A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention among people with a psychotic disorder. Efficacy of resident training in smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled trial of a program based on application of behavioral theory and practice with standardized patients. A randomized trial of smoking cessation interventions in general practice in Italy. Integrated tobacco cessation counseling in a diabetes self-management training program: a randomized trial of diabetes and reduction of tobacco. Proactive interventions for smoking cessation in general medical practice: a quasi-randomized controlled trial to examine the efficacy of computer-tailored letters and physician-delivered brief advice. A randomized trial of a family physician intervention for smoking cessation. Training support persons to help smokers quit: a pilot study. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-provided intervention for hospitalised smokers. Preventing smoking relapse, using an individually tailored skills-training technique. A family physician smoking cessation program: an evaluation of the role of follow-up visits. Implementation and effectiveness of a brief smoking-cessation intervention for hospital patients. Effectiveness of a minimal contact smoking cessation program for Dutch general practitioners: a randomized controlled trial. A digital smoking cessation program delivered through internet and cell phone without nicotine replacement (happy ending): randomized controlled trial. Effects of behavioral skills training and schedule of nicotine gum administration on smoking cessation. [The effect of smoking cessation counseling at health checkup].
Despite extremely high rates of smoking among individuals with psychotic disorders and the associated financial and health costs, few studies have investigated the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among this group. The purpose of this study was to compare an integrated psychological and nicotine replacement therapy intervention for people with a psychotic disorder with routine care alone.
                The authors recruited 298 regular smokers with a psychotic disorder residing in the community and randomly assigned them to a routine care comparison condition (N=151) or an eight-session, individually administered smoking cessation intervention (N=147), which consisted of nicotine replacement therapy, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavior therapy. Outcome variables included continuous and point-prevalence abstinence rates, smoking reduction status, and changes in symptoms and functioning.
                While there were no overall differences between the treatment group and comparison group in abstinence rates, a significantly higher proportion of smokers who completed all treatment sessions stopped smoking at each of the follow-up occasions (point-prevalence rates: 3 months, 30.0% versus 6.0%; 6 months, 18.6% versus 4.0%; and 12 months, 18.6% versus 6.6%). Smokers who completed all treatment sessions were also more likely to have achieved continuous abstinence at 3 months (21.4% versus 4.0%). There was a strong dose-response relationship between treatment session attendance and smoking reduction status, with one-half of those who completed the intervention program achieving a 50% or greater reduction in daily cigarette consumption across the follow-ups, relative to less than one-fifth of the comparison subjects. There was no evidence of any associated deterioration in symptoms or functioning.
                These findings demonstrate the utility of a nicotine replacement therapy plus motivational interviewing/cognitive behavior therapy smoking cessation intervention among individuals with a psychotic disorder. Further development of more efficacious interventions is required for those who do not respond to existing interventions. New educational programs must be developed to improve physicians' skills and effectiveness in counseling patients about smoking cessation.
                To assess the efficacy of an educational program based on behavioral theory, active learning methods, and practice with standardized patients in helping patients abstain from smoking and changing physicians' counseling practices.
                Cluster randomized, controlled trial.
                Two general internal medicine clinics in Switzerland.
                35 residents and 251 consecutive smoking patients.
                A training program administered over two half-days, during which physicians learned to provide counseling that matched smokers' motivation to quit and practiced these skills with standardized patients acting as smokers at different stages of change. The control intervention was a didactic session on management of dyslipidemia.
                Self-reported abstinence from smoking at 1 year of follow-up, which was validated by exhaled carbon monoxide testing at one clinic; score of overall quality of counseling based on use of 14 counseling strategies; patient willingness to quit; and daily cigarette consumption.
                At 1 year of follow-up, abstinence from smoking was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (13% vs. 5%; P = 0.005); this corresponded to a cluster-adjusted odds ratio of 2.8 (95% CI, 1.4 to 5.5). Residents who received the study training provided better counseling than did those who received the control training (mean score, 4.0 vs. 2.7; P = 0.002). Smokers' willingness to quit was also higher in the intervention group (94% vs. 80%; P = 0.007). A nonsignificant trend toward lower daily cigarette consumption in the intervention group was observed.
                A training program in smoking cessation administered to physicians that was based on behavioral theory and practice with standardized patients significantly increased the quality of physicians' counseling, smokers' motivation to quit, and rates of abstinence from smoking at 1 year. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of different practice-based approaches to assist patients of primary care physicians to quit smoking and sustain cessation. Forty-four nonsmoking general practitioners volunteered for the study. After a period of training, they randomized 923 smoking clients, unselected for motivation toward quitting, to four different intervention groups: (i) minimal intervention, consisting of one single counselling session and a brief handout on quitting techniques; (ii) repeated counselling including reinforcing sessions at Months 1, 3, 6, and 9; (iii) repeated counselling and use of nicotine gum; and (iv) repeated counselling and spirometry. Biochemically validated smoking status was assessed at six and 12 months after recruitment. The proportion of verified quitters at 12 months was 4.8 percent among subjects randomized to the minimal intervention group, compared to 5.5 percent, 7.5 percent, and 6.5 percent among those randomized to the three repeated-counselling groups. In no treatment group was the outcome significantly different from that for one-time counselling at the (P less than 0.05) level. Lack of power, contamination, and low attendance at reinforcing sessions should be taken into account in interpreting the results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a tobacco cessation intervention using motivational interviewing on smoking cessation rates during diabetes self-management training (DSMT).
                A randomized controlled trial was conducted with subjects recruited from an ongoing type 2 diabetes adult education program at a large diabetes center. A total of 114 subjects were randomized to intervention (n = 57; face-to-face motivational interviewing plus telephone counseling and offering of medication) or standard care (n = 57). Outcome measures included tobacco cessation rates, mean number of cigarettes smoked, A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids.
                Intensive intervention using motivational interviewing integrated into a standard DSMT program resulted in a trend toward greater abstinence at 3 months of follow-up in those receiving the intervention. However, this same trend was not observed at 6 months. The addition of this structured smoking cessation intervention did not negatively affect either diabetes education or other measures of diabetes management, including A1C values.
                Structured tobacco cessation efforts can be readily integrated into established diabetes education programs without a negative impact on diabetes care or delivery of diabetes education. However, an intervention of moderate intensity for smoking cessation was no more effective than usual care in assisting patients with tobacco cessation after 6-month follow-up. Whether a more intensive intervention, targeting patients expressing a readiness to discontinue tobacco use, and/or a longer duration or a more cumulative effect of treatment will be more effective must be evaluated. To test the efficacy of (i) computer-generated tailored letters and (ii) practitioner-delivered brief advice for smoking cessation against an assessment-only condition; and to compare both interventions directly.
                Quasi-randomized controlled trial.
                A total of 34 randomly selected general practices from a German region (participation rate 87%).
                A total of 1499 consecutive patients aged 18-70 years with daily cigarette smoking (participation rate 80%).
                The tailored letters intervention group received up to three individualized personal letters. Brief advice was delivered during routine consultation by the practitioner after an onsite training session. Both interventions were based on the Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change.
                Self-reported point prevalence and prolonged abstinence at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-ups.
                Among participants completing the last follow-up, 6-month prolonged abstinence was 18.3% in the tailored letters intervention group, 14.8% in the brief advice intervention group and 10.5% in the assessment-only control group. Assuming those lost to follow-up to be smokers, the rates were 10.2%, 9.7% and 6.7%, respectively. Analyses including all follow-ups confirmed statistically significant effects of both interventions compared to assessment only. Using complete case analysis, the tailored letters intervention was significantly more effective than brief advice for 24-hour [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4; P = 0.047] but not for 7-day point prevalence abstinence (OR = 1.4; P = 0.068) for prolonged abstinence, or for alternative assumptions about participants lost to follow-up.
                The study demonstrated long-term efficacy of low-cost interventions for smoking cessation in general practice. The interventions are suitable to reach entire populations of general practices and smoking patients. Computer-generated letters are a promising option to overcome barriers to provide smoking cessation counselling routinely. We assessed the impact of three conditions on one-year smoking cessation rates. Physicians in 70 community general practices were randomly allocated by practice to one of three groups: In the usual care group, smoking patients were to receive the care they normally would receive. In the gum only group, physicians were asked to speak to patients about smoking cessation and offer nicotine gum. In the gum plus group, physicians were trained in the experimental intervention. This intervention involved advice to stop smoking, the setting of a quit date, the offer of nicotine gum, and four follow-up visits. Smoking cessation was measured by self-report after one year and validated using saliva cotinine measures. Using a criterion of at least three months of abstinence, 8.8% of the patients of the trained physicians had stopped smoking at the one-year follow-up compared with 4.4% and 6.1% of the patients in the usual care and gum only groups, respectively. Evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a skills-training intervention for adults interested in helping someone to stop smoking (i.e., support persons).
                Sixty adult support persons (77% female) were directly recruited from the community and randomly assigned to this intervention (manual plus five weekly group-based sessions) or a control condition (one-page leaflet). All intervention and outcome assessments occurred through the support persons. Assessments occurred at weeks 0 (baseline), 6 (end of treatment), 12, and 24. The study was conducted from 1998 to 2001; data collection occurred from 1999 to 2000. Outcomes were ratings of treatment acceptability, recruitment and retention rates, supportive behaviors provided to the smoker, and smoking behavior change in the smoker as reported by the support person.
                Support persons were recruited in a timely manner and study retention rates were high. Support persons in skills training showed significant increases in their supportive behavior scores compared with control subjects at weeks 6 and 12. Although not statistically significant, the skills-training intervention was associated with more quit attempts, greater improvement in stage of change, and higher 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates in the smokers than the control condition.
                A skills training intervention for support persons is feasible and acceptable. Further studies are needed to test the efficacy of this approach for smoking cessation. Does the provision of a nurse-based intervention lead to smoking cessation in hospital patients?
                At tertiary teaching hospital in Newcastle, Australia, 4,779 eligible (aged 18-80, admitted for at least 24 hours, and able to provide informed consent) and consenting (73.4%) in-patients were recruited into a larger cross-sectional survey. 1,422 (29.7%) smokers (in the last 12 months) were randomly assigned to control (n = 711) or intervention group (n = 711). The brief nurse-delivered intervention incorporated: tailored information, assessment of withdrawal, offer of nicotine replacement therapy, booklets, and a discharge letter. Self-reported cessation at 12 months was validated with CO and salivary cotinine.
                There were no significant differences between groups in self-reported abstinence at three or 12 months post intervention, based on an intention to treat analysis. At three months, self-reported abstinence was 27.3% (I) and 27.5% (C); at 12 months was 18.5% (I) and 20.6% (C). There were no differences in validation of self-report between intervention and control groups at 12 months.
                This brief nurse-provided in-patient intervention did not significantly increase the smoking cessation rates compared with the control group at either three or 12-month follow-up.
                A systematic total quality improvement model of accountable outcome-focused treatment, incorporating assertive physician-led pharmacotherapy, routine assessment and recording of nicotine dependence (ICD 10 coding), in- and outpatient services and engagement from multidisciplinary teams of health professionals may be required to improve treatment modalities for this chronic addictive disorder. The effectiveness of a relapse prevention program was studied in a population of 744 smokers. Subjects first attended an intensive 4-day series of 2-hr meetings in which they were trained to use more than 40 behavioral and cognitive smoking cessation techniques. At the 1-week follow-up session, those abstinent from smoking (79%, carbon monoxide verified) were randomly assigned to one of three follow-up conditions: (a) a three-session skills-training program in which subjects developed and actively rehearsed individually tailored coping strategies for likely relapse situations, (b) a three-session discussion control condition in which subjects discussed maintenance but did not develop or rehearse coping strategies, or (c) a no-treatment control condition. Survival analysis indicated higher abstinence rates for the skills-training group than for the control groups throughout the following year. After 12 months, the biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence rate was higher in the skills-training group (41.3%) than in the discussion and no-treatment groups (34.1% and 33.3%, respectively). Our purpose in this randomized clinical trial was to compare a two-visit smoking cessation intervention by family physicians with the same intervention supplemented by additional follow-ups. Forty-one southern Ontario family physicians volunteered for the study and subsequently participated in a four-hour training program on smoking cessation techniques. Physicians advised patients who smoked and indicated an interest in attempting to quit with the help of their physician to stop smoking at the end of a regularly scheduled visit. Physicians instructed patients to make a specific appointment for an evaluation of their smoking habits. Six hundred forty-seven patients returned for that assessment and were than randomized into either the two-visit intervention group (with risk assessment, support, the setting of a cessation date, self-help literature, and a prescription for nicotine gum, where appropriate) or into the other intervention group (with the same maneuvers as well as the offer of four more supportive follow-up visits). We found no statistically significant difference in one-year, biochemically validated, sustained cessation rates between the group offered the long-term follow-up visits (12.5%) and the group given the brief intervention (10.2%). The 95% confidence interval on the difference between the groups was 2.8% in favor of the brief intervention group to 7.3% in favor of the group offered follow-up. The results do not support the value of long-term follow-up visits for smokers. Previous research has documented that hospital-based smoking-cessation counseling is efficacious and cost-effective when delivered by research staff. This study evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of this intervention program when delivered by respiratory therapists chosen from the regular hospital staff.
                A total of 1,173 hospitalized smokers were randomly assigned to either usual care or a stage-based bedside counseling program supplemented with a videotape, self-help materials, and a follow-up telephone call.
                Using an intent-to-treat analysis and counting those lost to follow-up as smokers, we did not find a significant difference in outcome between intervention (14.2% reported being abstinent for > or =6 months at the 1-year follow-up) and usual care conditions (13.6% abstinence). Process analyses revealed that these results were due to a combination of failure to reach many patients and reduced effectiveness of respiratory therapist interventionists compared with experienced professional counselors in a previous study conducted in the same hospitals.
                We recommend implementation of hospital-based smoking-cessation counseling by professional counselors whose primary responsibility is to deliver the intervention. Recommendations for future research and for innovative ways to reach hospitalized smokers who are not receiving intervention are discussed. Until recently, Dutch general practitioners contributed little to tobacco control. This is due to several factors, among which is the lack of a feasible intervention program for adult smokers. Such a minimal contact behavioral intervention, using the Stage-of-Change concept, is now available. Effectiveness was tested in a randomized trial.
                Twenty-two general practitioners and their practice assistants were trained in applying the program. In all, 530 smoking patients were enrolled, randomly assigned to either the intervention or the usual treatment condition. Analysis of treatment effects was performed with logistic regression analysis. In a backward stepwise procedure confounding effects of baseline differences were eliminated.
                At 12-month follow-up, self-reported abstinence rates (including nonrespondents as smokers) differed significantly between intervention subjects and controls: 13.4 vs 7.3% point prevalence (odds ratio 1.51, P < 0.05). An analysis of consecutive abstinence, defined as being abstinent at both 6- and 12-month follow-up, showed that 8.2% of the intervention group compared to 3.1% of the controls had sustained abstinence for more than 6 months (odds ratio 3.04, P < 0.001).
                Results indicate that an effective smoking cessation program for use in Dutch general practice, already shown to be feasible, is now available. Outcomes are generally consistent with recent international literature.
                Copyright 2001 American Health Foundation and Academic Press. Happy Ending (HE) is an intense 1-year smoking cessation program delivered via the Internet and cell phone. HE consists of more than 400 contacts by email, Web pages, interactive voice response, and short message service technology. HE includes a craving helpline and a relapse prevention system, providing just-in-time therapy. All the components of the program are fully automated.
                The objectives were to describe the rationale for the design of HE, to assess the 12-month efficacy of HE in a sample of smokers willing to attempt to quit without the use of nicotine replacement therapy, and to explore the potential effect of HE on coping planning and self-efficacy (prior to quitting) and whether coping planning and self-efficacy mediate treatment effect.
                A two-arm randomized controlled trial was used. Subjects were recruited via Internet advertisements and randomly assigned to condition. Inclusion criteria were willingness to quit on a prescribed day without using nicotine replacement and being aged 18 years or older. The intervention group received HE, and the control group received a 44-page self-help booklet. Abstinence was defined as "not even a puff of smoke, for the last seven days" and was assessed by means of Internet surveys or telephone interviews 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postcessation. The main outcome was repeated point abstinence (ie, abstinence at all four time points). Coping planning and self-efficacy were measured at baseline and at the end of the preparation phase (ie, after 2 weeks of treatment, but prior to cessation day).
                A total of 290 participants received either the HE intervention (n=144) or the control booklet (n=146). Using intent-to-treat analysis, participants in the intervention group reported clinically and statistically significantly higher repeated point abstinence rates than control participants (20% versus 7%, odds ratio [OR] = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.60-7.34, P = .002). Although no differences were observed at baseline, by the end of the preparation phase, significantly higher levels of coping planning (t(261) = 3.07, P = .002) and precessation self-efficacy (t(261) = 2.63, P = .01) were observed in the intervention group compared with the control group. However, neither coping planning nor self-efficacy mediated long-term treatment effect. For point abstinence 1 month after quitting, however, coping planning and self-efficacy showed a partial mediation of the treatment effect.
                This 12-month trial documents a long-term treatment effect of a fully automated smoking cessation intervention without the use of nicotine replacement therapy. The study adds to the promise of using digital media in supporting behavior change. Eighty-nine smokers were randomly assigned to four nicotine gum treatments for smoking cessation: behavioral treatment plus a fixed schedule of nicotine gum, behavioral treatment plus an ad lib schedule, education plus a fixed schedule, and education plus an ad lib schedule. The four treatment conditions produced similar rates of abstinence (40.9% to 58.3%) at the end of 11 weeks of treatment. However, at 6-month follow-up, the subjects who had received behavioral treatment had a significantly better abstinence rate (36.7%) than those receiving education (17.5%). Nicotine gum schedule had no effect on treatment outcome. Smoking cessation counseling is an important element of tobacco control in the workplace, but it is not easy to persuade workers to stop smoking. We performed a controlled intervention trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new cessation program developed by Nakamura et al., which consisted of one brief individual counseling session and 4 follow-up telephone calls. Two hundred and twenty-eight smokers who visited our center for an annual health checkup were randomly divided into two group: 117 were assigned to the intervention group, and 111 were controls. Smoking status questionnaires were administered to assess the smoking habit of each subject and to evaluate their stages of change toward smoking cessation before the counseling session. Stage-matched cessation counseling was then provided to the intervention group by nurses who had completed training courses for this program. During the counseling session, carbon monoxide in expired air and nicotine metabolites in urine were measured to enhance self-perception of smoking. Only those clients who set a quit date during their counseling sessions received follow-up telephone calls. It was easy to implement this program (15 to 20 minutes long) during a health checkup. No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics of the two groups. The cross-sectional smoking cessation rates at 6 months and 1 year of follow-up were 6.2 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The continuous smoking cessation rate at 1 year of follow-up was 7.6 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group. In the intervention group, the lower level of nicotine metabolites in urine and higher smoking stage were related to cessation success, but other baseline characteristics were similar in those who quit smoking and those who did not. The effectiveness and easy applicability of this cessation program was proved in the present study. Further examinations in various settings are expected to clarify the effectiveness of this program.
Training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions had a measurable effect on the point prevalence of smoking, continuous abstinence and professional performance. The one exception was the provision of nicotine gum or replacement therapy, which did not differ between groups.