Randomized controlled trial of a computer-based, tailored intervention to increase smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians. Results of a randomized controlled trial of intervention to implement smoking guidelines in Veterans Affairs medical centers: increased use of medications without cessation benefit. Impact of a brief motivational smoking cessation intervention the Get PHIT randomized controlled trial. Integrated tobacco cessation counseling in a diabetes self-management training program: a randomized trial of diabetes and reduction of tobacco. Effects of stage-matched repeated individual counseling on smoking cessation: A randomized controlled trial for the high-risk strategy by lifestyle modification (HISLIM) study. Web-based smoking-cessation programs: results of a randomized trial. A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention among people with a psychotic disorder. Efficacy of resident training in smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled trial of a program based on application of behavioral theory and practice with standardized patients. Randomized controlled trial of a social support ('buddy') intervention for smoking cessation.
The primary care visit represents an important venue for intervening with a large population of smokers. However, physician adherence to the Smoking Cessation Clinical Guideline (5As) remains low. We evaluated the effectiveness of a computer-tailored intervention designed to increase smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians.
                Physicians and their patients were randomized to either intervention or control conditions. In addition to brief smoking cessation training, intervention physicians and patients received a one-page report that characterized the patients' smoking habit and history and offered tailored recommendations. Physician performance of the 5As was assessed via patient exit interviews. Quit rates and smoking behaviors were assessed 6 months postintervention via patient phone interviews. Intervention effects were tested in a sample of 70 physicians and 518 of their patients. Results were analyzed via generalized and mixed linear modeling controlling for clustering.
                Intervention physicians exceeded controls on "Assess" (OR 5.06; 95% CI 3.22, 7.95), "Advise" (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.70, 4.59), "Assist-set goals" (OR 4.31; 95% CI 2.59, 7.16), "Assist-provide written materials" (OR 5.14; 95% CI 2.60, 10.14), "Assist-provide referral" (OR 6.48; 95% CI 3.11, 13.49), "Assist-discuss medication" (OR 4.72;95% CI 2.90, 7.68), and "Arrange" (OR 8.14; 95% CI 3.98, 16.68), all p values being < 0.0001. Intervention patients were 1.77 (CI 0.94, 3.34,p = 0.078) times more likely than controls to be abstinent (12 versus 8%), a difference that approached, but did not reach statistical significance, and surpassed controls on number of days quit (18.4 versus 12.2, p < .05) but not on number of quit attempts.
                The use of a brief computer-tailored report improved physicians' implementation of the 5As and had a modest effect on patients' smoking behaviors 6 months postintervention. 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. Few studies have rigorously evaluated whether providing biologically based health-risk feedback is more effective than standard interventions in increasing smokers' motivation to quit and their long-term abstinence.
                An RCT was conducted from 2005 to 2008. Data were analyzed in 2008.
                Smokers (N=536) were recruited from the community, regardless of their interest in quitting smoking.
                Smokers either received brief ( approximately 20 minutes), personally tailored counseling sessions based on their lung functioning, carbon monoxide (CO) exposure, and smoking-related health conditions, or they received generic smoking-risk information and personalized counseling about their diet, BMI, and physical activity. All were advised to quit smoking and were offered access to a free phone-counseling program.
                Treatment utilization and abstinence at 6 and 12 months post-intervention.
                Participants who received the experimental treatment demonstrated no greater motivation to quit, use of treatment services, or abstinence compared to controls at either follow-up assessment. In fact, controls reported greater motivation to quit at 12 months (M 3.42 vs 3.20, p=0.03), greater use of pharmacotherapy at 6 months (37.8% vs 28.0%, p=0.02), and greater 30-day point prevalent abstinence at 6 months, after controlling for relevant covariates (10.8% vs 6.4%, adjusted p=0.04).
                The present study found no support for adding a personalized health-risk assessment emphasizing lung health and CO exposure to generic cessation advice and counseling for community-based smokers not otherwise seeking treatment.
                NCT00169260. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a tobacco cessation intervention using motivational interviewing on smoking cessation rates during diabetes self-management training (DSMT).
                A randomized controlled trial was conducted with subjects recruited from an ongoing type 2 diabetes adult education program at a large diabetes center. A total of 114 subjects were randomized to intervention (n = 57; face-to-face motivational interviewing plus telephone counseling and offering of medication) or standard care (n = 57). Outcome measures included tobacco cessation rates, mean number of cigarettes smoked, A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids.
                Intensive intervention using motivational interviewing integrated into a standard DSMT program resulted in a trend toward greater abstinence at 3 months of follow-up in those receiving the intervention. However, this same trend was not observed at 6 months. The addition of this structured smoking cessation intervention did not negatively affect either diabetes education or other measures of diabetes management, including A1C values.
                Structured tobacco cessation efforts can be readily integrated into established diabetes education programs without a negative impact on diabetes care or delivery of diabetes education. However, an intervention of moderate intensity for smoking cessation was no more effective than usual care in assisting patients with tobacco cessation after 6-month follow-up. Whether a more intensive intervention, targeting patients expressing a readiness to discontinue tobacco use, and/or a longer duration or a more cumulative effect of treatment will be more effective must be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of stage-matched repeated individual behavioral counseling as an intervention for the cessation of smoking.
                We conducted a multisite randomized controlled trial that enrolled smokers unselected for their readiness to quit. There were 979 smokers with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia recruited from 72 study sites and randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Smokers in the intervention group received stage-matched individual counseling consisting of a 40 minute initial session and four 20-30 minute follow-up sessions. Smokers in the control group received individual behavioral counseling for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia.
                The point prevalence abstinence rate at 6 months, validated by carbon monoxide testing, in the intervention group (13.6%) was 5.4 times higher (p<0.001) than that in the control group (2.5%). When the data were analyzed based on the baseline stage of change, there were significant differences in the abstinence rates at 6 months in smokers versus controls with each stage of change except in immotives. The odds ratio was 6.4 (p<0.001) in precontemplators, 6.7 (p<0.001) in contemplators, and 6.2 (p<0.01) in preparators. There was a positive, consistent effect of the intervention regardless of study site (worksite or community) or the presence of hypertension or hypercholesterolemia.
                We showed the effects of an intervention with repeated individual behavioral counseling on the cessation of smoking in smokers unselected for their readiness to quit. This result suggests that stage-matched individual counseling, based on the transtheoretical model, is effective in smokers with a lower motivation to quit as well as those ready to quit. Initial trials of web-based smoking-cessation programs have generally been promising. The active components of these programs, however, are not well understood. This study aimed to (1) identify active psychosocial and communication components of a web-based smoking-cessation intervention and (2) examine the impact of increasing the tailoring depth on smoking cessation.
                Randomized fractional factorial design.
                Two HMOs: Group Health in Washington State and Henry Ford Health System in Michigan.
                1866 smokers.
                A web-based smoking-cessation program plus nicotine patch. Five components of the intervention were randomized using a fractional factorial design: high- versus low-depth tailored success story, outcome expectation, and efficacy expectation messages; high- versus low-personalized source; and multiple versus single exposure to the intervention components.
                Primary outcome was 7 day point-prevalence abstinence at the 6-month follow-up.
                Abstinence was most influenced by high-depth tailored success stories and a high-personalized message source. The cumulative assignment of the three tailoring depth factors also resulted in increasing the rates of 6-month cessation, demonstrating an effect of tailoring depth.
                The study identified relevant components of smoking-cessation interventions that should be generalizable to other cessation interventions. The study also demonstrated the importance of higher-depth tailoring in smoking-cessation programs. Finally, the use of a novel fractional factorial design allowed efficient examination of the study aims. The rapidly changing interfaces, software, and capabilities of eHealth are likely to require such dynamic experimental approaches to intervention discovery. 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. New educational programs must be developed to improve physicians' skills and effectiveness in counseling patients about smoking cessation.
                To assess the efficacy of an educational program based on behavioral theory, active learning methods, and practice with standardized patients in helping patients abstain from smoking and changing physicians' counseling practices.
                Cluster randomized, controlled trial.
                Two general internal medicine clinics in Switzerland.
                35 residents and 251 consecutive smoking patients.
                A training program administered over two half-days, during which physicians learned to provide counseling that matched smokers' motivation to quit and practiced these skills with standardized patients acting as smokers at different stages of change. The control intervention was a didactic session on management of dyslipidemia.
                Self-reported abstinence from smoking at 1 year of follow-up, which was validated by exhaled carbon monoxide testing at one clinic; score of overall quality of counseling based on use of 14 counseling strategies; patient willingness to quit; and daily cigarette consumption.
                At 1 year of follow-up, abstinence from smoking was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (13% vs. 5%; P = 0.005); this corresponded to a cluster-adjusted odds ratio of 2.8 (95% CI, 1.4 to 5.5). Residents who received the study training provided better counseling than did those who received the control training (mean score, 4.0 vs. 2.7; P = 0.002). Smokers' willingness to quit was also higher in the intervention group (94% vs. 80%; P = 0.007). A nonsignificant trend toward lower daily cigarette consumption in the intervention group was observed.
                A training program in smoking cessation administered to physicians that was based on behavioral theory and practice with standardized patients significantly increased the quality of physicians' counseling, smokers' motivation to quit, and rates of abstinence from smoking at 1 year. To assess the effectiveness of including a social support intervention ('buddy system') in a group treatment programme to aid smoking cessation.
                Five hundred and sixty-three smokers attended groups at a smokers' clinic. These groups were randomized either to be (a) groups in which smokers were paired with another person to provide mutual support (buddy condition: n=237 in 14 groups) or (b) to receive the same treatment without the buddy component (control: n=326 in 20 groups). Participants were seen weekly for the first 4 weeks after stopping then followed up again after 26 weeks.
                Smokers in the buddy condition were no more likely than smokers in the control condition to stay abstinent at 1, 4 or 26 weeks. The effect was in the right direction at week one post-quit but after controlling for potential confounders the difference was not significant (odds ratio=1.45 (95% CI; 0.92-2.29), p=0.06).
                We were unable to show that a buddy system improved abstinence rates of group treatment programmes. This might be due to the high level of social support already achieved through the groups.
                The buddy system is a simple and very low cost addition to a group treatment programme; but the results from this study suggest that the kind of buddy system tested may not add substantially to the success rates. However there may be merits in a more intensive or protracted form of buddying.
In this review of randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programmes, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions also did not increase partner support. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. Additional studies with larger samples are needed to adequately explore the effects of partner support interventions for smoking cessation.