Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation programme, and to estimate the size of any effect. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, the search was limited to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. This was searched in December 2011. The Specialized Register includes reports of controlled trials of smoking cessation identified from electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to Issue 4, 2011, MEDLINE to update 20110826, EMBASE to 2011 week 33, PsycINFO to 20110822 and Web of Science. The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees and co-worker). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third author was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence, biochemically validated if possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals: six to nine months and 12 months or greater. Partner Interaction Questionnaire and Support Provided Measure scores were also analysed to assess partner support. A fixed-effect model was used to pool relative risks from each study and estimate a summary effect. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 57 articles were identified for this review. Twelve articles (13 studies, > 2000 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied between studies. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio for self-reported abstinence was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15) at six to nine months and 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the eight studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One study reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review of randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programmes, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions also did not increase partner support. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. Additional studies with larger samples are needed to adequately explore the effects of partner support interventions for smoking cessation.

Primary care physicians' opioid-related prevention behaviors and intentions: A descriptive analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are positioned to mitigate opioid morbidity and mortality, but their engagement in primary, secondary, and tertiary opioid-related prevention behaviors is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate Tennessee PCPs' engagement in and intention to engage in multiple opioid-related prevention behaviors. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed, pretested, and pilot tested with practicing PCPs. Thereafter, a census of eligible Tennessee PCPs was conducted using a modified, four-wave tailored design method approach. Three patient scenarios were employed to assess physician intention to engage in 10 primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention behaviors. Respondents were asked to report, given 10 similar scenarios, the number of times (0-10) they would engage in prevention behaviors. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS version 25. RESULTS: A total of 296 usable responses were received. Physician intention to engage in prevention behaviors varied across the 10 behaviors studied. Physicians reported frequently communicating risks associated with prescription opioids to patients (8.9 ± 2.8 out of 10 patients), infrequently utilizing brief questionnaires to assess for risk of opioid misuse (1.7 ± 3.3 out of 10 patients), and screening for current opioid misuse (3.1 ± 4.3 out of 10 patients). Physicians reported seldomly co-prescribing naloxone for overdose reversal and frequently discharging from practice patients presenting with an opioid use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: This study noted strengths and opportunities to increase engagement in prevention behaviors. Understanding PCPs' engagement in opioid-related prevention behaviors is important to effectively target and implement morbidity and mortality reducing interventions.