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. Extended cognitive behavior therapy for cigarette smoking cessation. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-provided intervention for hospitalised smokers. Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions for smoking cessation in actual clinical practice. Nurse case-managed tobacco cessation interventions for general hospital patients: results of a randomized clinical trial. 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 trial of nurse-assisted strategies for smoking cessation in primary care. Randomized controlled trial of a computer-based, tailored intervention to increase smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians. Motivational interviewing as a smoking cessation intervention for patients with cancer: randomized controlled trial. Integrated tobacco cessation counseling in a diabetes self-management training program: a randomized trial of diabetes and reduction of tobacco. 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. Effect of varying levels of disease management on smoking cessation: a randomized trial. Evaluation of a minimal-contact smoking cessation intervention in an outpatient setting. Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions integrated into primary care practice. Results of a randomized controlled trial of intervention to implement smoking guidelines in Veterans Affairs medical centers: increased use of medications without cessation benefit. Implementation and effectiveness of a brief smoking-cessation intervention for hospital patients. Treatment for cigarette smoking among depressed mental health outpatients: a randomized clinical trial. Weekly versus basic smoking cessation support in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. Cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression in smoking cessation. The effectiveness of two smoking cessation programmes for use in general practice: a randomised clinical trial. Relapse prevention versus broad spectrum treatment for smoking cessation: a comparison of efficacy. Nurse-assisted counseling for smokers in primary care. Effectiveness of a cognitive behaviour therapy self-help programme for smokers in London, UK. Evaluation of a Dutch community-based smoking cessation intervention. Contingency management and motivational enhancement: a randomized clinical trial for college student smokers. A comparison of alternative theoretical approaches to smoking cessation and relapse. Effectiveness of a minimal contact smoking cessation program for Dutch general practitioners: a randomized controlled trial. Smoking cessation in hospitalized patients. Results of a randomized trial. Behaviour therapy versus doctor's anti-smoking advice in diabetic patients. Smoking cessation intervention in a large randomised population-based study. The Inter99 study. [Effectiveness of a programme of intensive tobacco counselling by nursing professionals]. Behavior therapy and the transdermal nicotine patch: effects on cessation outcome, affect, and coping. Effectiveness of a cognitive orientation program with and without nicotine replacement therapy in stopping smoking in hospitalised patients. Adoption, reach and effectiveness of computer-based, practitioner delivered and combined smoking interventions in general medical practices: a three-arm cluster randomized trial. Peer-delivered smoking counseling for childhood cancer survivors increases rate of cessation: the partnership for health study. The efficacy of moderate-intensity exercise as an aid for smoking cessation in women: a randomized controlled trial.
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. PRIMARY AIM: Examine the effectiveness of extended cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) in promoting longer-term smoking abstinence.
                Open-label treatment phase followed by extended treatment phase. Randomization conducted prior to entry into open-label treatment phase; analysis based on intention-to-treat to avoid threat of selection bias.
                Community smoking cessation clinic.
                A total of 304 adult smokers (> or = 18 years of age; > or = 10 cigarettes/day).
                Open-label (8 weeks): all participants received bupropion SR, nicotine patch, CBT. Extended treatment (12 weeks): participants received either CBT + voicemail monitoring and telephone counseling or telephone-based general support.
                Seven-day point prevalence abstinence, expired-air carbon monoxide.
                At week 20 follow-up, CBT produced a higher 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate: 45% versus 29%, P = 0.006; at 52 weeks the difference in abstinence rates (31% versus 27%) was not significant. History of depression was a moderator of treatment. Those with a positive history had a better treatment response at 20 weeks when assigned to the less intensive telephone support therapy (P < 0.05).
                The superiority of CBT to 20 weeks suggests that continued emphasis on the development of cognitive and behavioral strategies for maintaining non-smoking during an extended treatment phase may help smokers to maintain abstinence in the longer term. At present, the minimum duration of therapy is unknown. 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. This study evaluated the effectiveness of behavioral interventions (brief counseling, nonspecific psychological support in groups - NSGS and cognitive behavioral group therapy - CBGT) in combination with bupropion SR for smoking cessation in the field, through a smoking cessation clinic.
                Two-hundred-and-five smokers were enrolled in a 19-week course during 2007/ 2008, and were randomly assigned to: bupropion SR combined with brief counseling (group A), bupropion SR combined with NSGS (group B), bupropion SR combined with CBGT (group C), or CBGT as the only approach (group D).
                Continuous abstinence rates at the end of therapy were 53.2% for group A, 62.9% for group B, 50.0% for group C, and 22.2% (p < 0.05) for group D. Sustained abstinence rates in 12 months were 29.6%, 28.1%, 34.3% and 19.4% (p > 0.05), respectively.
                Bupropion SR is an effective aid for smoking cessation in clinical practice. NSGT increased the chances for success at the end of therapy when combined with bupropion SR, while CBGT as monotherapy was less effective compared with the approaches including pharmacotherapy. It is suggested that smoking cessation interventions in real-life healthcare settings should be implemented through comprehensive programs using pharmacotherapy where applicable, combined with NSGT, and integrated by specialized healthcare professionals. This randomized clinical trial was designed to test the efficacy of intensive versus brief smoking cessation interventions for hospital patients. The interventions included advice and pamphlets for Brief and bedside counselling, take-home materials, and 7 post-discharge telephone counselling calls over 2 months for Intensive. Confirmed 1-year abstinence was 28% for Intensive (85/301) and 24% for Brief (76/315). Abstinence was significantly higher for patients who did not use pharmacotherapy (36%) versus those who did (16%) and for patients with CVD (40%) versus other diagnoses (20%). Because this was a replication trial, benchmarks for planning can be suggested: 12% to 15% recruitment of identified smokers, 90% plus completion for Intensive, 15% drop-out, and 75% abstinence corroboration. The results consolidate findings for general inpatients, including expected absolute abstinence and treatment outcomes, the effect of CVD patients on outcomes, the reproducibility of high abstinence in a universal health-care system, and the need for more research to inform practice. 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. Brief advice to stop smoking from general practitioners (GPs) has been repeatedly shown to increase smoking cessation by a small, but measurable amount. Some studies have suggested that adding more intensive interventions to brief advice may increase its effectiveness, but it is unclear whether this is true in general practice.
                To determine whether brief advice from a doctor together with counselling and follow-up from a trained practice nurse is more effective than brief advice alone in helping people to stop smoking.
                The design was a randomized controlled trial. Four hundred and ninety-seven general practice patients aged older than 18 years and smoking at least one cigarette per day in six general practices in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire were randomized to one of two interventions: brief verbal or written advice from a GP plus extended counselling and follow-up from a trained practice nurse; brief advice from a GP alone. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at three and 12 months. A secondary outcome was forward movement in the stages of change cycle.
                The proportion showing sustained abstinence was 3.6% in the extended counselling group, and 4.4% in the brief advice group (difference = -0.8%; 95% confidence interval = -4.3% to 2.6%). Seventy-four (30%) of those randomized to extended counselling actually took up this offer. No significant progression in stages of change was detected between the two groups.
                In unselected general practice patients who smoke, brief advice from a GP combined with intensive intervention and follow-up by a practice nurse is no more effective than brief advice alone. 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. Smoking cessation of patients with cancer can improve treatment efficacy and survival.
                To determine whether a motivational interviewing intervention increased successful smoking cessation attempts of patients with cancer attending a South Australian public hospital, as compared with usual care.
                A randomized controlled trial was used to study 137 patients with mixed cancer sites, including 74 intervention patients and 63 control patients. The motivational interviewing intervention was delivered over a 3-month period. The intervention included a visit with a smoking cessation counselor, provision of smoking cessation booklets, nicotine replacement therapy, family advice to quit, and an in-person or telephone follow-up conversation.
                At the 6-month follow-up visit, an intention-to-treat analysis found no difference in biochemically confirmed 3-month prevalence quit rates between the intervention (5%) and control (6%) groups. A sensitivity analysis using more lenient criteria indicated quit rates of 29% for the intervention group and 18% for the control group (p = .32). The predictors of smoking cessation at 6 months for all the patients included a smoking-related cancer site, more cessation attempts in the year before enrollment in the study, and no radiation therapy.
                Future efforts to improve smoking cessation in this patient group might focus on the delivery of more direct methods for encouraging spouse cessation and support to the patient in quitting, and the use of bupropion (Zyban) as an adjunct to cessation for this heavy smoking patient group. 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. 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. Cigarette smoking is a chronic, relapsing illness that is inadequately addressed in primary care practice.
                To compare cessation rates among smokers who receive pharmacotherapy alone or combined with either moderate- or high-intensity disease management that includes counseling and provider feedback.
                Randomized clinical trial from June 2004 to December 2007.
                50 rural primary care practices.
                750 persons who smoke more than 10 cigarettes per day.
                Pharmacotherapy alone (n = 250), pharmacotherapy supplemented with up to 2 counseling calls (moderate-intensity disease management) (n = 249), or pharmacotherapy supplemented with up to 6 counseling calls (high-intensity disease management) (n = 251). Interventions were offered every 6 months for 2 years. All participants were offered free pharmacotherapy. Moderate-intensity and high-intensity disease management recipients had postcounseling progress reports faxed to their physicians.
                Self-reported, point-prevalence smoking abstinence at 24 months (primary outcome) and overall (0 to 24 months) analyses of smoking abstinence, utilization of pharmacotherapy, and discussions about smoking with physicians (secondary outcomes). Research assistants who were blinded to treatment assignment conducted outcome assessments.
                Pharmacotherapy utilization was similar across treatment groups, with 473 of 741 (63.8%), 302 of 739 (40.9%), 175 of 732 (23.9%), and 179 of 726 (24.7%) participants requesting pharmacotherapy during the first, second, third, and fourth 6-month treatment cycles, respectively. Of participants who saw a physician during any given treatment cycle, 37.5% to 59.5% reported that they had discussed smoking cessation with their physician; this did not differ across the treatment groups. Abstinence rates increased throughout the study, and overall (0 to 24 months) analyses demonstrated higher abstinence among the high-intensity disease management group than the moderate-intensity disease management group (odds ratio [OR], 1.43 [95% CI, 1.00 to 2.03]) and among the combined disease management groups than the pharmacotherapy-alone group (OR, 1.47 [CI, 1.08 to 2.00]). Self-reported abstinence at 24 months was 68 of 244 (27.9%) and 56 of 238 (23.5%) participants in the high- and moderate-intensity disease management groups, respectively (OR, 1.33 [CI, 0.88 to 2.02]), and 56 of 244 (23.0%) participants in the pharmacotherapy-alone group (OR, 1.12 [CI, 0.78 to 1.61] for combined disease management vs. pharmacotherapy alone).
                The effect of pharmacotherapy management cannot be separated from the provision of free pharmacotherapy, and cessation was validated in only 58% of self-reported quitters.
                Smokers are willing to make repeated pharmacotherapy-assisted quit attempts, leading to progressively greater smoking abstinence. Although point-prevalence abstinence did not differ at 24 months, analyses that incorporated assessments across the full 24 months of treatment suggest that higher-intensity disease management is associated with increased abstinence.
                National Cancer Institute. We examined the ability of a provider-initiated, minimal-contact intervention to modify the smoking behavior of ambulatory clinic patients. Smokers at two outpatient sites were assigned to one of three groups: provider intervention only (PI); provider intervention plus self-help manual (PI/M); and usual care (control) group (C). The physician message emphasized the patient's personal susceptibility, the physician's concern, and the patient's ability to quit (self-efficacy). The nurse consultation concentrated on benefits and barriers associated with stopping, and on strategies for cessation. Telephone interviews were conducted with the 250 participants within a few days of their clinic visit and again at one and six months. Both PI and PI/M proved to be superior to usual care in motivating attempts to quit at both one-month and six-month follow-ups, and logistic regression analyses indicated that participants receiving the self-help manual in addition to the health provider message were between two and three times more likely to quit smoking during the study period than were participants in either of the other study groups. Using a complete factorial design, we tested three interventions for smoking cessation in routine primary care practice. The interventions tested were 1) physician counseling, 2) mailed letters and educational materials designed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and 3) referral to smoking cessation classes. Thirty-seven family practice physicians at three of Group Health's outpatient facilities participated. Patient participation rates were 95%, and follow-up was complete for 92% of those participating. None of the interventions had any effect on point prevalence of quitting as determined 8-9 months later by self-report. However, the combination of physician counseling and NCI materials doubled the odds of occurrence of significant antismoking behavior (quit, quit and relapse, or cut down) during the ensuing 8-9 months in those individuals receiving that combination. Referral to smoking cessation classes was strikingly ineffective in this setting. Of 369 individuals designated by study design for referral, only 14% even investigated the classes. This compares with a 10% self-referral rate for those persons not designated for referral by our study design. Our results and other recent work suggest that more intensive interventions on multiple occasions based on relapse prevention strategies hold promise for future success in smoking cessation efforts in primary care. 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. 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. Using a brief contact control, we tested the efficacy of a staged care intervention to reduce cigarette smoking among psychiatric patients in outpatient treatment for depression.
                We conducted a randomized clinical trial that included assessments at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, and 18. Three hundred twenty-two patients in mental health outpatient treatment who were diagnosed with depression and smoked > or =1 cigarette per day participated. The desire to quit smoking was not a prerequisite for participation. Staged care intervention participants received computerized motivational feedback at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months and were offered a 6-session psychological counseling and pharmacological cessation treatment program. Brief contact control participants received a self-help guide and referral list of local smoking-treatment providers.
                As we hypothesized, abstinence rates among staged care intervention participants exceeded those of brief contact control participants at months 12 and 18. Significant differences favoring staged care intervention also were found in occurrence of a quit attempt and stringency of abstinence goal.
                The data suggest that individuals in psychiatric treatment for depression can be aided in quitting smoking through use of staged care interventions and that smoking cessation interventions used in the general population can be implemented in psychiatric outpatient settings. There is insufficient and conflicting evidence about whether more intensive behavioural support is more effective than basic behavioural support for smoking cessation and whether primary care nurses can deliver effective behavioural support.
                A randomised controlled trial was performed in 26 UK general practices. 925 smokers of >or=10 cigarettes per day were randomly allocated to basic or weekly support. All participants were seen before quitting, telephoned around quit day, and seen 1 and 4 weeks after the initial appointment (basic support). Participants receiving weekly support had an additional telephone call at 10 days and 3 weeks after the initial appointment and an additional visit at 2 weeks to motivate adherence to nicotine replacement and renew quit attempts. 15 mg/16 h nicotine patches were given to all participants. The outcome was assessed by intention to treat analyses of the percentage confirmed sustained abstinence at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after quit day.
                Of the 469 and 456 participants in the basic and weekly arms, the numbers (%) who quit and the percentage difference were 105 (22.4%) vs 102 (22.4%), 0.1% (95% CI -5.3% to 5.5%) at 4 weeks, 66 (14.1%) vs 52 (11.4%), -2.6% (95% CI -6.9% to 1.7%) at 12 weeks, 50 (10.7%) vs 40 (8.8%), -1.9% (95% CI -5.7% to 2.0%) at 26 weeks and 36 (7.7%) vs 30 (6.6%), -1.1% (95% CI -4.4% to 2.3%) at 52 weeks.
                The absolute quit rates achieved are those expected from nicotine replacement alone, implying that neither basic nor weekly support were effective. Primary care smoking cessation treatment should provide pharmacotherapy with sufficient support only to ensure it is used appropriately, and those in need of support should be referred to specialists. Cigarette smokers with past major depressive disorder (MDD) received 8 group sessions of standard, cognitive-behavioral smoking cessation treatment (ST; n = 93) or standard, cognitive-behavioral smokiig cessation treatment plus cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression (CBT-D; n = 86). Although abstinence rates were high in both conditions (ST, 24.7%; CBT-D, 32.5%, at 1 year) for these nonpharmacological treatments, no main effect of treatment was found. However, secondary analyses revealed significant interactions between treatment condition and both recurrent depression history and heavy smoking ( > or =25 cigarettes a day) at baseline. Smokers with recurrent MDD and heavy smokers who received CBT-D were significantly more likely to be abstinent than those receiving ST (odds ratios = 2.3 and 2.6, respectively). Results suggest that CBT-D provides specific benefits for some, but not all, smokers with a history of MDD. To evaluate a structured, behavioural change, smoking cessation intervention designed for use within general practice.
                Randomised controlled clinical trial.
                General practices in Newcastle, Australia.
                311 Patients identified as smokers by a screening question were enrolled in the study. Of these, 101 were assigned to a structured behavioural change programme, 104 to a simple advice programme adapted from previous research, and 106 to a control group. No significant differences were found between groups for demographic and smoking related variables before the study.
                Patients in the simple advice group received a brief statement of advice from the general practitioner as well as three pamphlets; those in the structured intervention group were given strategies which included attitude and behavioural change programmes as well as techniques to aid compliance. The amount of smoking in all groups was assessed by self reports with validation by measurement of salivary cotinine concentrations.
                Significant increase in cessation rates.
                Significant differences between controls and the structured behavioural change group were found at the one month follow up, but only for self reported abstinence. The simple advice programme did not produce any significant differences over the control group. General practitioner evaluation of the structured programme highlighted difficulties in relation to the duration of the intervention. Overall the structured programme in its present form did not appear to be an effective programme for use within general practice. The efficacy of a smoking cessation relapse prevention (RP) program, emphasizing cognitive-behavioral coping skills, was compared to that of a broad spectrum (BS) program, which emphasized behavioral skills. It was hypothesized that the RP program would be more effective in producing long-term abstinence, compared to the BS package. Abstinence rates validated by saliva thiocyanate and carbon monoxide, as well as self-report of smoking reduction, were measured at posttreatment, 3 and 6 months. No differences in posttreatment quit rates were found between the two groups, although both programs produced significantly higher quit rates than the wait-list control group. Contrary to prediction, the BS group produced marginally significantly greater abstinence at 3 months. No differences in abstinence were found at 6 months. Reduction in cigarette consumption was marginally significantly greater for the BS group at 3 and 6 months. Various mediators of treatment outcome were not found to influence success in quitting. There was a significant weight gain in those who quit. Physician-delivered advice to stop smoking is effective, but time demands often reduce the number of smokers who receive assistance. We evaluated three nurse-assisted interventions designed to minimize physician burden and increase counseling in primary care settings.
                Randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up.
                Internal medicine and family practice offices in a health maintenance organization.
                Smokers (n = 3161) who were patients of participating physicians or other medical care providers (n = 60).
                Medical care providers delivered a 30-second stop-smoking prompt to 2707 smokers and referred them to an on-site nurse smoking counselor. The nurse randomly provided a two-page pamphlet (advice control) or one of three nurse-assisted interventions: 1) self-quit training; 2) referral to a group cessation program; or 3) a combination of self-quit training and referral. Each nurse-delivered intervention included a 10-minute video, written materials, and a follow-up phone call.
                Physicians delivered brief advice to 86% of identified smokers during the 1-year program. The proportion of participants reporting abstinence after both 3 and 12 months of follow-up nearly doubled (P = 0.01) for the nurse-assisted self-quit (7.1%), group-referral (7.6%), and combination (6.9%) interventions, compared to brief physician advice alone (3.9%) (P < 0.05). Saliva cotinine tests confirmed these effects (P < 0.004), although quit rates were lower (3.4%, 4.7%, 4.3%, and 2.3%, respectively) because roughly one half of quitters chose not to provide a saliva sample and were counted as smokers.
                Involving nurses in counseling smokers reduces physician burden, makes counseling more likely, and significantly increases cessation rates compared with brief physician advice alone. One of the key goals of health promotion strategies in the UK and other developed countries is to reduce the prevalence of cigarette consumption. While overall smoking rates in the UK have fallen over the last few decades, they have barely fallen for the least advantaged adults (Department of Health, 1998a). There is a need for interventions that are suitable for lower socio-economic status (SES) smokers that have undergone rigorous evaluation. This study describes a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) with smokers from a deprived area of London. At 6 months follow-up, 21 (17.2%) of 122 participants receiving therapy were abstinent and 14 (11.5%) had reduced cigarette consumption by at least 25% of pre-treatment level. Six (5.6%) of 107 participants in the control group were abstinent and none had reduced consumption. These results suggest that this self-help CBT intervention has the potential to reduce the prevalence of smoking among lower SES smokers. Until 1990, smoking cessation interventions in the Netherlands were limited. The utility and effectiveness of community-based smoking cessation programs have not been examined.
                In a treatment city (Den Bosch) a multicomponent community-based smoking cessation intervention was implemented in which local mass media and general practitioners draw smokers' attention to a local quit line. Telephone counselors advised applicants on their choice between self-help and group treatment and optional telephone counseling. Another Dutch city (Apeldoorn) served as a control. Population samples of smokers (n = 547 and n = 546) were interviewed three times at approximately 7-month intervals. Self-help manual requesters (n = 84) and group participants (n = 83) were interviewed before and 6 months after treatment.
                Treatment modalities were successful; 13% of self-help manual requesters and 22% of group participants were abstinent after 6 months. On a population level the intervention resulted in significantly higher recall of self-help manual and group program in the treatment city. A modest intervention effect on prevalence of abstinence was found at the community level.
                Treatment modalities were effective within their participants, but the intervention effectiveness on a community level was limited. No significant difference was found between quit rates after 14 months (7% in treatment city and 9% in control city). Several system failures could be identified. However, probably the intervention effect was seriously confounded by two national governmental publicity campaigns introducing and reinforcing a mandatory smoking ban and a series of national campaigns initiated by the united Dutch tobacco producers opposing the ban. The efficacy of contingency-management (CM) and motivational enhancement therapy (MET) for college student smoking cessation was examined.
                Nontreatment-seeking daily smokers (N = 110) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of CM versus noncontingent reinforcement (NR) and to three individual sessions of MET versus a relaxation control in a 2 x 2 experimental design. Expired carbon monoxide (CO) samples were collected twice daily for 3 weeks. Participants earned 5 US dollars for providing each sample; additionally, those randomized to CM earned escalating monetary rewards based on CO reductions (Week 1) and smoking abstinence (Weeks 2-3).
                Compared with NR, CM resulted in significantly lower CO levels and greater total and consecutive abstinence during the intervention. Those in the CM and MET groups reported greater interest in quitting smoking posttreatment, but rates of confirmed abstinence at follow-up were very low (4% at 6-month follow-up) and did not differ by group.
                Findings support the short-term efficacy of CM for reducing smoking among college students. Future research should explore enhancements to CM in this population, including a longer intervention period and the recruitment of smokers who are motivated to quit. Two theoretical approaches to smoking cessation were compared. Participants were randomly assigned either to (a) a traditional treatment program that used contingency contracting and that emphasized the necessity for absolute abstinence (AA) or to (b) a relapse-prevention (RP) treatment that focused on gradual acquisition of nonsmoking skills. It was hypothesized that participants in the RP treatment would be less successful initially but would have better maintenance skills and thus would relapse less during a 1-year follow-up period. Each program was evaluated in two formats: group-based treatment and self-help materials. Results indicated comparable 1-year abstinence rates for all treatments, although more participants dropped out of the self-help formats. Participants in the RP intervention were more likely to lapse sooner after quitting and were more likely to quit again during the 1-year maintenance period. Exploratory analyses of successful participants suggested that women were more successful in the RP program and that men had greater success with the AA approach. 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. Few research studies have evaluated the effectiveness of smoking interventions in hospitalized patients. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of 2 smoking cessation programs in patients hospitalized in 4 community hospitals in a large health maintenance organization within the San Francisco Bay Area in California.
                Patients were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 990), nurse-mediated, behaviorally oriented inpatient counseling focused on relapse prevention with 1 postdischarge telephone contact (minimal intervention, n = 473), or the same inpatient counseling with 4 postdischarge telephone contacts (intensive intervention, n = 561). The main outcome measure, smoking cessation rate, was corroborated by plasma cotinine determination or family confirmation, 1 year after enrollment.
                At 1 year smoking cessation rates were 27%, 22%, and 20% for intensive intervention, minimal intervention, and usual care groups, respectively (P = .009 for intensive vs usual care). Subgroup analyses by diagnosis revealed that the odds of cessation among patients with cardiovascular disease or other internal medical conditions were greater among those receiving the intensive intervention than among their counterparts receiving usual care (odds ratios, 1.6 and 2.0, respectively).
                A multicomponent smoking cessation program consisting of physician advice; in-hospital, nurse-mediated counseling; and multiple postdischarge telephone contacts was effective in increasing smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers. Hospital-wide smoking cessation programs could substantially increase the effectiveness of hospital smoking bans. To evaluate the efficacy of a structured behaviour therapy programme on smoking cessation in diabetic patients.
                Prospective, randomized, controlled intervention study.
                University out-patient diabetes clinic.
                A total of 794 consecutive insulin-treated smoking diabetic patients were invited to participate in a smoking cessation programme. Eighty-nine patients agreed to participate and were randomized in two groups.
                Forty-four patients were randomized to a structured extensive behaviour therapy anti-smoking intervention and 45 patients to a control group that received a single unstructured anti-smoking advice session given by a physician.
                After 6 months, nine patients were confirmed not to be smoking (i.e. urine cotinine concentration below 20 ng ml-1, 2 [5%] in the behaviour therapy intervention group and 7 [16%] in the control group.
                In diabetic patients an extensive behaviour therapy intervention for smoking cessation is no more successful than an unstructured physician's advice. Several large and well-conducted community interventions have failed to detect an effect on prevalence of smoking.
                Two thousand four hundred eight daily smokers in all motivational stages were actively recruited and included in a randomised population-based intervention study in Copenhagen, Denmark. All smokers completed a questionnaire and underwent a health examination and a lifestyle consultation. Daily smokers in the high intensity intervention group were offered assistance to quit in smoking cessation groups.
                The validated abstinence rate at 1-year follow-up was 16.3% in the high intensity group and 12.7% in the low intensity group compared with a self-reported abstinence rate of 7.3% in the background population. The adjusted odds ratio of abstinence in the high intervention group was significantly higher, OR = 2.2 (1.6-3.0) than in the background population, also in the 'intention-to-treat' analyses, OR = 1.5 (1.1-2.0). Higher socioeconomic status, higher age at onset of daily smoking, and a higher wish to quit were predictors of success.
                In a population-based setting, using active recruitment and offering assistance to quit, it was possible to include many smokers and to achieve a significantly higher validated abstinence in the high intensity intervention than in the background population, even when using 'intention-to-treat' analyses. To determine the effectiveness of a systematic intensive tobacco counselling programme conducted by nursing professionals.
                Randomised clinical trial with control.
                Primary care nursing and medical consultations.
                Smokers requesting help in our centre's medical clinics during the recruitment period, up to the sample size required (125). Inclusion criteria were: aged between 18 and 70, people who smoked during the preceding month any number of cigarettes a day, and a score over 7 on the Richmond test.
                The patients recruited were randomised, according to the clinic from which they came, to the group that received brief counselling from the doctor (control group) or to the group that received brief counselling plus nursing follow-up (intervention group). Follow-up visits were programmed in this latter group for up to 3 months after giving up smoking.
                Abstinence at 12 and 24 months.
                The effectiveness of the intervention considered as the rate of abstinence at 12 months was 13.8% (95% CI, 6.5-24.7) in the control group and 6.7% (95% CI, 1.8-16.2) in the intervention group, with no significant differences between the two.
                In smokers seen in primary care, the effectiveness of a programme of intensive tobacco counselling by nursing staff is no more effective than the doctor's brief, one-off counselling. Brief counselling has a better cost-effectiveness relationship than intensive counselling. The process and outcome of a smoking cessation program using behavior therapy alone (BT) or behavior therapy plus the nicotine patch (BTP) was studied in 64 participants. Participants quit smoking on a target date after a period of ad libitum smoking, cognitive-behavior therapy preparing them for cessation, and behavioral rehearsal for high-risk situations, including stress management, and coping with negative affect. Abstinence was significantly higher for the BTP group versus the BT group from the end of behavioral treatment (79% vs. 63%) through the 3-month follow-up (p < .01), with the effects weakening at the 6- (p = .06) and 12-month marks (p = 38% vs. 22%). More general distress was observed among BT versus BTP participants (i.e., increased withdrawal, tension, fatigue, and coping frequency with decreased coping effort; coping-to-urge ratio). The coping behavior of the BTP group may have been more effective than that of the BT group, as indicated by their significantly higher level of self-efficacy. We analysed the effectiveness of a high intensity behavioural-cognitive intervention compared to minimal intervention started during a hospital stay, to see if the combination of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) can increase the quitting rate at 12 months of follow up.
                A total of 2560 active smokers were studied during their hospital stay. Of these, 717 smokers refused to enter the study and after a minimal intervention they were asked if we could telephone them after one year to ask if they still smoked. The remaining 1843 smokers who received high intensity cognitive therapy were randomised to receive or not receive NRT. The follow up after discharge was carried out by outpatient visits or with telephone sessions.
                At one year of follow up, 7% of those who declined to enter the study had stopped smoking compared to 27% of those who entered the study (p<0.001). There were significant differences between the group that only had behavioural therapy (21% stopped) compared to the group that also had NRT (33% stopped; p=0.002). In this latter group there were significant differences (p=0.03) between those who had follow up in clinics (39% stopped) compared to those who were followed up telephone sessions (30%). In the multivariate analysis, the predictors of quitting at 12 months were: to have used NRT (OR 12.2; 95% CI, 5.2-32; p=0.002) and a higher score in the Richmond Test (OR 10.1; 95% CI, 3.9-24.2; p=0.01).
                A cognitive type intervention started on smokers when admitted to hospital increases quitting rates at 12 months, compared to a minimal intervention, and these rates increase even more significantly if NRT is added.
                Copyright © 2010 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved. Brief advice for smoking patients has not been sufficiently integrated in routine care. Computer-based interventions emerged as a time saving option that might help to exhaust the potential population impact of the general practice setting.
                151 practices were randomly assigned to one of three intervention programs consisting in the delivery of: (1) brief advice by the practitioner; (2) individually tailored computer-generated letters; or (3) a combination of both interventions. We assessed three dimensions of population impact: (1) adoption, i.e., the rate of practices participating in the program; (2) reach, measured as the number of interventions provided within 7 months; (3) effectiveness, measured as smoking abstinence at 12-months follow-up.
                Among the practices, 70% adopted the program with no significant differences across study groups. Treatment was provided to 3086 adult smokers. Negative binomial regression analysis revealed that the number of interventions provided was higher in practices allocated to the tailored letter and combination intervention groups by 215% (p<.01) and 127% (p=.02), respectively, compared to the brief advice intervention group. Among the patients who received the combination of both intervention, the odds of point abstinence from smoking was increased by 65% (p=.02) and 32% (p=.01) compared to the brief advice and tailored letters intervention respectively. Comparing the number of abstinent patients at follow-up revealed that the tailored letter and combination interventions were superior to the brief advice intervention.
                Computer-based interventions alone or in addition to conventional practitioner-delivered advice can foster the participation of general medical practices in tobacco control.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Cancer survivors smoke at rates that are only slightly lower than the general population. This article reports on the final outcomes of Partnership for Health, a smoking cessation intervention for smokers in the Childhood Cancer Survivors Study (CCSS).
                This study is a randomized control trial with follow-up at 8 and 12 months that involved smokers (n = 796) enrolled onto the CCSS cohort. Participants were randomly assigned to either a self-help or a peer-counseling program that included up to six telephone calls from a trained childhood cancer survivor, tailored and targeted materials, and free nicotine replacement therapy. The intervention was delivered by telephone and postal service mail.
                The quit rate was significantly higher in the counseling group compared with the self-help group at both the 8-month (16.8% v 8.5%; P < .01) and 12-month follow-ups (15% v 9%; P < or = .01). Controlling for baseline self-efficacy and readiness to change, the intervention group was twice as likely to quit smoking, compared with the self-help group. Smoking cessation rate increased with an increase in the number of counseling calls. The cost of delivering the intervention was approximately 300 dollars per participant. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with controls was 5,371 dollars per additional quit.
                Interventions to prevent future illnesses are of critical importance to childhood cancer survivors. The Partnership for Health intervention resulted in a doubling of smoking cessation quit rates. Because of the seriousness of smoking among childhood cancer survivors, this intervention model may be appropriate as a multicomponent treatment program for survivors who smoke. Evidence suggests that vigorous-intensity exercise interventions may be effective for smoking cessation among women; however, few studies have examined the efficacy of a moderate-intensity exercise program. The present study examined the efficacy of moderate-intensity exercise for smoking cessation among female smokers. Healthy, sedentary female smokers (N = 217) were randomly assigned to an 8-week cognitive-behavioral smoking cessation program plus moderate-intensity exercise (CBT+EX) or to the same cessation program plus equal contact (CBT). A subsample received nicotine replacement therapy. Results indicated that the CBT+EX and CBT groups were equally likely to attain smoking cessation at the end of treatment, as measured by cotinine-verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (20.2% for CBT+EX vs. 18.5% for CBT). The CBT+EX group was more likely to report smoking cessation, as measured by 7-day point prevalence at the 3-month follow-up (11.9% vs. 4.6%, p<.05), compared with the CBT group. No group differences were found at 12 months by either 7-day point prevalence (7.3% for CBT+EX vs. 8.3% for CBT) or continuous abstinence (0.9% for CBT+EX vs. 0.9% for CBT). Additionally, among participants in the CBT+EX group, those with higher adherence to the exercise prescription were significantly more likely to achieve smoking cessation at the end of treatment than were participants reporting lower adherence to exercise. Our findings indicate that the empirical support for moderate-intensity exercise as an adjunctive treatment to CBT for smoking cessation may be limited. Perhaps future studies could compare moderate- vs. vigorous-intensity physical activity to test their relative efficacy.
Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.