Dataset Information

Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Affective disorders and symptoms (ADS) are predictive of lower odds of quitting smoking. However, it is unknown which approach to assessing ADS best predicts cessation. This study compared a battery of ADS screening instruments with a single, self-report question on predicting cessation. Among those who self-reported ADS, we also examined if an additional question regarding whether participants believed the condition(s) might interfere with their ability to quit added predictive utility to the single-item question.

Methods

Participants (N = 2637) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of web-based smoking treatments completed a battery of five ADS screening instruments and answered a single-item question about having ADS. Those with a positive self-report on the single-item question were also asked about their interference beliefs. The primary outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months.

Results

Both assessment approaches significantly predicted cessation. Screening positive for ≥ one ADS in the battery was associated with 23% lower odds of quitting than not screening positive for any (p = .023); those with a positive self-report on the single-item had 39% lower odds of quitting than self-reporting no mental health conditions (p < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the two assessment approaches were similar (p = .136). Adding the interference belief question to the single-item assessment significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (p = .042).

Conclusions

The single-item question assessing ADS had as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than the battery of screening instruments for identifying participants at risk for failing to quit smoking. Adding a question about interference beliefs significantly increased the predictive utility of the single-item question.

Implications

This is the first study to demonstrate that a single-item question assessing ADS has at least as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than a battery of validated screening instruments for identifying smokers at highest risk for cessation failure. This study also demonstrates adding a question about interference beliefs significantly adds to the predictive utility of a single, self-report question about mental health conditions. Findings from this study can be used to inform decisions regarding how to assess ADS in the context of tobacco treatment settings.

SUBMITTER: Watson NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7542639 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Two treatments for smoking cessation--varenicline and bupropion--carry Boxed Warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about suicidal/self-injurious behavior and depression. However, some epidemiological studies report an increased risk in smoking or smoking cessation independent of treatment, and differences between drugs are unknown. METHODOLOGY: From the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) database from 1998 through September 2010 we selected domestic, serious case reports for varenicline (n = 9,575), bupropion for smoking cessation (n = 1,751), and nicotine replacement products (n = 1,917). A composite endpoint of suicidal/self-injurious behavior or depression was defined as a case with one or more Preferred Terms in Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) for those adverse effects. The main outcome measure was the ratio of reported suicide/self-injury or depression cases for each drug compared to all other serious events for that drug. RESULTS: Overall we identified 3,249 reported cases of suicidal/self-injurious behavior or depression, 2,925 (90%) for varenicline, 229 (7%) for bupropion, and 95 (3%) for nicotine replacement. Compared to nicotine replacement, the disproportionality results (OR (95% CI)) were varenicline 8.4 (6.8-10.4), and bupropion 2.9 (2.3-3.7). The disproportionality persisted after excluding reports indicating concomitant therapy with any of 58 drugs with suicidal behavior warnings or precautions in the prescribing information. An additional antibiotic comparison group showed that adverse event reports of suicidal/self-injurious behavior or depression were otherwise rare in a healthy population receiving short-term drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline shows a substantial, statistically significant increased risk of reported depression and suicidal/self-injurious behavior. Bupropion for smoking cessation had smaller increased risks. The findings for varenicline, combined with other problems with its safety profile, render it unsuitable for first-line use in smoking cessation.

Project description:BackgroundEffectiveness of evidence-based behaviour change interventions is likely to be undermined by failure to deliver interventions as planned. Behavioural support for smoking cessation can be a highly cost-effective, life-saving intervention. However, in practice, outcomes are highly variable. Part of this may be due to variability in fidelity of intervention implementation. To date, there have been no published studies on this. The present study aimed to: evaluate a method for assessing fidelity of behavioural support; assess fidelity of delivery in two English Stop-Smoking Services; and compare the extent of fidelity according to session types, duration, individual practitioners, and component behaviour change techniques (BCTs).MethodsTreatment manuals and transcripts of 34 audio-recorded behavioural support sessions were obtained from two Stop-Smoking Services and coded into component BCTs using a taxonomy of 43 BCTs. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using percentage agreement. Fidelity was assessed by examining the proportion of BCTs specified in the manuals that were delivered in individual sessions. This was assessed by session type (i.e., pre-quit, quit, post-quit), duration, individual practitioner, and BCT.ResultsInter-coder reliability was high (87.1%). On average, 66% of manual-specified BCTs were delivered per session (SD 15.3, range: 35% to 90%). In Service 1, average fidelity was highest for post-quit sessions (69%) and lowest for pre-quit (58%). In Service 2, fidelity was highest for quit-day (81%) and lowest for post-quit sessions (56%). Session duration was not significantly correlated with fidelity. Individual practitioner fidelity ranged from 55% to 78%. Individual manual-specified BCTs were delivered on average 63% of the time (SD 28.5, range: 0 to 100%).ConclusionsThe extent to which smoking cessation behavioural support is delivered as specified in treatment manuals can be reliably assessed using transcripts of audiotaped sessions. This allows the investigation of the implementation of evidence-based practice in relation to smoking cessation, a first step in designing interventions to improve it. There are grounds for believing that fidelity in the English Stop-Smoking Services may be low and that routine monitoring is warranted.