nine months and 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the eight studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One study reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly in this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review of randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programmes, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions also did not increase partner support. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. Additional studies with larger samples are needed to adequately explore the effects of partner support interventions for smoking cessation.

Development and validation of the online social support for smokers scale

BACKGROUND

Social networks play an important role in smoking. Provision of social support during cessation is a cornerstone of treatment. Online social networks for cessation are ubiquitous and represent a promising modality for smokers to receive and provide the support necessary for cessation. There are no existing measures specific to online social support for smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to develop a measure of social support to be used in online smoking cessation treatment research.

METHODS

Initial items for the Online Social Support for Smokers Scale (OS4) were based on existing theory and scales delineated in various taxonomies. Preliminary field analysis (N = 73) was conducted on 23 initial items to optimize the scale. Further development was conducted on a refined 15-item scale in the context of a large randomized trial of Internet and telephone cessation treatment with follow-ups at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. In all, 1326 participants were randomized to an enhanced Internet arm that included a large online social network; psychometric analyses employed 3-month follow-up data from those reporting use of the enhanced Internet intervention at least once (n = 873). Items were subjected to a factor analysis, and the internal consistency reliability of the scale was examined along with construct and criterion validity. Other measures used in the study included demographics, nicotine dependence, partner support for cessation, general social support, social integration, stress, depression, health status, online community use, Internet use behaviors, intervention satisfaction, and 30-day point prevalence abstinence.

RESULTS

The final 12-item OS4 scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alphas .86-.89) across demographic and smoking strata of interest. The OS4 also demonstrated good construct and criterion validity, with the directionality of the observed associations providing support for most a priori hypotheses. Significant Pearson correlations were observed between the OS4 and the Partner Interaction Questionnaire (PIQ) Positive subscale (ρ = .24, P < .001). As hypothesized, participants with the highest OS4 scores were more likely to have actively participated in the enhanced Internet community and to have high levels of satisfaction with the enhanced Internet intervention. In logistic regression analyses, the OS4 was highly predictive of 30-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6, 12, and 18 months (all P values <.001). The odds of abstinence at 6 months rose by 48% for each standard unit increase in online social support (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.71), dropping only slightly to 37% at 12 and 18 months (95% CI 1.17-1.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The OS4 is a brief, reliable, and valid instrument for measuring online social support for smoking cessation. Results should be replicated and extended, but this study suggests the OS4 can be used to advance theory, understand mechanisms, and potentially help to improve the tailoring of Internet-based smoking cessation treatments. It can also inspire development of similar measures for other online health-related intervention research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00282009; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00282009 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/60XNj3xM6).

Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Background Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. Public health initiatives in the UK are currently planning to deploy incentive schemes to change unhealthy behaviours. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*. The most recent searches were in November 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author (KC) and checked by the second (RP). We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria, covering >4500 participants. Only one study, the largest in our review and covering 878 smokers, demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. This trial referred its participants to local smoking cessation services, and offered substantial cash payments (up to US$750) for prolonged abstinence. In the remaining trials, there was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that contingent rewards enhanced success rates over fixed payment schedules. There is some evidence that recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis was not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of most of the interventions was not demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one recent trial, incentives and competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. Early success tended to dissipate when the rewards were no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters. The one trial that achieved sustained success rates beyond the reward schedule concentrated its resources into substantial cash payments for abstinence rather than into running its own smoking cessation programme. Such an approach may only be feasible where independently-funded smoking cessation programmes are already available. Future research might explore the scale and longevity of possible cash reward schedules, within a variety of smoking populations.

Smoker characteristics and smoking-cessation milestones

BACKGROUND

Contextual variables often predict long-term abstinence, but little is known about how these variables exert their effects. These variables could influence abstinence by affecting the ability to quit at all, or by altering risk of lapsing, or progressing from a lapse to relapse.

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of common predictors of smoking-cessation failure on smoking-cessation processes.

METHODS

The current study (N=1504, 58% female, 84% Caucasian; recruited from January 2005 to June 2007; data analyzed in 2009) uses the approach advocated by Shiffman et al. (2006), which measures cessation outcomes on three different cessation milestones (achieving initial abstinence, lapse risk, and the lapse-relapse transition) to examine relationships of smoker characteristics (dependence, contextual and demographic factors) with smoking-cessation process.

RESULTS

High nicotine dependence strongly predicted all milestones: not achieving initial abstinence, and a higher risk of both lapse and transitioning from lapse to complete relapse. Numerous contextual and demographic variables were associated with higher initial cessation rates and/or decreased lapse risk at 6 months post-quit (e.g., ethnicity, gender, marital status, education, smoking in the workplace, number of smokers in the social network, and number of supportive others). However, aside from nicotine dependence, only gender significantly predicted the risk of transition from lapse to relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that (1) higher nicotine dependence predicted worse outcomes across every cessation milestone; (2) demographic and contextual variables are generally associated with initial abstinence rates and lapse risk and not the lapse-relapse transition. These results identify groups who are at risk for failure at specific stages of the smoking-cessation process, and this may have implications for treatment.

Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*. The most recent searches were in December 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. There was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that different types of incentives were more or less effective. There is some evidence that although cessation rates have not been shown to differ significantly, recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis is not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of the intervention has not been demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Incentives and competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates, with early success tending to dissipate when the rewards are no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have more potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters.

Change in perceived stress, partner support, decisional balance, and self-efficacy following residential nicotine dependence treatment

The primary aim was to examine the effect of an eight day residential treatment for nicotine dependence on perceived stress, partner support, decisional balance, and self-efficacy for stopping smoking. Whether these variables predicted six months post treatment abstinence following residential treatment was also examined. Participants included 170 adult cigarette smokers. Perceived stress, partner support, decisional balance, and self-efficacy for stopping smoking were assessed on the first and last day of treatment. In addition, six month continuous tobacco abstinence was evaluated. Residential treatment was found to produce significant (p < 0.001) treatment changes in all psychosocial factors except one aspect of decisional balance (i.e., cons of smoking). Psychosocial factors did not predict six month tobacco abstinence. Only age (p = 0.014) and history of mental illness (p = 0.012) were found to predict six month continuous abstinence following residential treatment. This study provides new information about how residential treatment impacts psychosocial factors considered to be important predictors of tobacco abstinence in outpatient settings.

Reliability of internet- versus telephone-administered questionnaires in a diverse sample of smokers

BACKGROUND

Smoking is more prevalent among lower-income individuals and certain racial/ethnic minorities. Addressing tobacco cessation among diverse populations is an urgent public health priority. As Internet use continues to rise among all segments of the US population, Web-based interventions have enormous potential to reach priority populations. Conducting Web-based smoking cessation research in priority populations requires psychometrically sound measurement instruments. To date, only one published study has examined the psychometric properties of Internet-administered measures commonly used in Web-based cessation trials. However, the sample was homogeneous with regard to race/ethnicity and income. We sought to replicate and extend these findings in a more diverse sample of smokers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of measures commonly used in smoking cessation clinical trials among racial/ethnic minorities and smokers with lower income.

METHODS

Participants were enrolled in a randomized trial of the efficacy of an Internet smoking cessation program between June 2005 and September 2006. Following a baseline telephone assessment and randomization into the parent trial, participants were recruited to the reliability substudy. In phase I of recruitment, all participants in the parent trial were recruited to the substudy; in phase II, all consecutive racial/ethnic minority participants in the parent trial were recruited. Race and ethnicity were assessed via self-report using two standard items from the US Office of Management and Budget. An email was sent 2 days after the telephone assessment with a link to the Internet survey. Measures examined were quit methods, perceived stress, depression, social support, smoking temptations, alcohol use, perceived health status, and income. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of Internet- versus telephone-administered measures were examined within four strata defined by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, racial/ethnic minority) and annual household income (US $40,000 or less, more than $40,000).

RESULTS

Of the 442 individuals invited, 319 participated (72% response rate): 52.4% were non-Hispanic White, 22.9% Black, 11.6% Hispanic, 7.8% Asian, 4.4% American Indian / Alaska Native, and 1% Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander. About half (49.4%) reported an annual household income of US $40,000 or less, and 25.7% had a high school degree or less. Test-retest reliability was satisfactory to excellent across all strata for the majority of measures examined: 9 of 12 continuous variables had intraclass correlation coefficients > or = 0.70, and 10 of 18 binary variables and both ordinal variables had kappa coefficients > or = 0.70. Test-retest reliability of several quit methods varied across strata.

CONCLUSIONS

Race/ethnicity and income do not affect the psychometric properties of most Internet-administered measures examined. This knowledge adds to the confidence of conducting Web-based smoking cessation research and strengthens the scientific rigor of collecting information via the Internet on racial/ethnic minority and low-income subgroups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT00282009 (parent trial).

Factors associated with successful smoking cessation in the United States, 2000

OBJECTIVES

Each year, nearly 2 in 5 cigarette smokers try to quit, but fewer than 10% succeed. Taking a multifaceted approach to examine the predictors of successfully quitting smoking, we identified factors associated with successful quitting so that cessation programs could be tailored to those at highest risk for relapse.

METHODS

Using data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey, we employed multiple regression analysis to compare demographic, behavioral, and environmental characteristics of current smokers who tried unsuccessfully to quit in the previous 12 months with characteristics of those able to quit for at least 7 to 24 months before the survey.

RESULTS

Successful quitters were more likely than those unable to quit to have rules against smoking in their homes, less likely to have switched to light cigarettes for health concerns, and more likely to be aged 35 years or older, married or living with a partner, and non-Hispanic White, and to have at least a college education.

CONCLUSIONS

Programs promoting smoking cessation might benefit by involving family or other household members to encourage smoke-free homes.

Internet- vs. telephone-administered questionnaires in a randomized trial of smoking cessation

The Internet offers a promising channel to conduct smoking cessation research. Among the advantages of Internet research are the ability to access large numbers of participants who might not otherwise participate in a cessation trial, and the ability to conduct research efficiently and cost-effectively. To leverage the opportunity of the Internet in clinical research, it is necessary to establish that measures of known validity used in research trials are reliable when administered via the Internet. To date, no published studies examine the psychometric properties of measures administered via the Internet to assess smoking variables and psychosocial constructs related to cessation (e.g., stress, social support, quit methods). The purpose of the present study was to examine the reliability of measures of previous quit methods, perceived stress, depression, social support for cessation, smoking temptations, alcohol use, perceived health status, and income when administered via the Internet. Participants in the present study were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of Internet smoking cessation. Following baseline telephone assessment and randomization into the parent trial, participants were recruited to the reliability substudy. An email was sent 2 days after the telephone assessment with a link to the Internet survey and instructions to complete the survey that day. Of the 297 individuals invited to participate, 213 completed the survey within 1 week. Results indicate that the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the measures examined are comparable when self-administered via the Internet or when interviewer-administered via telephone.

Self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to self help, such as computer-generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register using the terms 'self-help', 'manual*' or 'booklet*'. Date of the most recent search April 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials of smoking cessation with follow up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a self-help intervention. We defined self help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face-to-face contact given to intervention and to control conditions, outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified sixty trials. Thirty-three compared self-help materials to no intervention or tested materials used in addition to advice. In 11 trials in which self help was compared to no intervention there was a pooled effect that just reached statistical significance (N = 13,733; odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 1.45). This analysis excluded two trials with strongly positive outcomes that introduced significant heterogeneity. Four further trials in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials. We failed to find evidence of benefit from adding self-help materials to face-to-face advice, or to nicotine replacement therapy. There were seventeen trials using materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, where meta-analysis supported a small benefit of tailored materials (N = 20,414; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.61). The evidence is strongest for tailored materials compared to no intervention, but also supports tailored materials as more helpful than standard materials. Part of this effect could be due to the additional contact or assessment required to obtain individual data. A small number of other trials failed to detect benefits from using additional materials or targeted materials, or to find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Standard self-help materials may increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We failed to find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a healthcare professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are effective, and are more effective than untailored materials, although the absolute size of effect is still small.

Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2004), EMBASE (1980 to 2004/8), CINAHL (1982 to 2004/8) and PsycINFO (1872 to 2004/6). Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking for at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. There was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that different types of incentives were more or less effective. There is some evidence that although cessation rates have not been shown to differ significantly, recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis is not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of the intervention has not been demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Incentives and competitions do not appear to enhance long-term cessation rates, with early success tending to dissipate when the rewards are no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have more potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters.

Cigarette smoking and nicotine dependence

Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States and is projected to be the leading cause of death and disability across all developed countries by the year 2020. Understanding nicotine dependence, its causes, consequences, and effective treatments is critical to the nation's public health agenda. This article presents a brief overview of nicotine dependence with particular emphasis placed on understanding what nicotine dependence is, why it occurs, how it is measured, and how it can be managed through effective treatments.

Does enhancing partner support and interaction improve smoking cessation? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We wanted to determine whether an intervention to enhance partner support helps as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program.

METHODS

We undertook a meta-analysis of English-language, randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions through July 2002 using the following data sources: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, Cochrane controlled trials register, CDC Tobacco Information and Prevention Database, MEDLINE, Cancer Lit, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, PsycLIT, Dissertation Abstracts, SSCI and HealthSTAR, with reviews of bibliographies of included articles. Included were trials that assessed a partner support component with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The outcomes measured were abstinence and biochemical assessment at 6 to 9 months and more than 12 months after treatment. Partner Interaction Questionnaire scores were primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine studies (31 articles) met inclusion criteria. Partner definition varied among studies. All studies included self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. For self-reported abstinence at 6 to 9 months after treatment, the Peto odds ratio (OR) = 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.44) and at 12 months Peto OR = 1.0 (95% CI, 0.75-1.34). Sensitivity analysis of studies using live-in, married, and equivalent-to-married partners found a higher odds ratio at 6 to 9 months after treatment, Peto OR = 1.64 (95% CI, 0.5-4.64). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting significant increases in partner support found at 6 to 9 months after treatment Peto OR = 1.83 (95% CI, 0.9-3.47); and at 12 months Peto OR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.67-2.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to enhance partner support showed the most promise for clinical practice when implemented with live-in, married, and equivalent-to-married partners. Such interventions should focus on enhancing supportive behaviors, while minimizing behaviors critical of smoking.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programs are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search was performed in: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register (Apr 2004), Cochrane controlled trials register (Apr 2004), CDC and Prevention-Tobacco Information and Prevention Database (Jul 2000), MEDLINE (1966-Apr 2004), Cancer Lit (1966-Apr 2004), EMBASE (1974-Apr 2004), CINAHL (1966-Jul 2000), PsycInfo (1861-Apr 2004), ERIC, PsycLit, & Dissertation Abstracts (1861-Dec 1999), SSCI (1972-Apr 2004) and HealthStar (1975-Jul 2000). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees, and co-worker). The search was also limited to English language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of 6 months or greater.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third reviewer was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence and biochemical assessment were the primary outcome measures and were analyzed at two post-treatment intervals: 6-9 months and >12 months. The scores of PIQ (partner interaction questionnaire) were also analyzed to assess partner support. A fixed-effects model was used to assess the summary effect of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 40 articles were identified for this review. Only eight articles (nine studies) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied among the studies. All studies included data on self reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence rates. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence at 6-9 months was 1.08 (CI 95%, 0.81 -1.44); and at 12 months post-treatment was 1.0 (CI 95%, 0.75 - 1.34). Of the six studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review of the randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programs, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions did not increase partner support either. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. More systematic intervention to affect partnership significantly should be delivered if partner support were part of an existing cessation program.

Self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to self-help, such as computer generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register using the terms 'self-help', 'manual*' or 'booklet*'. Date of the most recent search March 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a self-help intervention. We defined self-help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face to face contact given to subjects and to controls, outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified fifty-one trials. Thirty two compared self-help materials to no intervention or tested materials used in addition to advice. In eleven trials in which self-help was compared to no intervention there was a pooled effect that just reached statistical significance (odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.45) This analysis excluded one trial with a strongly positive outcome that introduced significant heterogeneity. Four further trials in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials. We failed to find evidence of benefit from adding self-help materials to face to face advice, or to nicotine replacement therapy. There was evidence from fourteen trials using materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers that such personalised materials were more effective than standard manuals (ten trials, odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.64) or no materials (three trials, odds ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.23). A small numbers of trials failed to detect benefit from using additional materials or targetted materials.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Standard self-help materials may increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We failed to find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a health care professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are more effective.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programs are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search was performed in: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register (Aug 2001), Cochrane controlled trials register (Apr 2000), CDC and Prevention-Tobacco Information and Prevention Database (Jul 2000), MEDLINE (1966-Jul 2000), Cancer Lit (1966-Jul 2000), EMBASE (1974-Apr 2000), CINAHL (1966-Jul 2000), PsycInfo (1861-Oct 2000), ERIC, PsycLit, & Dissertation Abstracts (1861-Dec 1999), SSCI (1972-Jul 2000) and HealthStar (1975-Jul 2000). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees, and co-worker). The search was also limited to English language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of 6 months or greater.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data using a structured form. A third reviewer was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence and biochemical assessment were the primary outcome measures and were analyzed at two post-treatment intervals: 6-9 months and >12 months. The scores of PIQ (partner interaction questionnaire) were also analyzed to assess partner support. A fixed-effects model was used to assess the summary effect of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 31 articles were identified for this review. Only eight articles (nine studies) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied among the studies. All studies included data on self reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence rates. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence at 6-9 months was 1.08 (CI 95%, 0.81 -1.44); and at 12 months post-treatment was 1.0 (CI 95%, 0.75 - 1.34). Of the six studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programs did not increase quit rates. Limited data from several of the RCTs suggest that these interventions did not increase partner support either. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. More systematic intervention to affect partnership significantly should be delivered if partner support were part of an existing cessation program.