What is the relationship between raising the minimum legal sales age of tobacco above 20 and cigarette smoking? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is considerable interest in raising the age of sale of tobacco above the conventional age of 18. We systematically reviewed whether raising the minimum legal sales age of tobacco (MLSA) to 20 or above is associated with reduced prevalence of smoking compared to an MLSA set at 18 or below. METHODS: Following a pre-registered protocol on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42022347604), six databases of peer-reviewed journals were searched from January 2015 to April 2024. Backwards and forwards reference searching was conducted. Included studies assessed the association between MLSAs ≥20 with cigarette smoking or cigarette sales for those aged 11-20. Assessments on e-cigarettes were excluded. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted study data. We used ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias and GRADE to assess quality of evidence. Findings were also synthesised narratively. RESULTS: 23 studies were reviewed and 34 estimates of association were extracted. All extracted studies related to Tobacco 21 laws in the United States. Moderate quality evidence was found for reduced cigarette sales, moderate quality evidence was found for reduced current smoking for 18 - 20 year olds, and low quality evidence was found for reduced current smoking for 11 - 17 year olds. The positive association was stronger for those with lower education. Study bias was variable. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that Tobacco 21 can reduce overall cigarette sales and current cigarette smoking amongst those aged 18- 20. It has potential to reduce health inequalities. Research in settings other than the United States is required. IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review on raising the minimum legal sale age of tobacco to 20 or above demonstrates there is moderate quality evidence that such laws reduce cigarette sales, and moderate quality evidence they reduce smoking prevalence amongst those aged 18-20 compared to a minimum legal sale age of 18 or below. The research highlights potential benefits in reducing health inequalities, especially individuals from lower educational backgrounds. Studies are limited to the United States, highlighting a need for more global research to assess the impact of these policies in other settings.

A Qualitative Study of Barriers and Motivators to Prevent Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Pregnant Women and Children in Egypt: Identifying Appropriate Approaches for Change.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of daily secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among pregnant nonsmoking women and children in Egypt is estimated to be about 50% and 55%, respectively. This study aimed to explore barriers to preventing SHS exposure among pregnant women/children and smoking in the home in Egypt. AIMS AND METHODS: Six focus group discussions with pregnant women or mothers of children residing in urban-rural areas (n = 61) were conducted. Data were managed and analyzed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants aged 18-49 were recruited. They reported being never smokers and SHS exposure for themselves and their children was mainly at home. Pregnant women or mothers had some general knowledge of the dangers of SHS, but their knowledge appeared incomplete. The most commonly reported barriers to preventing SHS exposure/adopting a smoke-free home or workplace were social acceptance of smoking and SHS exposure, masculinity and gender norms of accepting smoking among men as a normative behavior, fear among women of damaging a relationship with family or even divorce, women resigning themselves to SHS exposure, and doctors not being supportive of smoking cessation. The majority of interviewees' families were reported to allow smoking anywhere in the home. Others implemented some measures to prevent SHS; however, these tended to be inconsistently implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Changing the norm of accepting smoking among men as a normative behavior within Egyptian society and better enforcement of smoke-free policies, will help to protect pregnant women and children from SHS. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests promising approaches to support the promotion of smoke-free homes and the prevention of SHS exposure among pregnant women and children in public places in Egypt. Better enforcement of smoke-free policies is needed. Healthcare professionals should support smoking cessation services in primary health centers. SHS policy, practice, and research should focus on husbands/fathers as they are the main source of SHS. There is a need for denormalization of SHS exposure in Egyptian society.

Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

The Prehabilitation Radiotherapy Exercise, smoking Habit cessation and Balanced diet Study (PREHABS) protocol to explore the feasibility of embedding behavioural modifications into the clinical pathway for patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for lung cancer.

Patients with curable non-surgical lung cancer are often current smokers, have co-existing medical comorbidities and are treated with curative radiotherapy. To maximise the benefits of modern radiotherapy, there is an urgent need to optimise the patient's health to improve survival and quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Yorkshire Cancer Research-funded Prehabilitation Radiotherapy Exercise, smoking Habit cessation and Balanced diet Study (PREHABS) (L426) is a single-centre prospective feasibility study to assess embedding behavioural changes into the radical radiotherapy pathway of patients with lung cancer. Feasibility will be assessed by measuring acceptability, demand and implementation. The duration of the study is 24 months. PREHABS has two workstreams: the intervention study and the theory of change (ToC) study.Intervention study: PREHABS will commence at the R-IDEAL phase 2 trial (exploratory) based on existing evidence and includes support for smoking cessation, increasing activity and dietary well-being. Patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for lung cancer will be recruited from the oncology department at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTHT). ToC study: to maximise the acceptability and adherence to the PREHABS, we will use a ToC approach to qualitatively explore the key barriers and enablers of implementing a tailored programme of 'prehabilitation'. The PREHABS ToC study participants will be recruited from patients with lung cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy and staff from the LTHT oncology department. ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint analysis will report the number of participants and adherence to the study interventions. Secondary endpoints include continued engagement with study interventions post-treatment. The analysis will focus on descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data from the ToC study will identify consensus on intervention optimisation and delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: On 12 May 2021, the Cambridge East Ethics Committee granted ethical approval (21/EE/0048). The study is registered in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) portfolio. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NIHR portfolio 48420.

Barriers and facilitators to engaging in smoking cessation support among lung screening participants.

INTRODUCTION: Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the UK; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted between August 2019 - April 2021 with thirty adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioural factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimising beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, COVID-19 and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centred care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programmes.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT.

Background: Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear. Objectives: The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective. Design: This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation. Setting and participants: Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458). Intervention: The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Results: The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236). Conclusions: There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective. Limitations: Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence. Future work: Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

NHS pharmacological and behavioural support helps smokers wanting to quit, and physical activity may also help. It is unclear if behavioural support for those not ready to quit may lead to more quit attempts and abstinence from smoking. A total of 915 smokers who wanted to reduce their smoking, but who had not yet quit, were recruited and randomised to receive an intervention or brief support as usual (brief advice to quit), in Plymouth, London, Oxford and Nottingham. The intervention involved up to eight sessions (by telephone or in person) of motivational support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity (and more sessions to support a quit attempt). Participants self-reported smoking and physical activity information at the start of the trial and after 3 and 9 months. Self-reported quitters confirmed their abstinence with a biochemical test of expired air or saliva. Our main interest was in whether or not the groups differed in the proportion who remained abstinent for at least 6 months. Overall, only 1­2% remained abstinent for 6 months. Although it appeared that a greater proportion did so after receiving the intervention, because few participants were abstinent, the results are not conclusive. However, the intervention had beneficial effects on less rigorous outcomes, including a reduction in the self-reported number of cigarettes smoked, and a greater proportion of intervention than control participants with self-reported and biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months. The intervention also helped participants to reduce, by at least half, the number of cigarettes they smoked at 3 and 9 months, and to report more physical activity, but only at 3 months. Despite reasonable intervention engagement and some short-term changes in smoking and physical activity, the trial does not provide evidence that this intervention would help smokers to quit for at least 6 months nor would it be cost-effective, with an average cost of £239 per smoker.

Diagnosis and treatment outcomes from prebronchodilator spirometry performed alongside lung cancer screening in a Lung Health Check programme.

INTRODUCTION: Incorporating spirometry into low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer may help identify people with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although the downstream impacts are not well described. METHODS: Participants attending a Lung Health Check (LHC) as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial were offered spirometry alongside LDCT screening. Results were communicated to the general practitioner (GP), and those with unexplained symptomatic airflow obstruction (AO) fulfilling agreed criteria were referred to the Leeds Community Respiratory Team (CRT) for assessment and treatment. Primary care records were reviewed to determine changes to diagnostic coding and pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Of 2391 LHC participants undergoing prebronchodilator spirometry, 201 (8.4%) fulfilled the CRT referral criteria of which 151 were invited for further assessment. Ninety seven participants were subsequently reviewed by the CRT, 46 declined assessment and 8 had already been seen by their GP at the time of CRT contact. Overall 70 participants had postbronchodilator spirometry checked, of whom 20 (29%) did not have AO. Considering the whole cohort referred to the CRT (but excluding those without AO postbronchodilation), 59 had a new GP COPD code, 56 commenced new pharmacotherapy and 5 were underwent pulmonary rehabilitation (comprising 2.5%, 2.3% and 0.2% of the 2391 participants undergoing LHC spirometry). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering spirometry alongside lung cancer screening may facilitate earlier diagnosis of COPD. However, this study highlights the importance of confirming AO by postbronchodilator spirometry prior to diagnosing and treating patients with COPD and illustrates some downstream challenges in acting on spirometry collected during an LHC.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS).

AIMS: For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes. DESIGN: A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit. MEASUREMENTS: Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS: Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

A Qualitative Study of the Implementation and Continued Delivery of Complete and Partial Smoke-Free Policies Across England's Prison Estate.

INTRODUCTION: In the United Kingdom, smoking among prisoners is up to five times more prevalent than the national average. Between 2015 and 2018, HMPPS introduced a complete smoke-free policy in all closed prisons, and a partial policy permitting smoking only in smoking shelters in open prisons. AIMS AND METHODS: This study aimed to explore the views of stakeholders regarding the implementation and continuation of smoke-free policies, including the management of nicotine addiction during imprisonment and after release. Individuals with key strategic and/or operational roles in delivering smoke-free prison policies across England were purposively sampled to complete a semi-structured interview. Twenty-eight interviews were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The smoke-free implementation across the closed prison estate was viewed as a success, though there were reports of reduced availability of smoking cessation support since the roll out. Participants thought the majority of tobacco smokers living in closed prison environments were now using an electronic cigarette, typically as a temporary means to manage nicotine addiction until release. In open prisons the partial policy has been less successful; high rates of smoking resumption on moving from closed to open conditions were reported, with many participants arguing that the open estate should also go completely smoke free. It was envisaged that most prisoners would resume smoking on community release. CONCLUSIONS: The smoke-free policies provide a unique opportunity to promote lifelong cessation in this highly disadvantaged group. However more could be done to adopt a consistent smoke-free policy across all prisons, and to support prisoners in quitting smoking and nicotine use during and after imprisonment. IMPLICATIONS: Our results identify the urgent need for more work to explore rates and reasons for relapse to smoking on transfer to the open estate and after release. With the majority of smokers in the closed prison estate now using e-cigarettes to manage their nicotine addiction, one way to support long-term tobacco abstinence could be to place greater emphasis on this switching behavior as a way of reducing tobacco-related harm within this population.

Exposure to tobacco, alcohol and 'Junk food' content in reality TV programmes broadcast in the UK between August 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to alcohol, tobacco and foods high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) content in media is a risk factor for smoking, alcohol use and HFSS consumption in young people. We report an analysis of tobacco, alcohol and HFSS content in a sample of reality TV programmes broadcast on TV and video-on-demand services throughout a 1-year period. METHODS: We used 1-min interval coding to quantify content in all episodes of 20 different reality TV programmes between August 2019 and August 2020 and estimated population exposure to a sample of these programmes using viewing data and UK population estimates. RESULTS: We coded 13 244 intervals from 264 episodes. Tobacco content appeared in 227 intervals (2%) across 43 episodes (2%), alcohol in 5167 intervals (39%) across 258 episodes (98%) and HFSS in 1752 intervals (13%) across 234 episodes (88%). A sample of 15 series delivered ~157.4 million tobacco, 3.5 billion alcohol and 1.9 billion HFSS gross impressions to the UK population, including 24 000, 12.6 million and 21.4 million, to children, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tobacco, alcohol and HFSS content are common in reality TV programmes. These programmes deliver exposure to tobacco, alcohol and HFSS imagery, which are a potential driver of tobacco use, alcohol use and HFSS consumption in young people.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Attitudes and Counselling Practice Regarding Prevention of Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Pregnant Women/Children in Assiut, Egypt.

Objectives and Methods: A cross sectional study of HCPs working in public MCH clinics in Assiut city was conducted to explore their knowledge, attitudes and counselling practices regarding prevention of SHS exposure among pregnant women and children. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed. Results: 367 HCPs participated in the study, 12% of whom were smokers. The majority were nurses (45%). A considerable proportion of HCPs reported being exposed to SHS in workplace (70%) and home (52%). About half HCP reported high SHS knowledge (56%), supportive attitude towards preventing SHS exposure (53%), and having good counselling practice regarding SHS exposure (52%). Being a GP and serving urban communities were significantly associated with high knowledge. Being female, serving a rural population, receiving training on smoking cessation services, not being exposed to SHS at home, and having a supportive attitude towards prevention of SHS exposure were significantly associated with good counselling practice. Conclusion: Awareness, attitudes and counselling practice of HCPs should be improved. Training for HCPs and enforcement of smoke free polices are needed to improve awareness and facilitate changes in social norms.

Patient survey examining the experience of care of a hospital-based opt-out tobacco dependency treatment service (the CURE Project).

INTRODUCTION: Treating tobacco dependency in patients admitted to hospital is a key priority in the National Health Service long-term plan. This service evaluation assessed the perception, needs and experience of care within an opt-out hospital-based tobacco dependency treatment service (the Conversation, Understand, Replace, Experts and Evidence Base (CURE) team) in North-West England. METHODS: A survey was offered to all eligible patients between 1 July 2020 and 30 September 2020. Eligibility criteria were adult patients identified as an active smoker being approached by the CURE team as part of the standard opt-out service model, on a non-covid ward without a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection and able to read and write in English. RESULTS: 106 completed surveys were evaluated. Participants demonstrated high levels of tobacco dependency with an average of 37 years smoking history and 66% describing the onset of cravings within 30 min of hospital admission. The average number quit attempts in the previous 12 months was 1.3 but only 9% had used the most effective National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended treatments. 100% felt the opt-out service model was appropriate and 96% stated the treatment and support they had received had prompted them to consider a further quit attempt. 82% of participants rated their experience of care as 9/10 or 10/10. Participants wanted a broad range of support post discharge with the most popular option being with their general practitioner. 66% and 65% of participants would have been interested in a vaping kit as stop smoking intervention and support vaping-friendly hospital grounds respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest this hospital-based, opt-out tobacco dependency treatment service delivers high-quality experience of care and meets the needs of the patients it serves. It also highlights the opportunity to enhance outcomes by providing access to NICE recommended most-effective interventions (varenicline, vaping and combination nicotine replacement therapy) and providing flexible, individualised discharge pathways.

Varenicline for Tobacco-Dependent Adults Who Are Not Ready to Discontinue Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Not all individuals with tobacco dependence are ready to give up smoking. Research reveals behavioral differences between adults ready to discontinue tobacco use and those who are not. Thus, the interventions applied to these populations might differ. However, the evidence of using varenicline in individuals who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use is uncertain. Objectives: To determine if, in tobacco-dependent adults who report not being ready to discontinue tobacco use, clinicians should begin treatment with varenicline or wait until subjects are ready to discontinue tobacco use. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with varenicline in tobacco-dependent adults who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use. We systematically searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials comparing varenicline versus placebo for individuals who were not ready to discontinue tobacco use. Outcomes of interest include point prevalence abstinence during treatment or at six months or longer, smoking reduction, motivation to quit, adverse events, and withdrawal symptoms. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligibility and risk of bias using a standardized data collection form. We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Five trials met our inclusion criteria. All 2,616 participants were adults who were not ready to discontinue tobacco use at study entry. For 7-day point prevalence abstinence at six months or longer, high-certainty evidence suggested that varenicline increased abstinence compared with placebo (relative risk, 2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.70-2.35]; absolute risk reduction, 173 more per 1,000 [95% CI, 121 more to 234 more]). We identified moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that varenicline increased serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.98-3.13]; absolute risk reduction, 12 more per 1,000 [95% CI, 0 fewer to 35 more]). For withdrawal, low-certainty evidence suggested that varenicline treatment was associated with a lower symptom score (mean difference, 1.54 points lower; 95% CI, 2.15-0.93 points lower; low certainty) assessed using the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges. Conclusions: In tobacco-dependent adults who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use, initiating varenicline treatment results in a large increase in abstinence and likely results in a slight increase in serious adverse events.

Experiences and views of parents on the prevention of second-hand smoke exposure in Middle Eastern countries: a qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence related to experiences and views of parents, children, and professionals on the prevention of second-hand smoke exposure to women and children in Middle Eastern countries. INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke exposure is a major health concern. It is problematic during pregnancy because of potential adverse reproductive effects and poor fetal outcomes. Childhood second-hand smoke exposure is linked to increased morbidity and mortality. Smoking prevalence is high among men in Middle Eastern countries and, as a result, large numbers of non-smoking men, women, and children are exposed to second-hand smoke daily. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were considered for inclusion if they explored experiences and views on the prevention of second-hand smoke exposure among women and children in homes, workplaces, schools, personal vehicles, and public places in 17 Middle Eastern countries. This review included studies that focused on qualitative data, including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative descriptive, and feminist research. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to identify published studies from inception to January 2021. The search for unpublished studies included EThOS, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. No language restrictions were applied. The JBI guidelines for qualitative systematic reviews were followed in conducting the review. The JBI process of meta-aggregation was used to identify categories and synthesize findings. RESULTS: Of 5229 records identified, two qualitative studies (in three publications) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. One study was conducted in Turkey and the other study (reported in two papers) was conducted in Israel. The methodological quality of the studies was high. The participants in the included studies were parents (n = 118 participants) aged between 18 and 42 years. The methods used for data collection were interviews analyzed using thematic content analysis. A total of 50 findings were extracted and aggregated into eight categories, based on the similarity of meaning. Three synthesized finding were generated (all with moderate confidence): i) Parents were aware of second-hand smoke and that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful, although the health dangers of second-hand smoke exposure were not commonly discussed with parents during pregnancy;ii) Smoking is a socially and culturally accepted norm, with parents reporting cultural beliefs about traditional values as a barrier to reducing second-hand smoke exposure in the home and personal psychological factors to quitting smoking; iii) Parents implemented different physical restrictions on smoking, such as having rules about where smoking can take place, with psychological motivators reported as drivers to decrease second-hand smoke exposure among children in the home, but tended to lack certainty or confidence regarding whether such protective measures were needed or would be effective. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study offer an insight into parents' views on second-hand smoke exposure and its prevention in Middle Eastern countries. Parents have conflicting views on second-hand smoke exposure and techniques to minimize it. Interventions are needed to increase parents' knowledge about the harms of second-hand smoke to reduce women's and children's exposure to second-hand smoke. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019137006.

Opportunistic Non-Governmental Organisation Delivery of a Virtual Stop Smoking Service in England during the COVID-19 Lockdown.

Smoking cessation services have rapidly transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes include pivoting from face-to-face to telephone and video call support, remote provision of stop smoking aids and more flexible appointments. This study reports an evaluation of a charity-led smoking cessation service rapidly conceived and launched in this context. The pilot service accepted self-referrals in Yorkshire, England from 20 May 2020 to 5 June 2020. A dedicated smoking cessation practitioner provided 12 weeks of weekly behavioural support over telephone or video call. NRT and/or medication and/or e-cigarettes were posted to the participant bi-weekly for up to 12 weeks. Written and telephone evaluation questionnaires were administered post-programme. Of 79 participants, 57 (72.2%) self-reported a 4-week quit and 51 (64.6%) self-reported a 12-week quit. Those concurrently using e-cigarettes and NRT had an 84.1% 12-week quit rate. The majority of participants chose to use e-cigarettes and NRT in combination (55.7%). 39 participants completed an evaluation form, with at least 90% recording they were "very satisfied" with each service component. 27 participants completed a telephone interview, reporting a relationship with practitioners, as well as convenience, and organisational reputation as service strengths. Virtual services can be set up quickly and effectively in response to demand. Quit rates were highest for those concurrently using e-cigarettes and NRT. Service users value flexibility and convenience of remote support and posting of quit aids.