Dataset Information

The effect of motivational lung age feedback on short-term quit rates in smokers seeking intensive group treatment: A randomized controlled pilot study.

ABSTRACT: A brief "Lung Age" feedback intervention has shown promise for personalizing the health impact of smoking and promoting cessation in unselected smokers. Now that many healthcare organizations provide face-to-face cessation services, it is reasonable to ask whether such motivational feedback of lung function tests might improve treatment compliance and cessation rates in smokers wanting to quit. This study assessed effects of baseline motivational spirometry-based "Lung Age" feedback on treatment compliance and tobacco abstinence at 28-day follow-up.This randomized controlled pilot study took place in Penn State University-affiliated outpatient medical practices. Participants were 225 adult smokers (?5 cigarettes/day) willing to attend tobacco dependence treatment. At assessment lung function (FEV-1) and exhaled carbon-monoxide (CO) were assessed. The Intervention group (n=120) were randomly allocated to receive motivational "Lung Age" feedback estimated by FEV-1 and on exhaled CO; Control group (n=105) received minimal feedback. Participants were offered 6 weekly group smoking cessation sessions and nicotine patches and followed-up 28 days after target quit date. The primary outcome measure was self-reported 7-day tobacco abstinence, confirmed by CO<10ppm at 28-day follow-up.Quit rates were similar at follow-up (Intervention 50.8%; Control 52.4%; p=0.65) after controlling for abstinence predictors. Group attendance and patch use were similar. Among those attending follow-up (n=164, 73%), a greater proportion of the Intervention group had improved lung function (67% vs. 46%; p=0.0083).Baseline Lung Age feedback did not improve quit rates or compliance at 28-day follow-up in smokers seeking intensive treatment.

SUBMITTER: Foulds J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4972339 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of motivational lung age feedback on short-term quit rates in smokers seeking intensive group treatment: A randomized controlled pilot study.

Foulds Jonathan J Veldheer Susan S Hrabovsky Shari S Yingst Jessica J Sciamanna Chris C Chen Gang G Maccani Jennifer Z J JZ Berg Arthur A

Drug and alcohol dependence 20150518

<h4>Background</h4>A brief "Lung Age" feedback intervention has shown promise for personalizing the health impact of smoking and promoting cessation in unselected smokers. Now that many healthcare organizations provide face-to-face cessation services, it is reasonable to ask whether such motivational feedback of lung function tests might improve treatment compliance and cessation rates in smokers wanting to quit. This study assessed effects of baseline motivational spirometry-based "Lung Age" fe ...[more]

PMID: 26051163

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis study used data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) relative to health education (HE) and brief advice (BA) to encourage quit attempts and cessation in order to determine their relative cost-effectiveness.Aims and methodsUrban community residents (n = 255) with low desire to quit smoking were randomized to MI, HE, or BA which differed in communication style and/or number of treatment sessions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to compare the intensive interventions (MI and HE) to BA for facilitating quit attempts and smoking cessation. Costs were calculated from the perspective of an agency that might engage in program delivery. Sensitivity analysis examined different assumptions for MI training and pharmacotherapy costs.ResultsTotal intervention delivery time costs per participant for MI, HE, and BA were $46.63, $42.87, and $2.4, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios per quit attempt at 24 weeks were $380 for MI, $272 for HE, and $209 for BA. The cost per additional quit attempt for MI and HE relative to BA was $508 and $301, respectively. The cost per additional quit for MI and HE relative to BA was $2030 and $752, respectively. Four separate sensitivity analyses conducted in our study did not change the conclusion the HE had a lower Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for both quit attempts and cessation.ConclusionsHE was the most cost-effective of the three types of smoking cessation induction therapies and therefore may be preferable for smokers who are less motivated to quit. Providing valuable cost information in choosing different clinical methods for motivating smokers to quit.ImplicationsAll direct costs and activity-based time costs associated with delivering the intervention were analyzed from the perspective of an agency that may wish to replicate these strategies. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of MI relative to HE and BA to encourage quit attempts and cessation determined their relative cost-effectiveness. HE was the most cost-effective of the three types of smoking cessation induction therapies and therefore may be preferable. Despite guideline recommendations, MI may not be the best approach to encourage quit attempts in diverse populations. Rather, a structured, intensive HE intervention might be the most cost-effective alternative.

Project description:IntroductionDespite limitations in evidence, the current Clinical Practice Guideline advocates Motivational Interviewing for smokers not ready to quit. This study evaluated the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing for inducing cessation-related behaviors among smokers with low motivation to quit.DesignRandomized clinical trial.Setting/participantsTwo-hundred fifty-five daily smokers reporting low desire to quit smoking were recruited from an urban community during 2010-2011 and randomly assigned to Motivational Interviewing, health education, or brief advice using a 2:2:1 allocation. Data were analyzed from 2012 to 2014.InterventionFour sessions of Motivational Interviewing utilized a patient-centered communication style that explored patients' own reasons for change. Four sessions of health education provided education related to smoking cessation while excluding elements characteristic of Motivational Interviewing. A single session of brief advice consisted of brief, personalized advice to quit.Main outcomes measuresSelf-reported quit attempts; smoking abstinence (biochemically verified); use of cessation pharmacotherapies; motivation; and confidence to quit were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-ups.ResultsUnexpectedly, no significant differences emerged between groups in the proportion who made a quit attempt by 6-month follow-up (Motivational Interviewing, 52.0%; health education, 60.8%; brief advice, 45.1%; p=0.157). Health education had significantly higher biochemically verified abstinence rates at 6 months (7.8%) than brief advice (0.0%) (8% risk difference, 95% CI=3%, 13%, p=0.003), with the Motivational Interviewing group falling in between (2.9% abstinent, 3% risk difference, 95% CI=0%, 6%, p=0.079). Both Motivational Interviewing and health education groups showed greater increases in cessation medication use, motivation, and confidence to quit relative to brief advice (all p<0.05), and health education showed greater increases in motivation relative to Motivational Interviewing (Cohen's d=0.36, 95% CI=0.12, 0.60).ConclusionsAlthough Motivational Interviewing was generally more efficacious than brief advice in inducing cessation behaviors, health education appeared the most efficacious. These results highlight the need to identify the contexts in which Motivational Interviewing may be most efficacious and question recommendations to use Motivational Interviewing rather than other less complex cessation induction interventions.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01188018.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the current Clinical Practice Guideline recommend Motivational Interviewing for use with smokers not ready to quit, the strength of evidence for its use is rated as not optimal. The purpose of the present study is to address key methodological limitations of previous studies by ensuring fidelity in the delivery of the Motivational Interviewing intervention, using an attention-matched control condition, and focusing on unmotivated smokers whom meta-analyses have indicated may benefit most from Motivational Interviewing. It is hypothesized that MI will be more effective at inducing quit attempts and smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up than brief advice to quit and an intensity-matched health education condition.Methods/designA sample of adult community resident smokers (N = 255) who report low motivation and readiness to quit are being randomized using a 2:2:1 treatment allocation to Motivational Interviewing, Health Education, or Brief Advice. Over 6 months, participants in Motivational Interviewing and Health Education receive 4 individual counseling sessions and participants in Brief Advice receive one brief in-person individual session at baseline. Rigorous monitoring and independent verification of fidelity will assure the counseling approaches are distinct and delivered as planned. Participants complete surveys at baseline, week 12 and 6-month follow-up to assess demographics, smoking characteristics, and smoking outcomes. Participants who decide to quit are provided with a self-help guide to quitting, help with a quit plan, and free pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome is self-report of one or more quit attempts lasting at least 24 hours between randomization and 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence cessation at 6-month follow-up. Hypothesized mediators of the presumed treatment effect on quit attempts are greater perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation. Use of pharmacotherapy is a hypothesized mediator of Motivational Interviewing's effect on cessation.DiscussionThis trial will provide the most rigorous evaluation to date of Motivational Interviewing's efficacy for encouraging unmotivated smokers to make a quit attempt. It will also provide effect-size estimates of MI's impact on smoking cessation to inform future clinical trials and inform the Clinical Practice Guideline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01188018.

Project description:We recently conducted a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) (N = 560) that failed to replicate our initial RCT's findings that brief motivational and reduction interventions increased quit attempts (QA) and point-prevalence abstinence (PPA) in smokers not ready to quit. The present study aimed to test why our interventions were ineffective.A secondary analysis of a 3-arm RCT tested (1) whether telephone-based motivational or reduction interventions changed the following hypothesized mediators more than usual care: cigarettes per day (CPD), dependence, pros of smoking, cons of smoking, self-efficacy, or intention to quit; (2) whether changes in these hypothesized mediators predicted QAs and PPA at a 6-month follow-up, and (3) whether the interventions affected QAs and PPA via the hypothesized mediators.In comparison to usual care, the motivational intervention did not significantly influence the hypothesized mediators. The reduction intervention resulted in a significantly greater decrease in CPD and pros of smoking and increase in self-efficacy and intention to quit than usual care. Decreases in CPD and dependence and increases in self-efficacy and intention to quit were associated with increased QAs. The reduction intervention's influence on QAs was mediated by decreases in CPD and increases in self-efficacy and intention to quit. Findings regarding PPA were similar.Our failure to replicate may be due, in part, to the fact that, compared to usual care, (1) the motivational intervention had no effect on the hypothesized mediators, and (2) the reduction intervention had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant effect on the hypothesized mediators.This study demonstrates that mediation analysis may be useful to understand why an intervention is not more effective than usual care. We identified reductions in CPD and dependence and increases in self-efficacy and intention to quit as predictors of quitting. Further research should focus on developing more effective interventions to target these constructs, and cause clinically significant changes among smokers who are not ready to quit.

Project description:AimsTo test whether, in comparison to usual care, brief motivational or reduction interventions increase quit attempts (QA) or abstinence among smokers who are not ready to quit.DesignA parallel-group randomized controlled trial of brief motivational (n = 185), reduction (n = 186) or usual care (n = 189) telephone interventions delivered over the course of 4 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. No medication was provided.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsA total of 560 adult smokers of ≥ 10 cigarettes per day who were not ready to quit in the next 30 days.MeasurementsThe primary outcomes were whether participants made a QA that lasted ≥ 24 hours and whether they made a QA of any length between baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6 and 12 months. The 12-month follow-up was added after the study began.FindingsA priori-defined comparisons were between motivational versus usual care and reduction versus usual care conditions. The probability of making a QA that lasted ≥ 24 hours was not significantly different between the motivational (38%) or the reduction (31%) conditions and the usual care (34%) condition [motivational versus usual care odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-1.82; reduction versus usual care OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.57-1.36]. Bayes factors ranged from 0.13 to 0.18. Findings regarding a QA of any length were similar. At 6 months, the motivational condition had marginally more abstinence than usual care (11 versus 5%, OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 0.99-4.77), but the reduction condition was not significantly different from usual care (8 versus 5%, OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.69-3.59). At 12 months, the motivational condition had significantly more abstinence than usual care (10 versus 4%, OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.14-6.88) and the reduction condition had marginally more abstinence than usual care (9 versus 4%, OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 0.98-6.09).ConclusionsAmong adult smokers who are not ready to quit, both logistic regression and Bayesian analysis indicate that neither motivational nor reduction-based telephone interventions increased the odds of making a quit attempt in comparison to usual care at 6 months. The motivational intervention appeared to increase abstinence at 6 months and did increase abstinence at 12 months. The reduction intervention did not increase abstinence at 6 months but appeared to increase abstinence at 12 months.

Project description:ObjectivesDelivery of craving management tools via smartphone applications (apps) may improve smoking cessation rates, but research on such programmes remains limited, especially in real-world settings. This study evaluated the effectiveness of adding craving management tools in a cessation app (BupaQuit).MethodsThe study was a two-arm pragmatic pilot parallel randomised controlled trial, comparing a fully-automated BupaQuit app with craving management tool with a control app version without craving management tool. A total of 425 adult UK-based daily smokers were enrolled through open online recruitment (February 2015-March 2016), with no researcher involvement, and individually randomised within the app to the intervention (n = 208) or control (n = 217). The primary outcome was self-reported 14-day continuous abstinence assessed at 4-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 6-month point-prevalence and sustained abstinence, and app usage. The primary outcome was assessed with Fisher's exact test using intent to treat with those lost to follow-up counted as smoking. Participants were not reimbursed.ResultsRe-contact rates were 50.4% at 4 weeks and 40.2% at 6 months. There was no significant difference between intervention and control arms on the primary outcome (13.5% vs 15.7%; p = 0.58; relative risk = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.54-1.36) or secondary cessation outcomes (6-month point prevalence: 14.4% vs 17.1%, p = 0.51; relative risk = 0.85, 95% confidence interval = 0.54-1.32; 6-month sustained: 11.1% vs 13.4%, p = 0.55; relative risk = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.50-1.38). Bayes factors supported the null hypothesis (B[0, 0, 1.0986] = 0.20). Usage was similar across the conditions (mean/median logins: 9.6/4 vs 10.5/5; time spent: 401.8/202 s vs 325.8/209 s).ConclusionsThe addition of craving management tools did not affect cessation, and the limited engagement with the app may have contributed to this.

Dataset Information

The effect of motivational lung age feedback on short-term quit rates in smokers seeking intensive group treatment: A randomized controlled pilot study.

Publications

The effect of motivational lung age feedback on short-term quit rates in smokers seeking intensive group treatment: A randomized controlled pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets