Evaluation of a Dutch community-based smoking cessation intervention. Smoking reduction intervention in a large population-based study. The Inter99 study. A randomized trial of smoking cessation interventions in general practice in Italy. Effectiveness of a low-intensity intra-worksite intervention on smoking cessation in Japanese employees: a three-year intervention trial. Feasibility of a telephone-based intervention for support persons to help smokers quit: a pilot study. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-provided intervention for hospitalised smokers. Smoking cessation intervention in a large randomised population-based study. The Inter99 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. A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention among people with a psychotic disorder.
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. Smoking reduction has been introduced as an alternative to smokers unable or unwilling to quit but has never been implemented in a population-based intervention.
                Two thousand four hundred eight daily smokers in all motivational stages were included in a randomised population-based intervention study, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Smokers, unwilling or unable to quit, were encouraged to reduce their tobacco consumption. Furthermore, smokers in the high-intensity intervention were offered participation in smoking reduction groups.
                Twenty-three percent of those who attended both baseline and 1 year visit reported reduction by at least 5 g and 8% reported a halving or more. Halving of tobacco consumption was achieved significantly more often than in the background population, OR = 2.6 (1.6-4.4), even when assuming that non-participants had not reduced, OR = 1.7 (1.0-2.8). Reduction of at least 5 g doubled the probability of increased motivation to quit and a halving increased it more than four times. The reductions were not validated. Less than 2% attended the smoking reduction groups.
                The smoking reduction intervention was significant in self-reported reduction of tobacco consumption and subsequently increased motivation to quit. This may open new perspectives, with reduction as a first step towards cessation, a possible supplement to smoking cessation strategies. 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. To test the effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention program for smoking cessation targeting the worksite environment in employees who had a low readiness to quit, we conducted an intervention trial at six intervention and six control worksites in Japan. A total of 2,307 smokers at baseline who remained at their worksite throughout the three-year study period were analyzed (1,017 in intervention and 1,290 in control groups). The multi-component program at the worksites consisted of (1) presenting information on the harms of tobacco smoking and the benefits of cessation by posters, websites, and newsletters; (2) smoking cessation campaigns for smokers; (3) advice on designation of smoking areas; and (4) periodic site-visits of the designated smoking areas by an expert researcher. At baseline, the intervention and control groups each had high prevalence of immotive or precontemplation, that reflected low readiness to quit (71.5% and 73.2%, respectively). The smoking cessation rate, as not having smoked for the preceding six months or longer, assessed at 36 months after the baseline survey by a self-administered questionnaire was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (12.1%, vs. 9.4%, p=0.021). The intervention program still had a significant effect on the smoking cessation rate after multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, type of occupation, age of starting smoking, quit attempts in the past, number of cigarettes per day, and readiness to quit (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.81, p=0.02). The cost per additional quitter due to the intervention was calculated to be Yen 70,080. These findings indicate that this program is effective and can be implemented in similar workplaces where the prevalence of smoking is high and smokers' readiness to cease smoking is low. Nonsmokers have a potentially supportive role in tobacco cessation efforts. The present study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a telephone-based intervention for nonsmoking support persons.
                A total of 59 support persons (mean age = 36 years, 92% female, 95% White) were randomly assigned to a control condition (N = 30; written materials only) or to a social cognitive theory-based intervention (N = 29; written materials and 5 weekly, 20- to 30-min telephone counseling sessions). Both support persons and smokers completed assessments separately by mail at baseline and at weeks 6 (end of treatment) and 26.
                Two thirds of the smokers reported low-moderate levels of motivation to quit at baseline as assessed by the contemplation ladder. Study retention rates were excellent, with 95% of both support persons and smokers completing the week 26 assessment. Moreover, 86% of support persons in the intervention group completed all five telephone sessions. Treatment acceptability was high for both support persons and smokers. Compared with the control condition, the intervention was associated with a significant increase in support person self-efficacy to help their smoker (p = .034) and outcome expectancies (p = .025) from baseline to week 6. However, the intervention was not associated with higher smoking abstinence rates or quit attempts.
                The program was successful in reaching smokers with lower levels of readiness to quit. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to both support persons and smokers. Although support persons and smokers can be engaged in this type of outreach program, refinements in the intervention approach are needed to improve the smoking outcomes. Does the provision of a nurse-based intervention lead to smoking cessation in hospital patients?
                At tertiary teaching hospital in Newcastle, Australia, 4,779 eligible (aged 18-80, admitted for at least 24 hours, and able to provide informed consent) and consenting (73.4%) in-patients were recruited into a larger cross-sectional survey. 1,422 (29.7%) smokers (in the last 12 months) were randomly assigned to control (n = 711) or intervention group (n = 711). The brief nurse-delivered intervention incorporated: tailored information, assessment of withdrawal, offer of nicotine replacement therapy, booklets, and a discharge letter. Self-reported cessation at 12 months was validated with CO and salivary cotinine.
                There were no significant differences between groups in self-reported abstinence at three or 12 months post intervention, based on an intention to treat analysis. At three months, self-reported abstinence was 27.3% (I) and 27.5% (C); at 12 months was 18.5% (I) and 20.6% (C). There were no differences in validation of self-report between intervention and control groups at 12 months.
                This brief nurse-provided in-patient intervention did not significantly increase the smoking cessation rates compared with the control group at either three or 12-month follow-up.
                A systematic total quality improvement model of accountable outcome-focused treatment, incorporating assertive physician-led pharmacotherapy, routine assessment and recording of nicotine dependence (ICD 10 coding), in- and outpatient services and engagement from multidisciplinary teams of health professionals may be required to improve treatment modalities for this chronic addictive disorder. Several large and well-conducted community interventions have failed to detect an effect on prevalence of smoking.
                Two thousand four hundred eight daily smokers in all motivational stages were actively recruited and included in a randomised population-based intervention study in Copenhagen, Denmark. All smokers completed a questionnaire and underwent a health examination and a lifestyle consultation. Daily smokers in the high intensity intervention group were offered assistance to quit in smoking cessation groups.
                The validated abstinence rate at 1-year follow-up was 16.3% in the high intensity group and 12.7% in the low intensity group compared with a self-reported abstinence rate of 7.3% in the background population. The adjusted odds ratio of abstinence in the high intervention group was significantly higher, OR = 2.2 (1.6-3.0) than in the background population, also in the 'intention-to-treat' analyses, OR = 1.5 (1.1-2.0). Higher socioeconomic status, higher age at onset of daily smoking, and a higher wish to quit were predictors of success.
                In a population-based setting, using active recruitment and offering assistance to quit, it was possible to include many smokers and to achieve a significantly higher validated abstinence in the high intensity intervention than in the background population, even when using 'intention-to-treat' analyses. 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. Despite extremely high rates of smoking among individuals with psychotic disorders and the associated financial and health costs, few studies have investigated the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among this group. The purpose of this study was to compare an integrated psychological and nicotine replacement therapy intervention for people with a psychotic disorder with routine care alone.
                The authors recruited 298 regular smokers with a psychotic disorder residing in the community and randomly assigned them to a routine care comparison condition (N=151) or an eight-session, individually administered smoking cessation intervention (N=147), which consisted of nicotine replacement therapy, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavior therapy. Outcome variables included continuous and point-prevalence abstinence rates, smoking reduction status, and changes in symptoms and functioning.
                While there were no overall differences between the treatment group and comparison group in abstinence rates, a significantly higher proportion of smokers who completed all treatment sessions stopped smoking at each of the follow-up occasions (point-prevalence rates: 3 months, 30.0% versus 6.0%; 6 months, 18.6% versus 4.0%; and 12 months, 18.6% versus 6.6%). Smokers who completed all treatment sessions were also more likely to have achieved continuous abstinence at 3 months (21.4% versus 4.0%). There was a strong dose-response relationship between treatment session attendance and smoking reduction status, with one-half of those who completed the intervention program achieving a 50% or greater reduction in daily cigarette consumption across the follow-ups, relative to less than one-fifth of the comparison subjects. There was no evidence of any associated deterioration in symptoms or functioning.
                These findings demonstrate the utility of a nicotine replacement therapy plus motivational interviewing/cognitive behavior therapy smoking cessation intervention among individuals with a psychotic disorder. Further development of more efficacious interventions is required for those who do not respond to existing interventions.
1. We found strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.
2. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer.
3. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes in reducing the prevalence of smoking.