Support Provided by Stop-Smoking Practitioners to Co-users of Tobacco and Cannabis: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Co-use of tobacco and cannabis is highly prevalent among cannabis users and is associated with poorer tobacco cessation outcomes. This study explored the barriers and enablers influencing stop-smoking practitioners' ability to provide optimal support to co-users. AIMS AND METHODS: Online semi-structured interviews were audio recorded. Interviewees (n = 20) were UK-based certified stop-smoking practitioners. An interview schedule informed by the "capability", "opportunity", "motivation" (COM-B) model was designed to explore participants' perceived barriers and enablers in better supporting co-users to achieve abstinence of both substances or tobacco harm reduction. The transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Capability: Practitioners' lack of knowledge and skills undermines their delivery of smoking cessation interventions to co-users. Interestingly, when cannabis is used for medicinal reasons, practitioners feel unable to provide adequate support. Opportunity: Service recording systems play an important role in screening for co-use and supporting co-users. When responding to clients' specific needs and practitioners' uncertainties, a positive therapeutic relationship and a support network of peers and other healthcare professionals are needed. Motivation: supporting co-users is generally perceived as part of practitioners' roles but there are concerns that co-users are less likely to successfully stop smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners are willing to support co-users, but their lack of knowledge and access to an appropriate recording system are barriers to doing so. Having a supportive team and a positive therapeutic relationship is perceived as important. Identified barriers can be mostly addressed with further training to improve tobacco cessation outcomes for co-users.

A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner-referral or self-referral among participants attending a hospital-based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial. DESIGN: Single-blinded two-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred forty-two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self-reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self-referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self-referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner-referral, n = 329). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner-referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self-referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS). FINDINGS: Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner-made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self-referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner-referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.17) than the self- referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner-referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in hospital-based lung cancer screening in England who self-reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut-off, both practitioner-referral and self-referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self-referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner-referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner-referrals should be the first-line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self-referral offered as an alternative.

'Very brief advice' (VBA) on smoking in family practice: a qualitative evaluation of the tobacco user's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Very Brief Advice on smoking (VBA) is an evidence-based intervention designed to increase quit attempts among patients who smoke. VBA has been widely disseminated in general practice settings in the United Kingdom, however its transferability to Southern European settings is not well established. This study sought to document the perspectives of Greek general practice patients in terms of the acceptability and satisfaction with receiving VBA from their general practitioner (GP) and its influence on patients' motivation to make a quit attempt. We also examine patient identified barriers and facilitators to acting on VBA. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 patients who reported current tobacco use recruited from five general practices in Crete, Greece. All patients received VBA from their GP and interviews were conducted immediately after the GP appointment. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. RESULTS: The majority of patients were satisfied with the VBA intervention. Approximately one quarter of patients reported they were motivated to make an attempt to quit smoking after receiving VBA from their GP. Patients identified a clear preference for VBA to be delivered in a supportive manner, which communicated genuine concern versus fear-based approaches. Patients with an existing smoking-related illness were more likely to report plans to act on their GP's VBA. Patients not ready to quit smoking indicated they would be likely to seek the support of their GP for future quit attempts as a result of VBA. Many patients reported low self-efficacy with quitting and apprehension about available quit smoking supports. CONCLUSIONS: VBA was positively received by the majority of smokers interviewed. Participating patients confirmed the motivational role of advice when delivered in a supportive and caring manner. Personal health status, beliefs about quit smoking supports, and low self-efficacy appear to influence patient's motivation to make an aided quit attempt.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Stop Smoking Practitioners' understanding of e-cigarettes' use and efficacy with particular reference to vapers' socioeconomic status.

Introduction: We have undertaken four online surveys of Stop Smoking Service (SSS) practitioners in England, between 2011 and 2016, in order to enhance our understanding of e-cigarettes: a fast moving new phenomenon. It is important to understand whether e-cigarettes can ameliorate or exacerbate health inequalities given that smoking is one of the most serious causes of excessive mortality and morbidity among disadvantaged groups globally. Aims: To update findings of previous surveys and examine socioeconomic status differences in e-cigarette use and efficacy. Methods: Analysis was undertaken of electronic surveys, particularly, the most recent 2016 survey (n = 514) and 2015/16 SSS client routine monitoring data. Results: SSS practitioners were becoming more positive about e-cigarettes: 42% agreed that e-cigarettes were a good thing compared with 15% in 2011. Reported use of e-cigarettes among SSS clients was low (about 3%) despite higher quit rates (63% of clients reported being quit at four week follow-up, compared with 51% overall). Where socioeconomic differences in e-cigarettes' efficacy for quitting were identified, affluent and working smokers were advantaged. Conclusions: Low use of e-cigarettes by clients and practitioner opinions suggest that further education of SSS staff is needed if they are to adopt the current service recommendations about e-cigarettes.

Attitudes to E-Cigarettes and Cessation Support for Pregnant Women from English Stop Smoking Services: A Mixed Methods Study.

Smoking in pregnancy remains a public health problem. In the UK e-cigarettes are the most popular aid to quitting smoking outside of pregnancy, but we don't know the extent of e-cigarette use in pregnancy or how English Stop Smoking Services (SSS) respond to pregnant women who vape. In 2015 we surveyed SSS managers about cessation support for pregnant women and responses to clients who vaped. Subsequently we interviewed a sub-sample of managers to seek explanations for the SSS' position on e-cigarettes; interviews were thematically analysed. Survey response rate was 67.8% (72/106); overall managers reported 2.2% (range 1.4⁻4.3%) of pregnant clients were using e-cigarettes. Most SSS reported supporting pregnant women who already vaped, but would not recommend e-cigarette use; for women that were still smoking and not using e-cigarettes, 8.3% of SSS were likely/very likely to advise using e-cigarettes, with 56.9% of SSS unlikely/very unlikely to advise using them. Fifteen respondents were interviewed; interviewees were generally positive about the potential of e-cigarettes for cessation in pregnancy although concerns about perceived lack of evidence for safety were expressed and most wanted research on this. Clear guidance on e-cigarette use informed by pregnancy specific research will assist SSS to provide consistent evidence-based support.

Nicotine preloading for smoking cessation: the Preloading RCT.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine preloading means using nicotine replacement therapy prior to a quit date while smoking normally. The aim is to reduce the drive to smoke, thereby reducing cravings for smoking after quit day, which are the main cause of early relapse. A prior systematic review showed inconclusive and heterogeneous evidence that preloading was effective and little evidence of the mechanism of action, with no cost-effectiveness data. OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of nicotine preloading in a routine NHS setting relative to usual care, (2) the mechanisms of the action of preloading and (3) the cost-effectiveness of preloading. DESIGN: Open-label randomised controlled trial with examination of mediation and a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: NHS smoking cessation clinics. PARTICIPANTS: People seeking help to stop smoking. INTERVENTIONS: Nicotine preloading comprised wearing a 21 mg/24 hour nicotine patch for 4 weeks prior to quit date. In addition, minimal behavioural support was provided to explain the intervention rationale and to support adherence. In the comparator group, participants received equivalent behavioural support. Randomisation was stratified by centre and concealed from investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-month prolonged abstinence assessed using the Russell Standard. The secondary outcomes were 4-week and 12-month abstinence. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed from baseline to 1 week after quit day. In a planned analysis, we adjusted for the use of varenicline (Champix®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) as post-cessation medication. Cost-effectiveness analysis took a health-service perspective. The within-trial analysis assessed health-service costs during the 13 months of trial enrolment relative to the previous 6 months comparing trial arms. The base case was based on multiple imputation for missing cost data. We modelled long-term health outcomes of smoking-related diseases using the European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) model. RESULTS: In total, 1792 people were eligible and were enrolled in the study, with 893 randomised to the control group and 899 randomised to the intervention group. In the intervention group, 49 (5.5%) people discontinued preloading prematurely and most others used it daily. The primary outcome, biochemically validated 6-month abstinence, was achieved by 157 (17.5%) people in the intervention group and 129 (14.4%) people in the control group, a difference of 3.02 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 6.41 percentage points; odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62; p = 0.081]. Adjusted for use of post-quit day varenicline, the OR was 1.34 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; p = 0.028). Secondary abstinence outcomes were similar. The OR for the occurrence of serious AEs was 1.12 (95% CI 0.42 to 3.03). Moderate-severity nausea occurred in an additional 4% of the preloading group compared with the control group. There was evidence that reduced urges to smoke and reduced smoke inhalation mediated the effect of preloading on abstinence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the 6-month follow-up for preloading relative to control was £710 (95% CI -£13,674 to £23,205), but preloading was dominant at 12 months and in the long term, with an 80% probability that it is cost saving. LIMITATIONS: The open-label design could partially account for the mediation results. Outcome assessment could not be blinded but was biochemically verified. CONCLUSIONS: Use of nicotine-patch preloading for 4 weeks prior to attempting to stop smoking can increase the proportion of people who stop successfully, but its benefit is undermined because it reduces the use of varenicline after preloading. If this latter effect could be overcome, then nicotine preloading appears to improve health and reduce health-service costs in the long term. Future work should determine how to ensure that people using nicotine preloading opt to use varenicline as cessation medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smokers' interest in a lung cancer screening programme: a national survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the recommendation of lung cancer screening in the US, screening committees in several European countries are reviewing the evidence for implementing national programmes. However, inadequate participation from high-risk groups poses a potential barrier to its effectiveness. The present study examined interest in a national lung cancer screening programme and modifiable attitudinal factors that may affect participation by smokers. METHODS: A population-based survey of English adults (n = 1464; aged 50-70 years) investigated screening intentions in different invitation scenarios, beliefs about lung cancer, early detection and treatment, worry about lung cancer risk, and stigma. Data on smoking status and perceived chances of quitting were also collected, but eligibility for lung screening in the event of a national programme was unknown. RESULTS: Intentions to be screened were high in all three invitation scenarios for both current (≥ 89%) and former (≥ 94%) smokers. However, smokers were less likely to agree that early-stage survival is good (43% vs. 53%; OR: 0.64, 0.46-0.88) or be willing to have surgery for an early stage, screen-detected cancer (84% vs. 94%; OR: 0.38, 0.21-0.68), compared with former smokers. Willingness to have surgery was positively associated with screening intentions; with absolute differences of 25% and 29%. Worry about lung cancer risk was also most common among smokers (48%), and one fifth of respondents thought screening smokers was a waste of NHS money. CONCLUSIONS: A national lung cancer screening programme would be well-received in principle. To improve smokers' participation, care should be taken to communicate the survival benefits of early-stage diagnosis, address concerns about surgery, and minimise anxiety and stigma related to lung cancer risk.

Cessation support for smokers with mental health problems: a survey of resources and training needs.

AIMS: Around thirty percent of smokers have a mental health problem. Smoking cessation has been associated with mental health benefits, but smoking prevalence remains high in populations with mental health problems. This study aimed to assess mental health related knowledge, practice, and training needs of practitioners supporting smoking cessation. METHODS: UK stop smoking practitioners (n=717) recruited via a database of a national provider of smoking cessation training in June 2016 sufficiently completed an online survey about available resources, knowledge, confidence, and training needs related to smoking cessation and mental health. Responses were described and compared between practitioners with a mental health lead and those without such a lead in their service using chi-square statistics and t-tests. RESULTS: A considerable proportion agreed (37%) or were undecided (28.9%) that smoking helped people with mental health problems feel better and agreed (17.2%) or were undecided (30.2%) that cessation would exacerbate mental health symptoms. Only 11.6% said their service had designated funding for smokers with mental health problems and 26.5% were or had a staff member who was a dedicated lead practitioner for mental health work. Practitioners from services that had a dedicated mental health lead were more confident in supporting smokers with different mental health problems and using different pharmacotherapies (all p<0.001) and were more likely to disagree that cessation was detrimental (p=0.001). A majority of practitioners were interested in training, particularly about smoking cessation effects on psychiatric medication (84.3% of n=632) and how to tailor stop smoking support to clients with mental health problems (82.4%). CONCLUSION: Practitioners who support smoking cessation have limited knowledge about mental health and smoking but are willing to learn and improve. However, they are hindered by a lack of resources.

National Survey of Smoking and Smoking Cessation Education Within UK Midwifery School Curricula.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking in pregnancy in the United Kingdom remains prevalent (11%). To encourage and support pregnant smokers to quit, midwives must be adequately trained to do so. Substantial curricular gaps have been identified in the smoking cessation training of medical, nursing, and optometry schools. This study aimed to identify the extent of smoking cessation training and assessment in UK midwifery schools. METHODS: All UK undergraduate midwifery schools (n = 53) were invited to complete a web-based survey of their curricular coverage and assessment related to smoking cessation, and perceived barriers to delivering smoking cessation training. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (55%) midwifery schools responded. Most teaching was completed in the initial year of study. All reported teaching the harmful effects of tobacco use. The majority of respondents (83%) reported training students in brief intervention delivery and ways to assist quit attempts. Only 24% of schools in this study included relapse prevention in their curriculum. The most frequently reported barriers to teaching smoking cessation were "lack of knowledge amongst staff" (17%), "no space in a crowded curriculum" (17%), and "administrative problems" (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Midwifery schools are teaching the harmful effects of smoking and providing training on brief interventions. However, in some schools student midwives are not being sufficiently trained on relapse prevention or assessed in the practical skills necessary for delivering evidence-based interventions. IMPLICATIONS: Midwifery schools should revise the content and delivery of smoking cessation training to ensure midwives are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to contribute to the challenge of smoking cessation in pregnancy.

National guidelines for smoking cessation in primary care: a literature review and evidence analysis.

National guidelines for smoking cessation in primary care can be effective in improving clinical practice. This study assessed which parties are involved in the development of such guidelines worldwide, which national guidelines address primary care, what recommendations are made for primary care settings, and how these recommendations correlate with each other and with current evidence. We identified national guidelines using an online resource. Only the most recent version of a guideline was included. If an English version was not available, we requested a translation or summary of the recommendations from the authors. Two researchers independently extracted data on funding sources, development methodologies, involved parties, and recommendations made within the guidelines. These recommendations were categorised using the pile-sort method. Each recommendation was cross-checked with the latest evidence and was awarded an evidence-rating. We identified 43 guidelines from 39 countries and after exclusion, we analysed 26 guidelines (22 targeting general population, 4 targeted subpopulations). Twelve categories of recommendations for primary care were identified. There was almost universal agreement regarding the need to identify smokers, advice them to quit and offer behavioural and pharmacological quit smoking support. Discrepancies were greatest for specific recommendations regarding behavioural and pharmacological support, which are likely to be due to different interpretations of evidence and/or differences in contextual health environments. Based on these findings, we developed a universal checklist of guideline recommendations as a practice tool for primary care professionals and future guideline developers. SMOKING CESSATION SUPPORT IN PRIMARY CARE: UNIVERSAL GUIDELINES SOUGHT: An international team call for a universal guideline for primary-care practitioners who help patients to stop smoking. Although many nations have such guidelines, no studies have examined whether these guidelines are consistent with the current evidence. Marjolein Verbiest at the National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, New Zealand, and co-workers of the International Primary Care Respiratory Group and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training reviewed, evaluated and compared 26 national guidelines. Almost all guidelines place importance on identifying smokers, advising them to quit and providing behavioural and medication-based support. However, there were discrepancies in the support offered, which could be due to different interpretations of evidence, costs of medication and cultural differences. The authors offer a checklist for primary care that can inform future universal guidelines suitable for primary care.

'Opt-out' referrals after identifying pregnant smokers using exhaled air carbon monoxide: impact on engagement with smoking cessation support.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, free smoking cessation support is available to pregnant women; only a minority accesses this. 'Opt-out' referrals to stop smoking services (SSS) are recommended by UK guidelines. These involve identifying pregnant smokers using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) and referring them for support unless they object. METHODS: To assess the impact of 'opt-out' referrals for pregnant smokers on SSS uptake and effectiveness, we conducted a 'before-after' service development evaluation. In the 6-month 'before' period, there was a routine 'opt-in' referral system for self-reported smokers at antenatal 'booking' appointments. In the 6-month 'after' period, additional 'opt-out' referrals were introduced at the 12-week ultrasound appointments; women with CO≥4 ppm were referred to, and outcome data were collected from, local SSS. RESULTS: Approximately 2300 women attended antenatal care in each period. Before the implementation, 536 (23.4%) women reported smoking at 'booking' and 290 (12.7%) were referred to SSS. After the implementation, 524 (22.9%) women reported smoking at 'booking', an additional 156 smokers (6.8%) were identified via the 'opt-out' referrals and, in total, 421 (18.4%) were referred to SSS. Over twice as many women set a quit date with the SSS after 'opt-out' referrals were implemented (121 (5.3%, 95% CI 4.4% to 6.3%) compared to 57 (2.5%, 95% CI 1.9% to 3.2%) before implementation) and reported being abstinent 4 weeks later (93 (4.1%, 95% CI 3.3% to 4.9%) compared to 46 (2.0%, 1.5% to 2.7%) before implementation). CONCLUSIONS: In a hospital with an 'opt-in' referral system, adding CO screening with 'opt-out' referrals as women attended ultrasound examinations doubled the numbers of pregnant smokers setting quit dates and reporting smoking cessation.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication.

BACKGROUND: While discussion continues over the future implementation of lung cancer screening, low participation from higher risk groups could limit the effectiveness of any national screening programme. OBJECTIVES: To compare smokers' beliefs about lung cancer screening with those of former and never smokers within a low socioeconomic status (SES) sample, to explore the views of lower SES smokers and ex-smokers in-depth, and to provide insights into effective engagement strategies. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using proactive, community-based recruitment methods, we surveyed 175 individuals from socioeconomically deprived communities with high smoking prevalence and subsequently interviewed 21 smokers and ex-smokers. Participants were approached in community settings or responded to a mail-out from their housing association. RESULTS: Interviewees were supportive of screening in principle, but many were doubtful about its ability to deliver long-term survival benefit for their generation of "heavy smokers." Lung cancer was perceived as an uncontrollable disease, and the survey data showed that fatalism, worry and perceived risk of lung cancer were particularly high among smokers compared with non-smokers. Perceived blame and stigma around lung cancer as a self-inflicted smokers' disease were implicated by interviewees as important social deterrents of screening participation. The belief that lungs are not a treatable organ appeared to be a common lay explanation for poor survival and undermined the potential value of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes towards screening among this high-risk group are complex. Invitation strategies need to be carefully devised to achieve equitable participation in screening.

Content and Methods used to Train Tobacco Cessation Treatment Providers: An International Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited existing data describing the training methods used to educate tobacco cessation treatment providers around the world. AIMS: To measure the prevalence of tobacco cessation treatment content, skills training and teaching methods reported by tobacco treatment training programs across the world. METHODS: Web-based survey in May-September 2013 among tobacco cessation training experts across six geographic regions and four World Bank income levels. Response rate was 73% (84 of 115 countries contacted). RESULTS: Of 104 individual programs from 84 countries, most reported teaching brief advice (78%) and one-to-one counseling (74%); telephone counseling was uncommon (33%). Overall, teaching of knowledge topics was more commonly reported than skills training. Programs in lower income countries less often reported teaching about medications, behavioral treatments and biomarkers and less often reported skills-based training about interviewing clients, medication management, biomarker measurement, assessing client outcomes, and assisting clients with co-morbidities. Programs reported a median 15 hours of training. Face-to-face training was common (85%); online programs were rare (19%). Almost half (47%) included no learner assessment. Only 35% offered continuing education. CONCLUSION: Nearly all programs reported teaching evidence-based treatment modalities in a face-to-face format. Few programs delivered training online or offered continuing education. Skills-based training was less common among low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is a large unmet need for tobacco treatment training protocols which emphasize practical skills, and which are more rapidly scalable than face-to-face training in LMICs.

English Stop-Smoking Services: One-Year Outcomes.

The UK is a global leader in stop-smoking support-providing free behavioral support and cessation medication via stop smoking services (SSS) without charge to smokers. This study aimed to explore the client and service characteristics associated with abstinence 52 weeks after quitting. A prospective cohort study of 3057 SSS clients in nine different areas of England who began their quit attempt between March 2012 and March 2013 was conducted. Important determinants of long-term quitting were assessed through quit rates and multivariable logistic regression. Our results showed that the overall weighted carbon monoxide validated quit rate for clients at 52 weeks was 7.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.6-9.0). The clients of advisors, whose main role was providing stop-smoking support, were more likely to quit long-term than advisors who had a generalist role in pharmacies or general practices (odds ratio (OR) 2.3 (95% CI 1.2-4.6)). Clients were more likely to achieve abstinence through group support than one-to-one support (OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.7-6.7)). Overall, one in thirteen people who set a quit date with the National Health Service (NHS) Stop-Smoking Service maintain abstinence for a year. Improving abstinence is likely to require a greater emphasis on providing specialist smoking cessation support. Results from this study suggest that over 18,000 premature deaths were prevented through longer-term smoking cessation achieved by smokers who accessed SSS in England from March 2012 to April 2013, but outcomes varied by client characteristic and the type of support provided.

A Context-Sensing Mobile Phone App (Q Sense) for Smoking Cessation: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: A major cause of lapse and relapse to smoking during a quit attempt is craving triggered by cues from a smoker's immediate environment. To help smokers address these cue-induced cravings when attempting to quit, we have developed a context-aware smoking cessation app, Q Sense, which uses a smoking episode-reporting system combined with location sensing and geofencing to tailor support content and trigger support delivery in real time. OBJECTIVE: We sought to (1) assess smokers' compliance with reporting their smoking in real time and identify reasons for noncompliance, (2) assess the app's accuracy in identifying user-specific high-risk locations for smoking, (3) explore the feasibility and user perspective of geofence-triggered support, and (4) identify any technological issues or privacy concerns. METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used, where data collected by the app informed semistructured interviews. Participants were smokers who owned an Android mobile phone and were willing to set a quit date within one month (N=15). App data included smoking reports with context information and geolocation, end-of-day (EoD) surveys of smoking beliefs and behavior, support message ratings, and app interaction data. Interviews were undertaken and analyzed thematically (N=13). Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately and findings presented sequentially. RESULTS: Out of 15 participants, 3 (20%) discontinued use of the app prematurely. Pre-quit date, the mean number of smoking reports received was 37.8 (SD 21.2) per participant, or 2.0 (SD 2.2) per day per participant. EoD surveys indicated that participants underreported smoking on at least 56.2% of days. Geolocation was collected in 97.0% of smoking reports with a mean accuracy of 31.6 (SD 16.8) meters. A total of 5 out of 9 (56%) eligible participants received geofence-triggered support. Interaction data indicated that 50.0% (137/274) of geofence-triggered message notifications were tapped within 30 minutes of being generated, resulting in delivery of a support message, and 78.2% (158/202) of delivered messages were rated by participants. Qualitative findings identified multiple reasons for noncompliance in reporting smoking, most notably due to environmental constraints and forgetting. Participants verified the app's identification of their smoking locations, were largely positive about the value of geofence-triggered support, and had no privacy concerns about the data collected by the app. CONCLUSIONS: User-initiated self-report is feasible for training a cessation app about an individual's smoking behavior, although underreporting is likely. Geofencing was a reliable and accurate method of identifying smoking locations, and geofence-triggered support was regarded positively by participants.

Structured Smoking Cessation Training for Medical Students: A Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Physician adherence to guideline recommendations regarding the provision of counseling and support for smokers willing to quit is low. A lack of training during undergraduate medical education has been identified as a potential cause. This prospective intervention study evaluated a novel teaching module for medical students. METHODS: As part of a 6-week cardiovascular course, 125 fourth-year undergraduate medical students received a multimodal and interactive teaching module on smoking cessation, including online learning material, lectures, seminars, and practical skills training. Short- and medium-term effects on knowledge, skills, attitudes, and self-reported practice were measured using written examinations and an objective structured clinical examination at the end of the module and 6 months later. Results were compared to data obtained from a historical control cohort (n = 70) unexposed to the intervention. RESULTS: At the 6-month follow-up, scores in the knowledge test were significantly higher in the intervention than the control group (61.1% vs. 51.7%; p < .001). A similar pattern was observed in the objective structured clinical examination (71.5% vs. 60.5%; p < .001). More students in the intervention than control group agreed that smoking was a chronic disease (83.1% vs. 68.1%; p = .045). The control group was more likely to report recording smoking status (p = .018), but no group difference was detected regarding the report of advising to quit (p = .154). CONCLUSIONS: A novel teaching module for undergraduate medical students produced a sustained learning outcome in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes but not self-reported practice. IMPLICATIONS: Studies across the world have identified considerable knowledge gaps and deficits in practical training with regard to smoking cessation counseling in undergraduate medical students. This paper describes a teaching intervention informed by current recommendations for the design of educational activities aimed at enabling medical students to deliver adequate behavior change counseling. The teaching module was tailored to the needs of a specific healthcare system. Given its effectiveness as demonstrated in this prospective study, a rollout of this intervention in medical schools might have the potential to substantially improve medical students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes in relation to smoking cessation counseling.

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and 'hard-to-reach' patients.

BACKGROUND: Participation in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening offered in the trial context has been poor, especially among smokers from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds; a group for whom the risk-benefit ratio is improved due to their high risk of lung cancer. Attracting high risk participants is essential to the success and equity of any future screening programme. This study will investigate whether the observed low and biased uptake of screening can be improved using a targeted invitation strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial design will be used to test whether targeted invitation materials are effective at improving engagement with an offer of lung cancer screening for high risk candidates. Two thousand patients aged 60-75 and recorded as a smoker within the last five years by their GP, will be identified from primary care records and individually randomised to receive either intervention invitation materials (which take a targeted, stepped and low burden approach to information provision prior to the appointment) or control invitation materials. The primary outcome is uptake of a nurse-led 'lung health check' hospital appointment, during which patients will be offered a spirometry test, an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading, and an LDCT if eligible. Initial data on demographics (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation score) and smoking status will be collected in primary care and analysed to explore differences between attenders and non-attenders with respect to invitation group. Those who attend the lung health check will have further data on smoking collected during their appointment (including pack-year history, nicotine dependence and confidence to quit). Secondary outcomes will include willingness to be screened, uptake of LDCT and measures of informed decision-making to ensure the latter is not compromised by either invitation strategy. DISCUSSION: If effective at improving informed uptake of screening and reducing bias in participation, this invitation strategy could be adopted by local screening pilots or a national programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the ISRCTN (International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number: ISRCTN21774741) on the 23rd September 2015 and the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT0255810) on the 22nd September 2015.

Waterpipe Tobacco Use in the United Kingdom: A Cross-Sectional Study among University Students and Stop Smoking Practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Despite cigarette-like adverse health outcomes associated with waterpipe tobacco smoking and increase in its use among youth, it is a much underexplored research area. We aimed to measure the prevalence and patterns of waterpipe tobacco use and evaluate tobacco control policy with respect to waterpipe tobacco, in several universities across the UK. We also aimed to measure stop smoking practitioners' encounter of waterpipe tobacco smoking. METHODS: We distributed an online survey to six UK universities, asking detailed questions on waterpipe tobacco. Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, graduate status, university and socioeconomic status (SES) assessed associations between waterpipe tobacco smoking (single use and dual use with cigarettes) and sociodemographic variables. SES was ascertained by average weekly self-spend on non-essentials. We also descriptively analysed data from a 2012 survey of stop smoking practitioners to assess the proportion of clients that used waterpipe regularly. RESULTS: f 2217 student responses, 66.0% (95% CI 63.9-68.0%) had tried waterpipe tobacco smoking; 14.3% (95% CI 12.8-15.8%) reported past-30 day use, and 8.7% (95% CI 7.6-9.9%) reported at least monthly users. Past-30 day waterpipe-only use was associated with being younger (AOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99), male (AOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08-1.94), higher SES (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.28) and belonging to non-white ethnicities (vs. white, AOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.66-3.04). Compared to less than monthly users, monthly users were significantly more likely to have urges to smoke waterpipe (28.1% vs. 3.1%, p<0.001) report difficulty in quitting (15.5% vs. 0.8%, p<0.001), report feeling guilty, and annoyed when criticised about waterpipe smoking (19.2% vs. 9.2%, p<0.001). Nearly a third (32.5%) of respondents who had tried waterpipe had violated the UK smokefree law and a quarter (24.5%) reporting seeing health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packaging or apparatuses. Of 1,282 smoking cessation practitioners, a quarter (23.4%, 95% CI 21.5-26.1%) reported having some clients who regularly use waterpipes, but 69.5% (95% CI 67.0-72.0%) never ask clients about waterpipe use. Three quarters (74.8%, 95% CI 72.4-77.1%) want more information about waterpipe tobacco smoking. CONCLUSIONS: While two thirds of university students have ever tried waterpipe tobacco, at least monthly use is less common. Regular users display features of waterpipe tobacco dependence, and a substantial minority of SSS practitioners encounter clients who regularly use waterpipe. The lack of training on waterpipe for SSS practitioners and reported violations of smokefree laws for waterpipe highlight the need for regular surveillance of and a coordinated tobacco control strategy for waterpipe use.