Dataset Information

The Potential Effectiveness of COVID-Related Smoking Cessation Messages in Three Countries.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Health authorities are advising smokers to quit to reduce their COVID-related risk. The types of messages that may be effective in alerting smokers to this risk and encouraging a quit attempt are unknown. The aim of this study was to test a series of messages to identify potentially effective communication approaches.

Methods

An online survey was completed by 1509 smokers across three countries (Australia: n = 604; New Zealand: n = 304; United Kingdom: n = 601) in April-May 2020. Respondents were randomly assigned to view just one of four quit messages, two of which explicitly referred to the coronavirus, one referred to risk of chest infection, and one encouraged cessation for financial reasons. Outcome variables included quit intentions, further information seeking, message perceptions, and health and financial concerns.

Results

All four messages were associated with significant differences in the proportions of respondents intending to quit within the following 2 wk (increase range: 11%-34%) and with substantial proportions of respondents electing to access additional information (range: 37%-50%). The differences in intentions were significantly larger for the two health-related messages that specifically mentioned the coronavirus. All messages were perceived favorably in terms of acceptability, believability, effectiveness, and personal relevance. Negligible differences in health and financial concerns were observed.

Conclusions

Smokers in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom appear likely to be receptive to messages about their COVID-related risk. Such messages have the potential to increase quit intentions and prompt information-seeking behaviors.

Implications

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an opportunity to encourage smokers to quit to reduce both their COVID-related risks and their risks of a broad range of noncommunicable diseases.

SUBMITTER: Pettigrew S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8083603 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTailored, web-assisted interventions can reach many smokers. Content from other smokers (peers) through crowdsourcing could enhance relevance.PurposeTo evaluate whether peers can generate tailored messages encouraging other smokers to use a web-assisted tobacco intervention (Decide2Quit.org).MethodsPhase 1: In 2009, smokers wrote messages in response to scenarios for peer advice. These smoker-to-smoker (S2S) messages were coded to identify themes. Phase 2: resulting S2S messages, and comparison expert messages, were then e-mailed to newly registered smokers. In 2012, subsequent Decide2Quit.org visits following S2S or expert-written e-mails were compared.ResultsPhase 1: a total of 39 smokers produced 2886 messages (message themes: attitudes and expectations, improvements in quality of life, seeking help, and behavioral strategies). For not-ready-to-quit scenarios, S2S messages focused more on expectations around a quit attempt and how quitting would change an individual's quality of life. In contrast, for ready-to-quit scenarios, S2S messages focused on behavioral strategies for quitting. Phase 2: In multivariable analysis, S2S messages were more likely to generate a return visit (OR=2.03, 95% CI=1.74, 2.35), compared to expert messages. A significant effect modification of this association was found, by time-from-registration and message codes (both interaction terms p<0.01). In stratified analyses, S2S codes that were related more to "social" and "real-life" aspects of smoking were driving the main association of S2S and increased return visits.ConclusionsS2S peer messages that increased longitudinal engagement in a web-assisted tobacco intervention were successfully collected and delivered. S2S messages expanded beyond the biomedical model to enhance relevance of messages.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00797628 (web-delivered provider intervention for tobacco control [QUIT-PRIMO]) and NCT01108432 (DPBRN Hygienists Internet Quality Improvement in Tobacco Cessation [HiQuit]).

Project description:BackgroundSmoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting).MethodsTwenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsSpecialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference = -2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to -2.3; P < .001; for avoiding negative consequences, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 1.5 vs standard-card mean frequency rating = 1.0; mean difference = -0.5; 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.3; P < .001). Gain-framed counseling was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of abstinence at the 2-week follow-up (ie, 99 [23.3%] of the 424 in the gain-framed group vs 76 [12.6%] of the 603 in the standard-care group, P < .001) but not at the 3-month follow-up (ie, 148 [28.4%] of the 522 in the gain-framed group vs 202 [26.6%] of the 760 in the standard-care group, P = .48).ConclusionsQuitline specialists can be trained to provide gain-framed counseling with good fidelity. Also, gain-framed messages appear to be somewhat more persuasive than standard-care messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.