Dataset Information

Five population-based interventions for smoking cessation: a MOST trial.

ABSTRACT: Little is known about the relative, additive, and interactive effects of different population-based treatments for smoking cessation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the main and interactive effects of five different smoking interventions. Using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST), 1,034 smokers who entered a Web site for smokers (smokefree.gov) were randomly assigned to the "on" and "off" conditions of five smoking cessation interventions: the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Web site (www.smokefree.gov vs a "lite" Web site), telephone quitline counseling (vs none), a smoking cessation brochure (vs a lite brochure), motivational e-mail messages (vs none), and mini-lozenge nicotine replacement therapy (NRT vs none). Analyses showed that the NCI Web site and NRT both increased abstinence; however, the former increased abstinence significantly only when it was not used with the e-mail messaging intervention (messaging decreased Web site use). The other interventions showed little evidence of effectiveness. There was evidence that mailed nicotine mini-lozenges and the NCI Web site (www.smokefree.gov) provide benefit as population-based smoking interventions.

SUBMITTER: Fraser D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4286555 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Five population-based interventions for smoking cessation: a MOST trial.

Fraser D D Kobinsky K K Smith S S SS Kramer J J Theobald W E WE Baker T B TB

Translational behavioral medicine 20141201 4

Little is known about the relative, additive, and interactive effects of different population-based treatments for smoking cessation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the main and interactive effects of five different smoking interventions. Using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST), 1,034 smokers who entered a Web site for smokers (smokefree.gov) were randomly assigned to the "on" and "off" conditions of five smoking cessation interventions: the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) We ...[more]

PMID: 25584087

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.Design, setting, and participantsA matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.ResultsDelivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).Conclusions and relevanceAssist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Main resultsFifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Project description:IntroductionHospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two "safety net" hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions.DesignA randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted.Setting/participantsAt two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16%) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17%) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21%) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15%) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21%) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9%) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69% of participants were reached at 2 months and 68% at 6 months.InterventionAt discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814).Main outcome measuresSelf-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015.ResultsOne quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60% had a history of substance abuse, 43% reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0% vs 20.7%; relative risk=1.40; 95% CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4% vs 31.5%; relative risk=1.19; 95% CI=1.01, 1.40).ConclusionsIntensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.

Dataset Information

Five population-based interventions for smoking cessation: a MOST trial.

Publications

Five population-based interventions for smoking cessation: a MOST trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets