Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

NHS community pharmacies provide effective smoking cessation services; however, there is scope for increasing throughput and improving quit rates. This trial examines whether the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention can improve smoker engagement to increase service throughput, retention and quitting.

Methods

This study is a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial in 60 pharmacies in England and Wales. All workers in intervention pharmacies are offered STOP training while control pharmacies provide usual care. The STOP intervention, based on behavioural and organisational theories, comprises educational sessions for staff and environmental prompts in the pharmacy. Intervention fidelity is assessed by actors visiting pharmacies posing as smokers. The primary outcome is throughput, defined as the number of smokers who join the programme, set a firm quit date and undergo at least one stop smoking treatment session, and is measured using routinely collected data. Secondary outcomes include retention and quit rates at 4 weeks and continuous abstinence at 6 months verified by salivary cotinine. Cost-effectiveness is estimated using quality-adjusted life years and the probability that the intervention is effective at different levels of willingness to pay is calculated.

Discussion

The trial will generate evidence to inform the public health smoking cessation strategy in England and Wales, and may help to shape service commissioning decisions. The STOP intervention model may help inform the undertaking of a range of health behaviour change tasks in community pharmacies.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN16351033. Retrospectively registered on 21 March 2017.

SUBMITTER: Sohanpal R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6558670 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Sohanpal Ratna R Jumbe Sandra S James Wai-Yee WY Steed Liz L Yau Tammy T Rivas Carol C Madurasinghe Vichithranie V Houlihan Colin C Berdunisov Vlad V Taylor Matthew M Taylor Stephanie J C SJC Griffiths Chris C Eldridge Sandra S Walton Robert R

Trials 20190610 1

<h4>Background</h4>NHS community pharmacies provide effective smoking cessation services; however, there is scope for increasing throughput and improving quit rates. This trial examines whether the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention can improve smoker engagement to increase service throughput, retention and quitting.<h4>Methods</h4>This study is a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial in 60 pharmacies in England and Wales. All workers in intervention pharma ...[more]

PMID: 31182134

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunity pharmacies serve people with high levels of tobacco-related illness, but throughput in NHS Stop Smoking Services in pharmacies remains relatively low. We investigated the effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase service uptake and retention.MethodsWe randomised 60 pharmacies in England and Wales to the STOP intervention or usual practice in a pragmatic, parallel-group, controlled trial over 11 months. Smokers were blind to the allocation. The intervention was theory-based consultation skills training for pharmacy staff with environmental prompts (badges, calendars and behavioural cues). The primary outcome was the number of smokers attending an initial consultation and setting a quit date.ResultsThe intervention made no significant difference in setting a quit date, retention or quit rate. A total of 631 adult smokers (service users) enrolled and set a quit date in intervention pharmacies compared to 641 in usual practice pharmacies, a rate ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23) adjusted for site and number of prescriptions. A total of 432 (68%) service users were retained at 4 weeks in intervention and 500 (78%) in usual practice pharmacies (odds ratio 0.80, 0.41 to 1.55). A total of 265 (42%) service users quit smoking at 4 weeks in intervention and 276 (43%) in usual practice pharmacies (0.96, 0.65 to 1.43). The pharmacy staff were positive about the intervention with 90% (56/62) stating that it had improved their skills. Sixty-eight per cent would strongly recommend the training to others although there was no difference in self-efficacy for service delivery between arms. Seventy of 131 (53%) service users did not complete the 6-month follow-up assessment. However, 55/61 (90%) service users who completed follow-up were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. All usual practice arm service users (n = 33) and all but one in the intervention arm (n = 27) would recommend the service to smokers.ConclusionsWe found high levels of retention and acceptable quit rates in the NHS pharmacy stop smoking service. Despite pharmacy staff providing positive feedback on the STOP intervention, it made no difference to service throughput. Thus, other factors may currently limit service capacity to help smokers to quit.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN16351033 . Retrospectively registered.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Smokers are more likely to quit if they use the National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service (SSS). However, community pharmacies experience low service uptake. The Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) programme aims to address this problem by enhancing staff training using a theory-based intervention. In this study, we evaluated intervention fidelity using simulated smokers (actors) to assess smoker engagement and enactment of key intervention components by STOP trained staff. DESIGN:An observational pilot study. SETTINGS:Five community pharmacies in North East London with an NHS SSS. METHODS:Six actors, representative of East London's population, were recruited and trained to complete intervention fidelity assessments. Consenting pharmacy staff from five participating pharmacies received STOP Intervention training. Four weeks after the staff training, the actors visited the participating pharmacies posing as smokers eligible for smoking cessation support. Engagement behaviour by pharmacy staff and enactment of intervention components was assessed using a scoring tool derived from the STOP logic model (scoring range of 0-36), and contemporaneous field notes taken by actors. RESULTS:18 of 30 completed assessments were with STOP trained staff (10/18 were counter assistants). Mean score for smoker engagement was 24.4 (SD 9.0) points for trained and 16.9 (SD 7.8) for untrained staff, respectively. NHS SSS leaflets (27/30) were the most common smoking cessation materials seen on pharmacy visits. Most trained counter staff engaged with smokers using leaflets and a few proactively offered appointments with their cessation advisors. Appropriate use of body language was reported on 26/30 occasions alongside the use of key phrases from the STOP training session (n=8). Very few pharmacy staff wore STOP promotional badges (4/30). CONCLUSIONS:STOP training may change client engagement behaviour in pharmacy staff and could improve the uptake of the NHS SSS. A cluster randomised controlled trial is currently in progress to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN16351033.

Project description:BackgroundCigarette smoking negatively impacts on maternal and fetal health. Smoking cessation is one of the few interventions capable of improving pregnancy outcomes. Despite the risks, the most effective antenatal model of care for smokers is still unclear, and specific recommendations for screening for fetal growth restriction are absent.MethodsThis is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a dedicated smoking cessation clinic versus routine antenatal care as an intervention to reduce cigarette smoking behaviour. Smoking mothers randomised to the Smoking cessation Through Optimisation of clinical care in Pregnancy (STOP) clinic will have all antenatal care provided by a team comprising an obstetrician, a midwife, and a smoking cessation practitioner. This intervention includes ultrasound screening for fetal growth restriction. The control arm comprises two groups: one receiving standard care with ultrasound screening for fetal growth restriction, and one receiving standard care with ultrasound screening for growth restriction only if clinically indicated by their healthcare provider. Four hundred and fifty women will be recruited and randomised to either intervention or control arms stratifying for age, parity, and history of fetal growth restriction.ResultsThe primary outcome is self-reported, continuous abstinence from smoking between the quit date and end of pregnancy, validated by exhaled carbon monoxide or urinary cotinine. The quit date is targeted as being at or before 16 weeks' gestation and no further than 28 weeks' gestation. The secondary outcomes are a set of variables including maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, neonatal complications and delivery outcomes, smoking and psychological outcomes, and qualitative measures.ConclusionsDespite much research into cigarette smoking in pregnancy, the optimal model of care for these women is still unknown. This study has the potential to improve the model of antenatal care provided to pregnant women who smoke and to improve outcomes for both mother and infant.Trial registrationISRCTN11214785 . Registered on 8 February 2018.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a considerable body of evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions in individuals who wish to quit smoking. However, there are no large-scale studies testing the whole range of interventions currently recommended for helping people to give up smoking; specifically those interventions that include motivational interviews for individuals who are not interested in quitting smoking in the immediate to short term. Furthermore, many of the published studies were undertaken in specialized units or by a small group of motivated primary care centres. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped smoking cessation intervention based on a trans-theoretical model of change, applied to an extensive group of Primary Care Centres (PCC).Methods/designCluster randomised clinical trial. Unit of randomization: basic unit of care consisting of a family physician and a nurse, both of whom care for the same population (aprox. 2000 people). Intention to treat analysis.Study populationSmokers (n = 3024) aged 14 to 75 years consulting for any reason to PCC and who provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.Intervention6-month implementation of recommendations of a Clinical Practice Guideline which includes brief motivational interviews for smokers at the precontemplation - contemplation stage, brief intervention for smokers in preparation-action who do not want help, intensive intervention with pharmacotherapy for smokers in preparation-action who want help, and reinforcing intervention in the maintenance stage.Control groupusual care.Outcome measuresSelf-reported abstinence confirmed by exhaled air carbon monoxide concentration of <or= 10 parts per million. Points of assessment: end of intervention period and 1 and 2 years post-intervention; continuous abstinence rate for 1 year; change in smoking cessation stage; health status measured by SF-36.DiscussionThe application of a stepped intervention based on the stages of a change model is possible under real and diverse clinical practice conditions, and improves the smoking cessation success rate in smokers, besides of their intention or not to give up smoking at baseline.

Project description:Despite the health benefits of physical activity, data from the UK suggest that a large proportion of adolescents do not meet the recommended levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). This is particularly evident in girls, who are less active than boys across all ages and may display a faster rate of decline in physical activity throughout adolescence. The 'Girls Active' intervention has been designed by the Youth Sport Trust to target the lower participation rates observed in adolescent girls. 'Girls Active' uses peer leadership and marketing to empower girls to influence decision making in their school, develop as role models and promote physical activity to other girls. Schools are provided with training and resources to review their physical activity, sport and PE provision, culture and practices to ensure they are relevant and attractive to adolescent girls.This study is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to recruit 20 secondary schools. Clusters will be randomised at the school level (stratified by school size and proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) pupils) to receive either the 'Girls Active' intervention or carry on with usual practice (1:1). The 20 secondary schools will be recruited from state secondary schools within the Midlands area. We aim to recruit 80 girls aged 11-14 years in each school. Data will be collected at three time points; baseline and seven and 14 months after baseline. Our primary aim is to investigate whether 'Girls Active' leads to higher objectively measured (GENEActiv) moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in adolescent girls at 14 months after baseline assessment compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes include other objectively measured physical activity variables, adiposity, physical activity-related psychological factors and the cost-effectiveness of the 'Girls Active' intervention. A thorough process evaluation will be conducted during the course of the intervention delivery.The findings of this study will provide valuable information on whether this type of school-based approach to increasing physical activity in adolescent girls is both effective and cost-effective in the UK.ISRCTN10688342. Registered 12 January 2015.

Project description:BackgroundLess than 20% of adolescents globally meet recommended levels of physical activity, and not meeting these recommended levels is associated with social disadvantage and rising disease risk. The determinants of physical activity in adolescents are multilevel and poorly understood, but the school's social environment likely plays an important role. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adolescents.Methods and findingsNon-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students in the UK counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex were eligible for inclusion. Within participating schools (n = 16), all Year 9 students were eligible and invited to participate. Participants were 2,862 13- to 14-year-olds (84% of eligible students). After baseline assessment, schools were computer-randomised, stratified by school-level pupil premium funding (below/above county-specific median) and county (control: 8 schools, 1,319 participants, mean [SD] participants per school n = 165 [62]; intervention: 8 schools, 1,543 participants, n = 193 [43]). Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested 12-week intervention, aligned with self-determination theory, trained older adolescent mentors and in-class peer-leaders to encourage classes to conduct 2 new weekly activities. Students and classes gained points and rewards for engaging in any activity in or out of school. The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10-month follow-up; a mixed-methods process evaluation evaluated implementation. Of 2,862 recruited participants (52.1% male), 2,167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements; we analysed the primary outcome for 1,874 participants (65.5%). At 10 months, there was a mean (SD) decrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the intervention group (baseline-adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.91 minutes [-5.53 to 1.70], p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control; it was not cost-effective. Overall, 62.9% of students and 87.3% of mentors reported that GoActive was fun. Teachers and mentors commented that their roles in programme delivery were unclear. Implementation fidelity was low. The main methodological limitation of this study was the relatively affluent and ethnically homogeneous sample.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that a rigorously developed school-based intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at preventing declines in adolescent physical activity. Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational-setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN31583496.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review aims to identify the benefits and harms of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a smoking cessation aid in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) and to inform the development of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's (CTFPHC) clinical practice guidelines on e-cigarettes.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Embase Classic + Embase, and the Cochrane Library on Wiley. Searches were conducted from January 2016 to July 2019 and updated on 24 September 2020 and 25 January 2024. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening according to the pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction, quality assessments, and the application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another.ResultsWe identified 18 studies on 17 randomized controlled trials that compared e-cigarettes with nicotine to e-cigarettes without nicotine and e-cigarettes (with or without nicotine) to other interventions (i.e., no intervention, waitlist, standard/usual care, quit advice, or behavioral support). Considering the benefits of e-cigarettes in terms of smoking abstinence and smoking frequency reduction, 14 studies showed small or moderate benefits of e-cigarettes with or without nicotine compared to other interventions; although, with low, very low or moderate evidence certainty. With a focus on e-cigarettes with nicotine specifically, 12 studies showed benefits in terms of smoking abstinence when compared with usual care or non-nicotine e-cigarettes. In terms of harms following nicotine or non-nicotine e-cigarette use, 15 studies reported mild adverse events with little to no difference between groups and low to very low evidence certainty.ConclusionThe evidence synthesis on the e-cigarette's effectiveness shows data surrounding benefits having low to moderate evidence certainty for some comparisons and very low certainty for others, indicating that e-cigarettes may or probably increase smoking cessation, whereas, for harms, there is low to very low evidence certainty. Since the duration for outcome measurement varied among different studies, it may not be long-term enough for Adverse Events (AEs) to emerge, and there is a need for more research to understand the long-term benefits and potential harms of e-cigarettes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018099692.

Project description:BackgroundMedication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention.MethodsIn this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299.Findings72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months.InterpretationThe PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records.FundingPatient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care.DesignEconomic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon.SettingThirty NHS general practice sites in England.Participants1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS.InterventionsA standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites.MeasuresResource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated.Results866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost.Trial registration numberISRCTN11669964.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets