Characteristics of a population-wide sample of smokers recruited proactively for the ESCAPE trial

Pain and smoking study (PASS): A comparative effectiveness trial of smoking cessation counseling for veterans with chronic pain

Introduction

Smoking is associated with greater pain intensity and pain-related functional interference in people with chronic pain. Interventions that teach smokers with chronic pain how to apply adaptive coping strategies to promote both smoking cessation and pain self-management may be effective.

Methods

The Pain and Smoking Study (PASS) is a randomized clinical trial of a telephone-delivered, cognitive behavioral intervention among Veterans with chronic pain who smoke cigarettes. PASS participants are randomized to a standard telephone counseling intervention that includes five sessions focusing on motivational interviewing, craving and relapse management, rewards, and nicotine replacement therapy versus the same components with the addition of a cognitive behavioral intervention for pain management. Participants are assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome is smoking cessation.

Results

The 371 participants are 88% male, a median age of 60 years old (range 24–82), and smoke a median of 15 cigarettes per day. Participants are mainly white (61%), unemployed (70%), 33% had a high school degree or less, and report their overall health as “Fair” (40%) to “Poor” (11%). Overall, pain was moderately high (mean pain intensity in past week = 5.2 (Standard Deviation (SD) = 1.6) and mean pain interference = 5.5 (SD = 2.2)). Pain-related anxiety was high (mean = 47.0 (SD = 22.2)) and self-efficacy was low (mean = 3.8 (SD = 1.6)).

Conclusions

PASS utilizes an innovative smoking and pain intervention to promote smoking cessation among Veterans with chronic pain. Baseline characteristics reflect a socioeconomically vulnerable population with a high burden of mental health comorbidities.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

A digital behaviour change intervention to increase booking and attendance at Stop Smoking Services: the MyWay feasibility RCT

Background

Smoking remains a leading cause of illness and preventable death. NHS Stop Smoking Services increase quitting, but, as access is in decline, cost-effective interventions are needed that promote these services. StopApp™ (Coventry University, Coventry, UK) is designed to increase booking and attendance at Stop Smoking Services.

Design

A two-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial of StopApp (intervention) compared with standard promotion and referral to Stop Smoking Services (control) was conducted to assess recruitment, attrition and health equity of the design, alongside health economic and qualitative process evaluations.

Setting

Smokers recruited via general practitioners, community settings and social media.

Participants

Smokers aged ≥ 16 years were recruited in one local authority. Participants had to live or work within the local authority area, and there was a recruitment target of 120 participants.

Interventions

StopApp to increase booking and attendance at Stop Smoking Services.

Main outcome measures

Participants completed baseline measures and follow-up at 2 months post randomisation entirely online. Objective data on the use of Stop Smoking Services were collected from participating Stop Smoking Services, and age groups, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status in baseline recruits and follow-up completers/non-completers were assessed for equity.

Results

Eligible participants (n = 123) were recruited over 116 days, with good representation of lower socioeconomic status groups; black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; and all age groups. Demographic profiles of follow-up completers and non-completers were broadly similar. The attrition rate was 51.2%, with loss to follow-up lowest in the social media setting (n = 24/61; 39.3%) and highest in the general practitioner setting (n = 21/26; 80.8%). Most measures had < 5% missing data. Social media represented the most effective and cost-efficient recruitment method. In a future, definitive, multisite trial with recruitment driven by social media, our data suggest that recruiting ≥ 1500 smokers over 12 months is feasible. Service data showed that five bookings for the Stop Smoking Services were scheduled using StopApp, of which two did not attend. Challenges with data access were identified. A further five participants in the intervention arm self-reported booking and accessing Stop Smoking Services outside StopApp compared with two control arm participants. Event rate calculations for the intervention were 8% (Stop Smoking Services data), 17% (including self-reports) and 3.5% from control arm self-reports. A conservative effect size of 6% is estimated for a definitive full trial. A sample size of 840 participants would be required to detect an effect for the primary outcome measure of booking a Stop Smoking Services appointment in a full randomised controlled trial. The process evaluation found that participants were satisfied with the research team contact, study methods and provision of e-vouchers. Staff interviews revealed positive and negative experiences of the trial and suggestions for improvements, including encouraging smokers to take part.

Conclusion

This feasibility randomised controlled trial found that, with recruitment driven wholly or mainly by social media, it is possible to recruit and retain sufficient smokers to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of StopApp. The study methods and measures were found to be acceptable and equitable, but accessing Stop Smoking Services data about booking, attendance and quit dates was a challenge. A full trial may be feasible if service data are accessible. This will require careful planning with data controllers and a targeted social media campaign for recruitment. Changes to some study measures are needed to avoid missing data, including implementation of a more intensive follow-up data collection process.

Future work

We plan a full, definitive randomised controlled trial if the concerns around data access can be resolved, with adaptations to the recruitment and retention strategy.

Limitations

Our trial had high attrition and problems with collecting Stop Smoking Services data, which resulted in a reliance on self-reporting.

Trial registration

Research Registry: 3995. The trial was registered on 18 April 2018.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Start2quit: a randomised clinical controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS Stop Smoking Services

BACKGROUND

The NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers who want to quit. However, the proportion of smokers attending the SSSs is low and current figures show a continuing downward trend. This research addressed the problem of how to motivate more smokers to accept help to quit.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of an intervention consisting of proactive recruitment by a brief computer-tailored personal risk letter and an invitation to a 'Come and Try it' taster session to provide information about the SSSs, compared with a standard generic letter advertising the service, in terms of attendance at the SSSs of at least one session and validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention with follow-up 6 months after the date of randomisation.

SETTING

SSSs and general practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

All smokers aged ≥ 16 years identified from medical records in participating practices who were motivated to quit and who had not attended the SSS in the previous 12 months. Participants were randomised in the ratio 3 : 2 (intervention to control) by a computer program.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention - brief personalised and tailored letter sent from the general practitioner using information obtained from the screening questionnaire and from medical records, and an invitation to attend a taster session, run by the local SSS. Control - standard generic letter from the general practice advertising the local SSS and the therapies available, and asking the smoker to contact the service to make an appointment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Proportion of people attending the first session of a 6-week course over a period of 6 months from the receipt of the invitation letter, measured by records of attendance at the SSSs; (2) 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up, validated by salivary cotinine analysis; and (3) cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

RESULTS

Eighteen SSSs and 99 practices within the SSS areas participated; 4384 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 2636) or control (n = 1748). One participant withdrew and 4383 were analysed. The proportion of people attending the first session of a SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group [17.4% vs. 9.0%; unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 2.57; p < 0.001]. The validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (9.0% vs. 5.6%; unadjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15; p < 0.001), as was the validated 3-month prolonged abstinence and all other periods of abstinence measured by self-report. Using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention was more cost-effective than the control was up to 27% at 6 months and > 86% over a lifetime horizon.

LIMITATIONS

Participating SSSs may not be representative of all SSSs in England. Recruitment was low, at 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Start2quit trial added to evidence that a proactive approach with an intensive intervention to deliver personalised risk information and offer a no-commitment introductory session can be successful in reaching more smokers and increasing the uptake of the SSS and quit rates. The intervention appears less likely to be cost-effective in the short term, but is highly likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon.

FUTURE WORK

Further research could assess the separate effects of these components.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916.

FUNDING DETAILS

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Difficulties Quitting for Smokers with and without a Respiratory Disease and Use of a Tailored Intervention for Smoking Cessation – A Qualitative Study

Introduction: Smokers with respiratory diseases are less likely to quit than those without impaired lung function, yet few studies have investigated the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions with this population, and none have used a computer-tailored approach.

Aims: This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by exploring smokers’ experiences when trying to quit and their perceptions of a computer-tailored intervention.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 smokers recruited from six general practises in North London. Thematic analysis was conducted to examine participants’ previous experiences of quitting and their perceptions of receiving personal tailored feedback reports to aid smoking cessation.

Results: Participants discussed how their positive smoking experiences coupled with their negative cessation experiences led to conflicts with quitting smoking. Although the computer-tailored intervention was key in prompting quit attempts and participants valued its personal approach; it was not sufficient as a stand-alone intervention.

Conclusions: The results highlight the difficulties that smokers experience when quitting and the need for a more personalised stop smoking service in smokers with respiratory diseases. The study also demonstrates the application and potential for computer-tailored intervention as part of a wider programme of long-term smoking cessation.

Effectiveness of personalised risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of smoking cessation services (Start2quit): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

National Health Service Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers motivated to quit; however, attendance rates are low and recent figures show a downward trend. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a two-component personalised intervention on attendance at SSSs.

METHODS

We did this randomised controlled trial in 18 SSSs in England. Current smokers (aged ≥16 years) were identified from medical records in 99 general practices and invited to participate by their general practitioner. Individuals who gave consent, were motivated to quit, and had not attended the SSS within the past 12 months, were randomly assigned (3:2), via computer-generated randomisation with permuted blocks (block size of five), to receive either an individually tailored risk letter and invitation to attend a no-commitment introductory session run by the local SSS (intervention group) or a standard generic letter advertising the local SSS (control group). Randomisation was stratified by sex. Masking of participants to receipt of a personal letter and invitation to a taster session was not possible. The personal letter was generated by a research assistant, but the remainder of the research team were masked to group allocation. General practitioners, practice staff, and SSS advisers were unaware of their patients' allocation. The primary outcome was attendance at the first session of an SSS course within 6 months from randomisation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN 76561916.

FINDINGS

Recruitment, collection of baseline data, delivery of the intervention, and follow up of participants took place between Jan 31, 2011, and July 12, 2014. We randomly assigned 4384 smokers to the intervention group (n=2636) or the control group (n=1748); 4383 participants comprised the intention-to-treat population. Attendance at the first session of an SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (458 [17·4%] vs 158 [9·0%] participants; unadjusted odds ratio 2·12 [95% CI 1·75-2·57]; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Delivery of personalised risk information alongside an invitation to an introductory session more than doubled the odds of attending the SSS compared with a standard generic invitation to contact the service. This result suggests that a more proactive approach, combined with an opportunity to experience local services, can reduce patient barriers to receiving treatment and has high potential to increase uptake.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Are predictors of making a quit attempt the same as predictors of 3-month abstinence from smoking? Findings from a sample of smokers recruited for a study of computer-tailored smoking cessation advice in primary care

AIMS

To identify predictors of quit attempts and of 3-month abstinence from cigarette smoking.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data gathered for a two-armed randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up.

SETTING

A total of 123 general practices across the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4397 participants who completed the 6-month follow-up. Participants were categorized on self-reported smoking behaviour at 6-month follow-up as non-attempters (n = 2664), attempted quitters (n = 1548) and successful quitters (n = 185).

MEASURES

Demographic characteristics, smoking history and nicotine dependence, cognitive and social-environmental factors measured at baseline were examined as potential predictors of quit attempts and 3-month abstinence.

FINDINGS

Univariate predictors of quit attempts included commitment [odds ratio (OR) = 11.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.30-16.32], motivation (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.98-2.22) and determination to quit (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.83-2.05). Successful quitting was associated with being married (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.11-2.05), lower social deprivation (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.74), higher reading level (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.19-2.21) and lower nicotine dependence (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.29-0.62). Health problems related to smoking and previous quit attempts for 3 months or longer predicted both. In the multivariate analysis, the significant predictors of making a quit attempt were; later stage of readiness to quit (OR = 5.38, 95% CI = 3.67-7.89), motivation (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.34-1.62) and determination to quit (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.05-1.29) and health problems related to smoking (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.18-1.75). For 3-month abstinence, the only significant predictor was not having health problems related to smoking (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.29-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

While high motivation and determination to quit is necessary to prompt an attempt to quit smoking, demographic factors and level of nicotine dependence are more important for maintaining abstinence.

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.

School-based promotion of cessation support: reach of proactive mailings and acceptability of treatment in smoking parents recruited into cessation support through primary schools

Background

Several forms of cessation support have been shown effective in increasing the chance of successful smoking cessation, but cessation support is still underutilized among smokers. Proactive outreach to target audiences may increase use of cessation support.

Methods

The present study evaluated the efficiency of using study invitation letters distributed through primary schools in recruiting smoking parents into cessation support (quitline support or a self-help brochure). Use and evaluation of cessation support among smoking parents were examined.

Results

Findings indicate that recruitment of smokers into cessation support remains challenging. Once recruited, cessation support was well received by smoking parents. Of smokers allocated to quitline support, 88% accepted at least one counselling call. The average number of calls taken was high (5.7 out of 7 calls). Of smokers allocated to receive self-help material, 84% read at least some parts of the brochure. Of the intention-to-treat population, 81% and 69% were satisfied with quitline support or self-help material, respectively. Smoking parents were significantly more positive about quitline support compared to self-help material (p<.001).

Conclusions

Cessation support is well-received and well-used among smoking parents recruited through primary schools. Future studies need to examine factors that influence the response to offers of cessation support in samples of nonvolunteer smokers.

Trial registration

The protocol for this study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register NTR2707

ESCAPE: a randomised controlled trial of computer-tailored smoking cessation advice in primary care

AIMS

To evaluate the effectiveness of tailored cessation advice reports, including levels of reading ability, compared with a generic self-help booklet.

DESIGN

Participants were randomised to receive standard non-tailored information or to receive standard information plus a cessation advice report and a progress report, both tailored to individual characteristics.

SETTING

One hundred and twenty-three general practices located throughout the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Questionnaires were mailed to 58 660 current cigarette smokers aged 18-65 years, identified from general practitioner records. Of the 6911 (11.8%) who completed the questionnaire, provided consent and were enrolled into the study, 6697 (11.4%) were included in the analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

Follow-up was by postal questionnaire sent six months after randomisation, or by telephone interview for participants failing to return the questionnaire. The primary outcome was self-reported prolonged abstinence for at least three months at the six-month follow-up.

FINDINGS

Quit rates on the primary outcome were not significantly different (3.2% versus 2.7%) (OR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.94, 1.54], P = 0.15). A significantly higher proportion of intervention group participants made a quit attempt during the follow-up period (32.3% versus 29.6%; OR = 1.13, 95% CI [1.01, 1.26], P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

ESCAPE, a brief tailored smoking cessation intervention delivered by post and designed to reach a wide population of smokers, appears to increase the rate at which smokers try to stop, but if there is an effect on prolonged abstinence it is small.

Evaluating the effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of smoking cessation services: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although government-funded specialist smoking cessation services in England offer advice and support to smokers motivated to quit, only a small proportion of smokers make use of this service. Evidence suggests that if smokers are proactively and personally invited to use services, use will be higher than with a standard referral made by health professionals. Computer-based systems generating personalised tailored communications also have the potential to engage with a larger proportion of the smoking population. In this study smokers are proactively invited to use the NHS Stop Smoking Service (SSS), with a personal computer-tailored letter and the offer of a no-commitment introductory session designed to give more information about the service. The primary objective is to assess the relative effectiveness on attendance at the NHS SSS, of proactive recruitment by a brief personal letter, tailored to individual characteristics, and invitation to a taster session, over a standard generic letter advertising the service.

METHOD/DESIGN

This randomised controlled trial will recruit smokers from general practice who are motivated to quit and have not recently attended the NHS SSS. Smokers aged 16 years and over, identified from medical records in participating practices, are sent a brief screening questionnaire and cover letter from their GP. Smokers giving consent are randomised to the Control group to receive a standard generic letter advertising the local service, or to the Intervention group to receive a brief personal, tailored letter with risk information and an invitation to attend a 'Come and Try it' taster session. The primary outcome, assessed 6 months after the date of randomisation, is the proportion of people attending the NHS SSS for at least one session. Planned recruitment is to secure 4,500 participants, from 18 regions in England served by an NHS SSS.

DISCUSSION

Personal risk information generated by computer, with the addition of taster sessions, could be widely replicated and delivered cost effectively to a large proportion of the smoking population. The results of this trial will inform the potential of this method to increase referrals to specialised smoking cessation services and prompt more quit attempts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916.