Cost-effectiveness of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation and relapse prevention among low-income pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. Use and cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation services under four insurance plans in a health maintenance organization. Results of a randomized controlled trial of intervention to implement smoking guidelines in Veterans Affairs medical centers: increased use of medications without cessation benefit. 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. Randomized controlled trial of a computer-based, tailored intervention to increase smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians. Predictors of smoking cessation in an incentive-based community intervention. Evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interventions with a self-help smoking cessation program. A randomized, controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention among people with a psychotic disorder. Impact of a brief motivational smoking cessation intervention the Get PHIT randomized controlled trial. The impact of financial incentives and a patient registry on preventive care quality: increasing provider adherence to evidence-based smoking cessation practice guidelines.
Low-income women have high rates of smoking during pregnancy, but little is known about the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI), focused on the medical and psychosocial needs of this population, as an intervention for smoking cessation and relapse prevention.
                A sample of 302 low-income pregnant women was recruited from multiple obstetrical sites in the Boston metropolitan area into a randomized controlled trial of a motivational intervention for smoking cessation and relapse prevention versus usual care (UC). The findings of this clinical trial were used to estimate the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from a societal perspective, incorporating published quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) estimates. Outcomes included smoking cessation and relapse, maternal and infant outcomes, economic costs, LYs and QALYs saved, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
                The cost-effectiveness of MI for relapse prevention compared to UC was estimated to be $851/LY saved and $628/QALY saved. Including savings in maternal medical costs in sensitivity analyses resulted in cost savings for MI for relapse prevention compared to UC. For smoking cessation, MI cost more but did not provide additional benefit compared to UC. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness of MI versus UC would have been $117,100/LY saved and $86,300/QALY saved if 8% of smokers had quit. In two-way sensitivity analyses, MI was still relatively cost-effective for relapse prevention ($17,300/QALY saved) even if it cost as much as $2000/participant and was less effective. For smoking cessation, however, a higher level of effectiveness (9/110) and higher cost ($400/participant) resulted in higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($112,000/QALY).
                Among low-income pregnant women, MI helps prevent relapse at relatively low cost, and may be cost-saving when net medical cost savings are considered. For smoking cessation, MI cost more but provided no additional benefit compared to UC, but might offer benefits at costs comparable to other clinical preventive interventions if 8-10% of smokers are induced to quit. Lack of information about the effect of insurance coverage on the demand for and use of smoking-cessation services has prevented widescale adoption of coverage for such services.
                In a longitudinal, natural experiment, we compared the use and cost effectiveness of three forms of coverage with those of a standard form of coverage for smoking-cessation services that included a behavioral program and nicotine-replacement therapy. The study involved seven employers and a total of 90,005 adult enrollees. The standard plan offered 50 percent coverage of the behavioral program and full coverage of nicotine-replacement therapy. The other plans offered 50 percent coverage of both the behavioral program and nicotine-replacement therapy (reduced coverage), full coverage of the behavioral program and 50 percent coverage of nicotine-replacement therapy (flipped coverage), or full coverage of both the behavioral program and nicotine-replacement therapy.
                Estimated annual rates of use of smoking-cessation services ranged from 2.4 percent (among smokers with reduced coverage) to 10 percent (among those with full coverage). Smoking-cessation rates ranged from 28 percent (among users with full coverage) to 38 percent (among those with standard coverage). The estimated percentage of all smokers who would quit smoking per year as a result of using the services ranged from 0.7 percent (with reduced coverage) to 2.8 percent (with full coverage). The average cost to the health plan per user who quit smoking ranged from $797 (with standard coverage) to $1,171 (with full coverage). The annual cost per smoker ranged from $6 (with reduced coverage) to $33 (with full coverage). The annual cost per enrollee ranged from $0.89 (with reduced coverage) to $4.92 (with full coverage).
                Use of smoking-cessation services varies according to the extent of coverage, with the highest rates of use among smokers with full coverage. Although the rate of smoking cessation among the benefit users with full coverage was lower than the rates among users with plans requiring copayments, the effect on the overall prevalence of smoking was greater with full coverage than with the cost-sharing plans. The AHRQ Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence recommends screening and treatment of all tobacco users. Effective methods to implement recommendations are needed because simple guideline dissemination does not necessarily result in changes in practice.
                The Guideline Implementation for Tobacco (GIFT) study tested an organizational intervention to improve Guideline implementation.
                GIFT randomized 20 Veterans Affairs medical centers to intervention or control conditions. We trained prime movers at each site to improve identification of smoking status, promote primary care interventions and increase availability of smoking cessation medications. Sites and patients were evaluated before and after intervention.
                GIFT included 20 Veterans Affairs medical centers and 5678 subjects.
                Data regarding smoking status, delivery of treatment, medication use, and smoking cessation were collected from participant surveys, medical record review, survey of site leaders, and Pharmacy Benefits Management.
                The intervention did not increase participant report of being asked about smoking status or receipt of counseling. It did increase the rate of identification of smoking status in the medical record (P = 0.0001) but did not increase the rate of counseling to stop smoking. Site level data showed no increase in the number of patients receiving smoking cessation medications or dollars spent on medications. Individual smoker data showed a significant increase in the use of medications for smoking cessation in intervention sites (odds ratio = 6.89, P < 0.0001); however, only a small minority of smokers received medication even after the intervention. There was no difference in smoking cessation rates between participants at the intervention and treatment sites.
                We conclude that improvements in smoking cessation rates are likely to require more intensive intervention in this population. 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. The primary care visit represents an important venue for intervening with a large population of smokers. However, physician adherence to the Smoking Cessation Clinical Guideline (5As) remains low. We evaluated the effectiveness of a computer-tailored intervention designed to increase smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians.
                Physicians and their patients were randomized to either intervention or control conditions. In addition to brief smoking cessation training, intervention physicians and patients received a one-page report that characterized the patients' smoking habit and history and offered tailored recommendations. Physician performance of the 5As was assessed via patient exit interviews. Quit rates and smoking behaviors were assessed 6 months postintervention via patient phone interviews. Intervention effects were tested in a sample of 70 physicians and 518 of their patients. Results were analyzed via generalized and mixed linear modeling controlling for clustering.
                Intervention physicians exceeded controls on "Assess" (OR 5.06; 95% CI 3.22, 7.95), "Advise" (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.70, 4.59), "Assist-set goals" (OR 4.31; 95% CI 2.59, 7.16), "Assist-provide written materials" (OR 5.14; 95% CI 2.60, 10.14), "Assist-provide referral" (OR 6.48; 95% CI 3.11, 13.49), "Assist-discuss medication" (OR 4.72;95% CI 2.90, 7.68), and "Arrange" (OR 8.14; 95% CI 3.98, 16.68), all p values being < 0.0001. Intervention patients were 1.77 (CI 0.94, 3.34,p = 0.078) times more likely than controls to be abstinent (12 versus 8%), a difference that approached, but did not reach statistical significance, and surpassed controls on number of days quit (18.4 versus 12.2, p < .05) but not on number of quit attempts.
                The use of a brief computer-tailored report improved physicians' implementation of the 5As and had a modest effect on patients' smoking behaviors 6 months postintervention. The Quit and Win Challenge, an incentive-based intervention, was implemented in two counties in Eastern Ontario to encourage adult smokers to quit smoking. Participants (n = 231) were compared with adult smokers selected at random (n = 385) from a larger, four-county area. Baseline characteristics were assessed by telephone interview, including socio-demographic and smoking-related factors. Follow-up interviews were also conducted by telephone. Initial and follow-up response rates were high (over 84%) in both groups. Compared with the random survey group, Quit and Win participants tended to be younger, more educated, employed and heavier smokers, with fewer friends or co-workers who smoked. After one year, 19.5% of them reported that they were smoke-free, whereas less than 1% of the random group had achieved cessation. This translates into an impact rate of 0.17%, affecting 1 in 588 adult smokers. With the exception of the smokers' baseline "stage of change," none of the socio-demographic or smoking factors was predictive of cessation. We conclude that this intervention achieved only limited success and attracted certain sectors of the community disproportionately, i.e. smokers who were highly motivated to quit. We argue that increased access to proven cessation therapies would improve the impact of such interventions. Personalized feedback and a financial incentive, developed from an intrinsic/extrinsic motivation framework, were evaluated as adjuncts to self-help materials for smoking cessation. Ss (N = 1,217) were randomized to 4 treatment groups and were followed up at 3 and 12 months. Consistent with hypotheses derived from the motivation framework, the financial incentive increased the use of self-help materials, did not increase cessation rates among program users, and was associated with higher relapse rates among those who did manage to quit. The personalized feedback increased both smoking cessation and use of the materials 3 months after distribution of the materials. Continuous abstinence (abstinence at 3 and 12 months) in the group that received the personalized feedback alone was twice the rate of the other groups. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Previous studies of financial incentives for smoking cessation in work settings have not shown that such incentives have significant effects on cessation rates, but these studies have had limited power, and the incentives used may have been insufficient.
                We randomly assigned 878 employees of a multinational company based in the United States to receive information about smoking-cessation programs (442 employees) or to receive information about programs plus financial incentives (436 employees). The financial incentives were $100 for completion of a smoking-cessation program, $250 for cessation of smoking within 6 months after study enrollment, as confirmed by a biochemical test, and $400 for abstinence for an additional 6 months after the initial cessation, as confirmed by a biochemical test. Individual participants were stratified according to work site, heavy or nonheavy smoking, and income. The primary end point was smoking cessation 9 or 12 months after enrollment, depending on whether initial cessation was reported at 3 or 6 months. Secondary end points were smoking cessation within the first 6 months after enrollment and rates of participation in and completion of smoking-cessation programs.
                The incentive group had significantly higher rates of smoking cessation than did the information-only group 9 or 12 months after enrollment (14.7% vs. 5.0%, P<0.001) and 15 or 18 months after enrollment (9.4% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001). Incentive-group participants also had significantly higher rates of enrollment in a smoking-cessation program (15.4% vs. 5.4%, P<0.001), completion of a smoking-cessation program (10.8% vs. 2.5%, P<0.001), and smoking cessation within the first 6 months after enrollment (20.9% vs. 11.8%, P<0.001).
                In this study of employees of one large company, financial incentives for smoking cessation significantly increased the rates of smoking cessation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00128375.)
                2009 Massachusetts Medical Society 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. Few studies have rigorously evaluated whether providing biologically based health-risk feedback is more effective than standard interventions in increasing smokers' motivation to quit and their long-term abstinence.
                An RCT was conducted from 2005 to 2008. Data were analyzed in 2008.
                Smokers (N=536) were recruited from the community, regardless of their interest in quitting smoking.
                Smokers either received brief ( approximately 20 minutes), personally tailored counseling sessions based on their lung functioning, carbon monoxide (CO) exposure, and smoking-related health conditions, or they received generic smoking-risk information and personalized counseling about their diet, BMI, and physical activity. All were advised to quit smoking and were offered access to a free phone-counseling program.
                Treatment utilization and abstinence at 6 and 12 months post-intervention.
                Participants who received the experimental treatment demonstrated no greater motivation to quit, use of treatment services, or abstinence compared to controls at either follow-up assessment. In fact, controls reported greater motivation to quit at 12 months (M 3.42 vs 3.20, p=0.03), greater use of pharmacotherapy at 6 months (37.8% vs 28.0%, p=0.02), and greater 30-day point prevalent abstinence at 6 months, after controlling for relevant covariates (10.8% vs 6.4%, adjusted p=0.04).
                The present study found no support for adding a personalized health-risk assessment emphasizing lung health and CO exposure to generic cessation advice and counseling for community-based smokers not otherwise seeking treatment.
                NCT00169260. This study tested the effects of two organizational support processes, the provision of financial incentives for superior clinical performance and the availability of a patient (smoker) registry and proactive telephone support system for smoking cessation, on provider adherence to accepted practice guidelines and associated patient outcomes.
                Forty clinics of a large multispecialty medical group practice providing primary care services were randomly allocated to study conditions. Fifteen clinics each were assigned to the experimental conditions "control" (distribution of printed versions of smoking cessation guidelines) and "incentive" (financial incentive pay-out for reaching preset clinical performance targets). Ten clinics were randomized to receive financial incentives combined with access to a centralized patient registry and intervention system ("registry"). Main outcome measures were adherence to smoking cessation clinical practice guidelines and patients' smoking cessation behaviors.
                Patients' tobacco use status was statistically significant (P < 0.01) more frequently identified in clinics with the opportunity for incentives and access to a registry than in clinics in the control condition. Patients visiting registry clinics accessed counseling programs statistically significantly more often (P < 0.001) than patients receiving care in the control condition. Other endpoints did not statistically significantly differ between the experimental conditions.
                The impact of financial incentives and a patient registry/intervention system in improving smoking cessation clinical practices and patient behaviors was mixed. Additional research is needed to identify conditions under which such organizational support processes result in significant health care quality improvement and warrant the investment.
Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting.  The absolute differences are small but the costs per additional quitter are low to moderate. We did not detect an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. The methodological qualities of the included studies need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.