The GAINS project: outcome of smoking cessation strategies in four urban Native American clinics. Giving American Indians No-smoking Strategies. A study of the use of free nicotine patches by Indigenous people. Preliminary investigation of a culturally specific smoking cessation intervention for Hispanic smokers. The effect of a culturally tailored smoking cessation for Chinese American 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. Smoking cessation in Texas-Mexico border communities: a quasi-experimental panel study. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-provided intervention for hospitalised smokers. Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: placing an equity lens on existing systematic reviews.
This study was designed to assess the capability of the Doctors Helping Smokers (DHS) model to produce an increase in smoking cessation over controls within four urban Indian Health clinics. A total of 601 Native American smokers were enrolled, surveyed, and measured for cardiovascular risk factors. Of those present in treatment clinics at 1-year follow-up, 7.1% reported being abstinent vs. 4.9% in the control group. Of those who made at least one visit to the clinic during the treatment year, 9.4% self-reported being abstinent in the treatment sites vs. 3.9% in the control group (p = .04). Cotinine validated quits for all enrollees, regardless of whether they attended the clinic during the intervention, are 6.7% (intervention) and 6.8% (control). Number of quit attempts and future quit intentions were greater in the intervention group. Recommendations for future intervention efforts include earlier contact with clinicians, clinic involvement in preplanning, developing the program around the principles and realities of each site, building in more extensive components, and utilizing additional community resources. To assess use of free nicotine patches by Indigenous people when offered a brief intervention for smoking cessation, and to assess changes in smoking behaviour at six months.
                We conducted a pre and post study in three Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
                Forty Indigenous smokers self-selected to receive free nicotine patches and a brief intervention for smoking cessation, and 71 chose the brief intervention only. Eighty-four per cent of participants were followed up; 14% of participants could not be located. Fifteen per cent of the nicotine patches group (10% with CO validation) and 1% (CO validated) of the brief intervention only group reported that they had quit at six months. Seventy-six per cent of the nicotine patches group and 51% of the brief intervention only group had reduced their consumption of tobacco. No participant completed a full course of patches. One possible side effect--the experience of bad dreams--was attributed in one community to the person concerned having been 'sung' or cursed.
                Free nicotine patches might benefit a small number of Indigenous smokers. Cessation rates for the use of both nicotine patches and brief intervention alone were lower than those in other populations, possibly because the study was conducted in a primary care setting and because of barriers to cessation such as widespread use of tobacco in these communities and the perception of tobacco use as non-problematic. The purpose of this study was to compare a culturally specific, multicomponent behavioral smoking cessation program for Hispanic smokers with a low-intensity, enhanced self-help control condition.
                Participants who completed pretreatment assessment were randomly assigned to treatment conditions. Smoking status was evaluated at posttreatment, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up intervals.
                The study was based in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in Queens, New York.
                Ninety-three Hispanic smokers participated: 48 men and 45 women.
                The multicomponent treatment involved a clinic-based group program that incorporated a culturally specific component consisting of videotaped presentations of culturally laden smoking-related vignettes. The self-help control program was enhanced by the use of an introductory group session and follow-up supportive telephone calls.
                Smoking outcomes were based on cotinine-validated abstinence and self-reported smoking rates. Predictors of abstinence were examined, including sociodemographic variables, smoking history, nicotine dependence, acculturation, partner interactions, reasons for quitting, self-efficacy, and linguistic competence.
                Significant group differences in cotinine-validated abstinence rates in favor of the multicomponent group were obtained, but only at posttreatment. With missing data included and coded for nonabstinence, validated abstinence rates at posttreatment were 21% for the multicomponent group and 6% for the self-help group. At the 6-month follow-up, the rates were 13% for the multicomponent group and 9% for the self-help group. By the 12-month follow-up, the rates declined to 8% and 7% for the multicomponent and self-help groups, respectively. A dose-response relationship between attendance at group sessions and abstinence status was shown at posttreatment and 6-month follow-up intervals.
                The results of the present study failed to show any long-term benefit from use of a clinic-based, culturally specific multicomponent smoking cessation intervention for Hispanic smokers relative to a minimal-contact, enhanced self-help control. Tobacco use is a serious public health problem among low-income Chinese Americans with limited English proficiency. Chinese men are at high risk for smoking-related morbidity and mortality. We tested the feasibility of a culturally and linguistically sensitive smoking intervention program with combined counseling and pharmacological components for Chinese smokers in New York City; identified factors and techniques that enhance the administration and appropriateness of the intervention program; and examined the overall impact of this program on quit attempts, quit rates, and overall smoking reduction.
                We were guided by the transtheoretical model and used an adapted motivational interviewing (MI) approach. The study involved a randomized sample with pretreatment assessment and multiple follow-up measures. Eligible participants (N = 122) were randomly assigned to intervention (4 individualized counselor-led MI sessions and nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]) or control groups (4 general health education sessions, self-help materials, and NRT).
                Quit rate at 6 months in the intervention group was 67% versus 32% for the control group, indicating minimal relapse and a highly successful intervention program. Increase in self-efficacy and decease in pros of smoking from baseline to 6-month follow-up were positively associated with smoking cessation. The number of cigarette smoked at baseline was inversely related to smoking cessation. Results indicate that a combined intensive behavioral counseling and pharmacological intervention can reduce smoking substantially.
                The results of this pilot will be used as a basis for a large-scale randomized trial of an intervention with combined culturally and linguistically sensitive MI and NRT components for Chinese and other Asian ethnic groups. 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. BACKGROUDd. Smoking-related disease and injury is prominent among the numerous health problems on the U.S.-Mexico border, but little is known about the methods that might help promote smoking cessation among the low-income populations in this region.
                Media campaigns were combined with different forms of intensive and community-wide interpersonal communication to encourage smoking cessation in a border U.S. city and in a Mexican city. Panels of moderate to heavy smokers were followed in four groups to allow quasi-experimental comparison of smoking cessation rates.
                Over a five-year study period smoking cessation rates of 17% (self-reported) and 8% (verified) were observed in panels in the program community (N = 160). In the comparison community (N = 135) corresponding rates of smoking cessation were 7% (self-reported) and 1.5% (verified). Within the program community, no differences were observed in smoking cessation among smokers exposed to a community-wide program and those assigned to receive personal counseling.
                Although the observed changes in smoking were unexpectedly small in the treatment and comparison groups, the approximately 8% effect size for the community-wide program was close to what was predicted. Results indicate that such programs may yield effects similar to those of more intensive approaches, but further research with greater statistical power will be necessary to confirm that point. 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. With smoking increasingly confined to lower socio-economic groups, the tobacco control community has been urged to identify which population-level tobacco control interventions work in order to help tackle smoking-related health inequalities. Systematic reviews have a crucial role to play in this task. This overview was therefore carried out in order to (i) summarise the evidence from existing systematic reviews of population-level tobacco control interventions, and (ii) assess the need for a new systematic review of primary studies, with the aim of assessing the differential effects of such interventions.
                Systematic review methods were used to evaluate existing systematic reviews that assessed a population-level tobacco control intervention and which reported characteristics of included participants in terms of at least one socio-demographic or socio-economic factor.
                Nineteen systematic reviews were included. Four reviews assessed interventions aimed at the population level alone, whilst fifteen included at least one primary study that examined this type of intervention. Four reviews assessed youth access restrictions, one assessed the effects of increasing the unit price of tobacco, and six assessed smoking bans or restrictions. Of the eight remaining reviews, six assessed multi-component community based interventions, in which the population-level interventions were part of a wider tobacco control programme, and two assessed the impact of smoking bans or restrictions in reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We found tentative evidence that the effect of increasing the unit price of tobacco products may vary between ethnic and socio-economic groups, and between males and females. However, differences in the context and the results of different reviews made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Few identified reviews explicitly attempted to examine differences in intervention effects between socio-demographic groups. Therefore on the basis of these reviews the potential for smoking bans, and youth access restrictions to decrease social inequalities in smoking remains unknown.
                There is preliminary evidence that increases in the unit price of tobacco may have the potential to reduce smoking related health inequalities. There is a need for equity effects to be explicitly evaluated in future systematic reviews and in primary research assessing the effects of population tobacco control interventions.
A significant health disparity exists, whereby Indigenous populations, a minority, are over-represented in the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. This review highlights the paucity of evidence available to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, despite the known success of these interventions in non-Indigenous populations. Due to this lack of published investigations, the external validity of this review is limited, as is the ability to draw reliable conclusions from the results. The limited but available evidence reported does indicate that smoking cessation interventions specifically targeted at Indigenous populations can produce smoking abstinence. However this evidence base is not strong with a small number of methodologically sound trials investigating these interventions. More rigorous trials are now required to assist in bridging the gap between tobacco related health disparities in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.