Training pharmacists and pharmacy assistants in the stage-of-change model of smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention based in community pharmacies. A randomized trial of smoking cessation interventions in general practice in Italy. Evaluation of a Dutch community-based smoking cessation intervention. Randomized trial of nurse-assisted strategies for smoking cessation in primary care. The effectiveness of covering smoking cessation services for medicare beneficiaries. Training support persons to help smokers quit: a pilot study. Results of a randomized controlled trial of intervention to implement smoking guidelines in Veterans Affairs medical centers: increased use of medications without cessation benefit. The effectiveness of personalized smoking cessation strategies for callers to a Quitline service.
To evaluate a training workshop for community pharmacy personnel to improve their counselling in smoking cessation based on the stage-of-change model.
                A randomised controlled trial of community pharmacies and pharmacy customers.
                All 76 non-city community pharmacies registered in Grampian, Scotland, were invited to participate. Sixty-two pharmacies (82%) were recruited.
                All the intervention pharmacy personnel were invited to attend the training; 40 pharmacists and 54 assistants attended. A total of 492 customers who smoked (224 intervention, 268 controls) were recruited during the 12-month recruitment period (overall recruitment rate 63%).
                The perceptions of customers and pharmacy personnel of the pharmacy support and self-reported smoking cessation rates for the two groups of customers at one, four, and nine months.
                The intervention customer respondents were significantly more likely to have discussed stopping smoking with pharmacy personnel, 85% (113) compared with 62% (99) of the controls (p < 0.001). The former also rated their discussion more highly; 34% (45) of the intervention customers compared with 16% (25) of the controls rated it as "very useful" (p = 0.048). Assuming non-responders had lapsed, one-month point prevalence of abstinence was claimed by 30% of intervention customers and 24% of controls (p = 0.12); four months' continuous abstinence was claimed by 16% of intervention customers and 11% of controls (p = 0.094); and nine months' continuous abstinence was claimed by 12% of intervention customers and 7% of controls (p = 0.089). These trends in outcome were not affected by potential confounders (sex, age, socioeconomic status, nicotine dependence, and type of nicotine replacement product used) or adjustment for clustering.
                The intervention was associated with increased and more highly rated counselling, and a trend toward higher smoking cessation rates, indicating that community pharmacy personnel have the potential to make a significant contribution to national smoking cessation targets. To evaluate whether a structured community pharmacy-based smoking cessation programme (the PAS model) would give rise to a higher smoking cessation rate compared with ad hoc advice from pharmacists.
                A randomized controlled trial comparing a structured intervention with usual care.
                One hundred pharmacists working in community pharmacies in N. Ireland and 24 in London took part in the study and were each asked to enroll 12 smokers; 44% of pharmacists who were trained managed to recruit one or more smokers during the recruitment period of approximately 1 year.
                A total of 484 smokers were enrolled by the pharmacists and individually randomized into the PAS intervention group (N = 265) or the control group (N = 219).
                The PAS intervention involved a structured counselling programme, an information leaflet and a follow-up weekly for the first 4 weeks then monthly as needed.
                The primary outcome measure of this study was self-reported smoking cessation for 12 months with cotinine validation at the 12-month follow-up.
                Of smokers in the PAS group, 14.3% (38) were abstinent up to 12 months compared with 2.7% (6) in the control group (p < 0.001 for the difference).
                The community pharmacy-based PAS smoking cessation service can be an effective method of helping people stop smoking when delivered by pharmacists willing to adopt this approach. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of different practice-based approaches to assist patients of primary care physicians to quit smoking and sustain cessation. Forty-four nonsmoking general practitioners volunteered for the study. After a period of training, they randomized 923 smoking clients, unselected for motivation toward quitting, to four different intervention groups: (i) minimal intervention, consisting of one single counselling session and a brief handout on quitting techniques; (ii) repeated counselling including reinforcing sessions at Months 1, 3, 6, and 9; (iii) repeated counselling and use of nicotine gum; and (iv) repeated counselling and spirometry. Biochemically validated smoking status was assessed at six and 12 months after recruitment. The proportion of verified quitters at 12 months was 4.8 percent among subjects randomized to the minimal intervention group, compared to 5.5 percent, 7.5 percent, and 6.5 percent among those randomized to the three repeated-counselling groups. In no treatment group was the outcome significantly different from that for one-time counselling at the (P less than 0.05) level. Lack of power, contamination, and low attendance at reinforcing sessions should be taken into account in interpreting the results. Until 1990, smoking cessation interventions in the Netherlands were limited. The utility and effectiveness of community-based smoking cessation programs have not been examined.
                In a treatment city (Den Bosch) a multicomponent community-based smoking cessation intervention was implemented in which local mass media and general practitioners draw smokers' attention to a local quit line. Telephone counselors advised applicants on their choice between self-help and group treatment and optional telephone counseling. Another Dutch city (Apeldoorn) served as a control. Population samples of smokers (n = 547 and n = 546) were interviewed three times at approximately 7-month intervals. Self-help manual requesters (n = 84) and group participants (n = 83) were interviewed before and 6 months after treatment.
                Treatment modalities were successful; 13% of self-help manual requesters and 22% of group participants were abstinent after 6 months. On a population level the intervention resulted in significantly higher recall of self-help manual and group program in the treatment city. A modest intervention effect on prevalence of abstinence was found at the community level.
                Treatment modalities were effective within their participants, but the intervention effectiveness on a community level was limited. No significant difference was found between quit rates after 14 months (7% in treatment city and 9% in control city). Several system failures could be identified. However, probably the intervention effect was seriously confounded by two national governmental publicity campaigns introducing and reinforcing a mandatory smoking ban and a series of national campaigns initiated by the united Dutch tobacco producers opposing the ban. Brief advice to stop smoking from general practitioners (GPs) has been repeatedly shown to increase smoking cessation by a small, but measurable amount. Some studies have suggested that adding more intensive interventions to brief advice may increase its effectiveness, but it is unclear whether this is true in general practice.
                To determine whether brief advice from a doctor together with counselling and follow-up from a trained practice nurse is more effective than brief advice alone in helping people to stop smoking.
                The design was a randomized controlled trial. Four hundred and ninety-seven general practice patients aged older than 18 years and smoking at least one cigarette per day in six general practices in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire were randomized to one of two interventions: brief verbal or written advice from a GP plus extended counselling and follow-up from a trained practice nurse; brief advice from a GP alone. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at three and 12 months. A secondary outcome was forward movement in the stages of change cycle.
                The proportion showing sustained abstinence was 3.6% in the extended counselling group, and 4.4% in the brief advice group (difference = -0.8%; 95% confidence interval = -4.3% to 2.6%). Seventy-four (30%) of those randomized to extended counselling actually took up this offer. No significant progression in stages of change was detected between the two groups.
                In unselected general practice patients who smoke, brief advice from a GP combined with intensive intervention and follow-up by a practice nurse is no more effective than brief advice alone. To examine whether reimbursement for Provider Counseling, Pharmacotherapies, and a telephone Quitline increase smoking cessation relative to Usual Care.
                Randomized comparison trial testing the effectiveness of four smoking cessation benefits.
                Seven states that best represented the national population in terms of the proportion of those > or = 65 years of age and smoking rate.
                There were 7,354 seniors voluntarily enrolled in the Medicare Stop Smoking Program and they were followed-up for 12 months.
                (1) Usual Care, (2) reimbursement for Provider Counseling, (3) reimbursement for Provider Counseling with Pharmacotherapy, and (4) telephone counseling Quitline with nicotine patch.
                Seven-day self-reported cessation at 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
                Unadjusted quit rates assuming missing data=smoking were 10.2 percent (9.0-11.5), 14.1 percent (11.7-16.5), 15.8 percent (14.4-17.2), and 19.3 percent (17.4-21.2) at 12 months for the Usual Care, Provider Counseling, Provider Counseling + Pharmacotherapy, and Quitline arms, respectively. Results were robust to sociodemographics, smoking history, motivation, health status, and survey nonresponse. The additional cost per quitter (relative to Usual Care) ranged from several hundred dollars to $6,450.
                A telephone Quitline in conjunction with low-cost Pharmacotherapy was the most effective means of reducing smoking in the elderly. Evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a skills-training intervention for adults interested in helping someone to stop smoking (i.e., support persons).
                Sixty adult support persons (77% female) were directly recruited from the community and randomly assigned to this intervention (manual plus five weekly group-based sessions) or a control condition (one-page leaflet). All intervention and outcome assessments occurred through the support persons. Assessments occurred at weeks 0 (baseline), 6 (end of treatment), 12, and 24. The study was conducted from 1998 to 2001; data collection occurred from 1999 to 2000. Outcomes were ratings of treatment acceptability, recruitment and retention rates, supportive behaviors provided to the smoker, and smoking behavior change in the smoker as reported by the support person.
                Support persons were recruited in a timely manner and study retention rates were high. Support persons in skills training showed significant increases in their supportive behavior scores compared with control subjects at weeks 6 and 12. Although not statistically significant, the skills-training intervention was associated with more quit attempts, greater improvement in stage of change, and higher 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates in the smokers than the control condition.
                A skills training intervention for support persons is feasible and acceptable. Further studies are needed to test the efficacy of this approach for smoking cessation. The AHRQ Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence recommends screening and treatment of all tobacco users. Effective methods to implement recommendations are needed because simple guideline dissemination does not necessarily result in changes in practice.
                The Guideline Implementation for Tobacco (GIFT) study tested an organizational intervention to improve Guideline implementation.
                GIFT randomized 20 Veterans Affairs medical centers to intervention or control conditions. We trained prime movers at each site to improve identification of smoking status, promote primary care interventions and increase availability of smoking cessation medications. Sites and patients were evaluated before and after intervention.
                GIFT included 20 Veterans Affairs medical centers and 5678 subjects.
                Data regarding smoking status, delivery of treatment, medication use, and smoking cessation were collected from participant surveys, medical record review, survey of site leaders, and Pharmacy Benefits Management.
                The intervention did not increase participant report of being asked about smoking status or receipt of counseling. It did increase the rate of identification of smoking status in the medical record (P = 0.0001) but did not increase the rate of counseling to stop smoking. Site level data showed no increase in the number of patients receiving smoking cessation medications or dollars spent on medications. Individual smoker data showed a significant increase in the use of medications for smoking cessation in intervention sites (odds ratio = 6.89, P < 0.0001); however, only a small minority of smokers received medication even after the intervention. There was no difference in smoking cessation rates between participants at the intervention and treatment sites.
                We conclude that improvements in smoking cessation rates are likely to require more intensive intervention in this population. To assess the effectiveness of a program of computer-generated tailored advice for callers to a telephone helpline, and to assess whether it enhanced a series of callback telephone counselling sessions in aiding smoking cessation.
                Randomized controlled trial comparing: (1) untailored self-help materials; (2) computer-generated tailored advice only, and (3) computer-generated tailored advice plus callback telephone counselling. Assessment surveys were conducted at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months.
                Victoria, Australia.
                A total of 1578 smokers who called the Quitline service and agreed to participate.
                Smoking status at follow-up; duration of cessation, if quit; use of nicotine replacement therapy; and extent of participation in the callback service.
                At the 3-month follow-up, significantly more (chi2(2) = 16.9; P < 0.001) participants in the computer-generated tailored advice plus telephone counselling condition were not smoking (21%) than in either the computer-generated advice only (12%) or the control condition (12%). Proportions reporting not smoking at the 12-month follow-up were 26%, 23% and 22%, respectively (NS) for point prevalence, and for 9 months sustained abstinence; 8.2, 6.0, and 5.0 (NS). In the telephone counselling group, those receiving callbacks were more likely than those who did not to have sustained abstinence at 12 months (10.2 compared with 4.0, P < 0.05). Logistic regression on 3-month data showed significant independent effects on cessation of telephone counselling and use of NRT, but not of computer-generated tailored advice.
                Computer-generated tailored advice did not enhance telephone counselling, nor have any independent effect on cessation. This may be due to poor timing of the computer-generated tailored advice and poor integration of the two modes of advice.
The limited number of studies to date suggests that trained community pharmacists, providing a counselling and record keeping support programme for their customers, may have a positive effect on smoking cessation rates. The strength of evidence is limited because only one of the trials showed a statistically significant effect.