Cost-utility of cytisine for smoking cessation over and above behavioural support in people with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis: an economic evaluation of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cytisine over and above brief behavioural support (BS) for smoking cessation among patients who are newly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in low-income and middle-income countries. DESIGN: An incremental cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside a 12-month, double-blind, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial from a public/voluntary healthcare sector perspective with the primary endpoint at 6 months post randomisation. SETTING: Seventeen subdistrict hospitals in Bangladesh and 15 secondary care hospitals in Pakistan. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18 years in Bangladesh and ≥15 years in Pakistan) with pulmonary TB diagnosed within the last 4 weeks who smoked tobacco daily (n=2472). INTERVENTIONS: Two brief BS sessions with a trained TB health worker were offered to all participants. Participants in the intervention arm (n=1239) were given cytisine (25-day course) while those in the control arm (n=1233) were given placebo. No significant difference was found between arms in 6-month abstinence. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of cytisine and BS sessions were estimated based on research team records. TB treatment costs were estimated based on TB registry records. Additional smoking cessation and healthcare costs and EQ-5D-5L data were collected at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. Costs were presented in purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted US dollars (US$). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the EQ-5D-5L. Incremental total costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regressions adjusting for respective baseline values and other baseline covariates. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Mean total costs were PPP US$57.74 (95% CI 49.40 to 83.36) higher in the cytisine arm than in the placebo arm while the mean QALYs were -0.001 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.002) lower over 6 months. The cytisine arm was dominated by the placebo arm. CONCLUSIONS: Cytisine plus BS for smoking cessation among patients with TB was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus BS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43811467.

Smoking Cessation Attempts and Common Strategies Employed.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on smoking cessation contain recommendations for various evidence-based methods. The goal of this study was to provide a represen- tative analysis for Germany of the percentage of smokers who try to quit smoking at least once per year, the use of evidence-based methods and other methods of smoking cessation, and potential associations of the use of such methods with the degree of tobacco dependence and with socioeconomic features. METHODS: Data from 19 waves of the German Smoking Behavior Questionnaire (Deutsche Befragung zum Rauchverhalten, DEBRA), from the time period June/July 2016 to June/July 2019, were analyzed. Current smokers and recent ex-smokers (<12 months without smoking) were asked about their smoking cessation attempts in the past year and the methods they used during the last attempt (naming more than one method was permitted). The degree of tobacco dependence in current smokers was assessed with the Heaviness of Smoking Index. RESULTS: Out of 11 109 current smokers and 407 recent ex-smokers, 19.9% (95% confidence interval: [19.1; 20.6]) had tried to quit smoking at least once in the preceding year. 13.0% of them [11.6; 14.5] had used at least one evidence-based method during their last attempt. The stronger the tobacco dependence, the more likely the use of an evidence-based method (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27 [1.16; 1.40]). Pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy, medication) was used more com- monly by persons with higher incomes (OR = 1.44 per 1000 euro/month [1.28; 1.62]). Electronic cigarettes were the most commonly used single type of smoking cessation support (10.2 % [9.0; 11.6]). CONCLUSION: In Germany, only one in five smokers tries to quit smoking at least once per year. Such attempts are only rarely supported by evidence-based methods and are thus likely to fail. The high cost of treatment must be borne by the individual and thus fall disproportionately on poorer smokers. It follows that there is an urgent need for vered by health insurance pro- viders, in order to give all smokers fair and equal access to the medical care they need.

Public attitudes towards healthcare policies promoting tobacco cessation in Germany: results from the representative German study on tobacco use (DEBRA study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess public acceptance of four possible healthcare policies supporting tobacco dependence treatment in line with the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, Article 14 recommendations in Germany. DESIGN: Cross-sectional household survey. SETTING: Data were drawn from the German population and collected through computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Representative random sample of 2087 people (>14 years) from the German population. OUTCOME MEASURES: Public acceptance was measured regarding (1) treatment cost reimbursement, (2) standard training for health professionals on offering cessation treatment, and making cessation treatment a standard part of care for smokers with (3) physical or (4) mental disorders. Association characteristics with smoking status and socio-economic status (SES) were assessed. RESULTS: Support for all policies was high (50%-68%), even among smokers (48%-66%). Ex-smokers and never-smokers were more likely to support standard training on cessation for health professionals than current smokers (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.92; OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.79, respectively). Ex-smokers were also more likely than current smokers to support cessation treatment for smokers with mental disorders (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.73). Men were less likely than women to support cessation treatment for smokers with physical diseases (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91) and free provision of treatment (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). Offering cessation treatment to smokers with physical disorders was generally more accepted than to those with mental health issues. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the German population supports healthcare policies to improve the availability and affordability of tobacco dependence treatment. Non-smokers were more supportive than current smokers of two of the four policies, but odds of support were only about 40% higher. SES characteristics were not consistently associated with public acceptance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00011322.

[E-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products: representative data on consumer behaviour and associated factors in the German population (the DEBRA study)]. / E-Zigaretten und Tabakerhitzer: repräsentative Daten zu Konsumverhalten und assoziierten Faktoren in der deutschen Bevölkerung (die DEBRA-Studie).

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) and heat-not-burn (HNB) devices are relatively new products that are increasingly used alternatively or complementary to ordinary tobacco products. OBJECTIVES: To analyse current data from the German Study on Tobacco Use (DEBRA) regarding the prevalence of EC and HNB device use and associated socioeconomic factors and smoking behaviour; compare reasons for EC use between adolescents and adults; describe the self-perceived risk of HNB devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: DEBRA is an ongoing, representative, face-to-face household survey of the population aged 14 years and older. We analysed data from the first nine waves (June/July 2016 to October/November 2017; n = 18,415) for the current study. RESULTS: During the observation period, 1.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.7-2.2%) of the German population used ECs (2.8% of the 14- to17-year-olds) and 74.5% (95% CI = 69.4-79.2%) of current EC users also smoked tobacco ("dual use"). Three-quarters of adolescents used ECs mainly "for fun", whereas reasons for use among adults related more to smoking tobacco (e. g., less harmful, to quit smoking). Among current smokers and recent ex-smokers (<12 months smoke-free), 0.3% (95% CI = 0.09-0.64%) currently used HNB devices, and 6.0% (95% CI = 5.0-7.2%) had ever used them. Consumption of HNB products increased with increasing education and income. The majority perceived HNB products as somewhat (41.0%, n = 25) or much (14.8%, n = 9) less harmful, and 37.7% (n = 23) as equally harmful compared with tobacco cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: In Germany, ECs are mainly consumed as "dual use" together with tobacco. Consumption of HNB products currently occurs at a very low rate and is relatively more common among smokers with higher education and income. It remains important to monitor the use of new electronic inhalation products in the total population and in relevant subgroups.

The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cytisine in achieving six-month continuous smoking abstinence in tuberculosis patients-protocol for a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tuberculosis (TB) patients who quit smoking have much better disease outcomes than those who continue to smoke. In general populations, behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy is the most effective strategy in helping people to quit. However, there is no evidence for the effectiveness of this strategy in TB patients who smoke. We will assess the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cytisine-a low-cost plant-derived nicotine substitute-for smoking cessation in TB patients compared with placebo, over and above brief behavioural support. DESIGN: Two-arm, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre (30 sites in Bangladesh and Pakistan), individually randomized trial. SETTING: TB treatment centres integrated into public health care systems in Bangladesh and Pakistan. PARTICIPANTS: Newly diagnosed (in the last 4 weeks) adult pulmonary TB patients who are daily smokers (with or without dual smokeless tobacco use) and are interested in quitting (n = 2388). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure is biochemically verified continuous abstinence from smoking at 6 months post-randomization, assessed using Russell Standard criteria. The secondary outcome measures include continuous abstinence at 12 months, lapses and relapses; clinical TB outcomes; nicotine dependency and withdrawal; and adverse events. COMMENTS: This is the first smoking cessation trial of cytisine in low- and middle-income countries evaluating both cessation and TB outcomes. If found effective, cytisine could become the most affordable cessation intervention to help TB patients who smoke.

German Public Support for Tobacco Control Policy Measures: Results from the German Study on Tobacco Use (DEBRA), a Representative National Survey.

Smoking prevalence in Germany remains high at approximately 28%. We assessed public support for tobacco legislation and associations between level of support and smoking and socio-demographic characteristics. Data from 2087 people were collected as part of the German Study on Tobacco Use ("DEBRA"): a nationally representative, face-to-face household survey. Public support was measured on total ban of sale, raising the minimum age for sales, taxation of tobacco industry sales, research into e-cigarettes, and ban of smoking in cars when children are present. Associations were assessed with multivariate logistic regression. Over 50% of the German population support taxing industry profits (57.3%) and assessing e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking (55.5%). Over 40% support raising the legal age of sale (43.1%), and 22.9% support a total ban on tobacco sales. A smoking ban in cars when children are present was most popular (71.5%), even among current smokers (67.0%). There is public support for stricter tobacco control measures in Germany. A smoking ban in cars when children are present could be a feasible policy to implement.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.

External validation of a COPD prediction model using population-based primary care data: a nested case-control study.

Emerging models for predicting risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) require external validation in order to assess their clinical value. We validated a previous model for predicting new onset COPD in a different database. We randomly drew 38,597 case-control pairs (total N = 77,194) of individuals aged ≥35 years and matched for sex, age, and general practice from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. We assessed accuracy of the model to discriminate between COPD cases and non-cases by calculating area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROCAUC) for the prediction scores. Analogous to the development model, ever smoking (OR 6.70; 95%CI 6.41-6.99), prior asthma (OR 6.43; 95%CI 5.85-7.07), and higher socioeconomic deprivation (OR 2.90; 95%CI 2.72-3.09 for highest vs. lowest quintile) increased the risk of COPD. The validated prediction scores ranged from 0-5.71 (ROCAUC 0.66; 95%CI 0.65-0.66) for males and 0-5.95 (ROCAUC 0.71; 95%CI 0.70-0.71) for females. We have confirmed that smoking, prior asthma, and socioeconomic deprivation are key risk factors for new onset COPD. Our model seems externally valid at identifying patients at risk of developing COPD. An impact assessment now needs to be undertaken to assess whether this prediction model can be applied in clinical care settings.

A comparison of the characteristics of iOS and Android users of a smoking cessation app.

iOS and Android smartphone users may differ in ways that affect their use and likelihood of success when using a smoking cessation application (app). If so, it may be necessary to take the device type (iOS and Android) into account when designing smoking cessation apps and in studies evaluating app effectiveness. How do socio-demographic and smoking characteristics, potentially relevant to engagement and cessation outcomes, of the SF28 app users differ between those using the iOS version and those using the Android version? Data were collected between October 2013 and April 2015. The variables measured were age, gender, social grade, time since the most recent quit attempt, choice of medication use (nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline), weekly expenditure on cigarettes, cigarettes smoked per day, reason for using the app and quit date set. The alpha was set to p < 0.006 to adjust for multiple comparisons. A total of 1368 users were included in the analysis. iOS and Android device users were similar in terms of age, social grade, weekly expenditure on cigarettes and cigarettes smoked per day. Compared with Android users, iOS users were more likely to have downloaded the app for a serious quit attempt (74.3 versus 69.6%, p = 0.001), made a quit attempt within the last 12 months (59.6 versus 45.9%, p < 0.001) and set their quit date on the day of registration (61 versus 46.2%, p < 0.001). They were less likely to have used stop-smoking medication to support their quit attempt (31.5 versus 48.6%, p < 0.001). Differences between smokers using the iOS version of smoking cessation apps and those using the Android version may influence quit success.

'To use or not to use': a qualitative study to evaluate experiences of healthcare providers and patients with the assessment of burden of COPD (ABC) tool.

In the management of chronic conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there is a shift from doctor-driven care to patient-centred integrated care with active involvement of and self-management by the patient. A recently developed tool, the assessment of burden of COPD (ABC) tool, can be used in this transition to facilitate self-management support and shared decision-making. We performed a qualitative study, in which we collected and analysed the data using the methods of conventional content analyses. We performed in-depth interviews consisting of mainly open questions. Fifteen healthcare providers and 21 patients were interviewed who had worked with the ABC tool in daily care. In general, participants responded positively to the tool. Healthcare providers felt the visual representation provided was effective and comprehensible for patients and provided them with insight into their disease, a finding that patients confirmed. If patients were allowed to choose between a consultation with or without the ABC tool, the majority would prefer using the tool: it provides them with an overview and insight, which makes it easier to discuss all relevant topics related to COPD. The tool can provide structure in consultations, and is compatible with the concepts of 'motivational interviewing' and 'individualised care-planning'. Suggestions for improvement related to content and layout. So far, the tool has only been available as a stand-alone online program, that is not connected to the electronic medical record systems. It was therefore suggested that the tool be integrated into the systems to enhance its usability and its uptake by healthcare providers.

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary and hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on disease-specific quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), compared with usual care. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, with 357 patients with COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7) aged ≥40 years, who could understand and read the Dutch language. Healthcare providers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group applied the ABC tool, which consists of a short validated questionnaire assessing the experienced burden of COPD, objective COPD parameter (eg, lung function) and a treatment algorithm including a visual display and treatment advice. The control group provided usual care. Researchers were blinded to group allocation during analyses. Primary outcome was the number of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score between baseline and 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC; a measurement of perceived quality of care). RESULTS: At 18-month follow-up, 34% of the 146 patients from 27 healthcare providers in the intervention group showed a clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ, compared with 22% of the 148 patients from 29 healthcare providers in the control group (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.16). No difference was found on the CAT (-0.26 points (scores ranging from 0 to 40); 95% CI -1.52 to 0.99). The PACIC showed a higher improvement in the intervention group (0.32 points (scores ranging from 1 to 5); 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that use of the ABC tool may increase quality of life and perceived quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3788; Results.

The Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) Scale: A Reliable and Valid Questionnaire.

The newly developed Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) scale is a 14-item self-administered questionnaire which measures the physical, psychological, emotional and/or social burden as experienced by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The ABC scale is part of the ABC tool that visualises the outcomes of the questionnaire. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and construct validity of the ABC scale. This multi-centre survey study was conducted in the practices of 19 general practitioners and 9 pulmonologists throughout the Netherlands. Next to the ABC scale, patients with COPD completed the Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Reliability analyses were performed with data from 162 cases. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91 for the total scale. Test-retest reliability, measured at a two week interval (n = 137), had an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.92. Analyses for convergent validity were performed with data from 133 cases. Discriminant and known-groups validity was analysed with data from 162 cases. The ABC scale total score had a strong correlation with the total score of the SGRQ (r = 0.72, p < 0.001) but a weak correlation with the forced expired volume in 1 second predicted (r = -0.28, p < 0.001). Subgroups with more severe disease, defined by GOLD-stage, frequency of exacerbations, activity level and depression scored statistically significantly (p < 0.05) worse on almost all domains of the ABC scale than the less severe subgroups. The ABC scale seems a valid and reliable tool with good discriminative properties.

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ABC) tool: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a growing worldwide problem that imposes a great burden on the daily life of patients. Since there is no cure, the goal of treating COPD is to maintain or improve quality of life. We have developed a new tool, the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool, to assess and visualize the integrated health status of patients with COPD, and to provide patients and healthcare providers with a treatment algorithm. This tool may be used during consultations to monitor the burden of COPD and to adjust treatment if necessary. The aim of the current study is to analyse the effectiveness of the ABC tool compared with usual care on health related quality of life among COPD patients over a period of 18 months. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in COPD patients in both primary and secondary care throughout the Netherlands. An intervention group, receiving care based on the ABC tool, will be compared with a control group receiving usual care. The primary outcome will be the change in score on a disease-specific-quality-of-life questionnaire, the Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will be a different questionnaire (the COPD Assessment Test), lung function and number of exacerbations. During the 18 months follow-up, seven measurements will be conducted, including a baseline and final measurement. Patients will receive questionnaires to be completed at home. Additional data, such as number of exacerbations, will be recorded by the patients' healthcare providers. A total of 360 patients will be recruited by 40 general practitioners and 20 pulmonologists. Additionally, a process evaluation will be performed among patients and healthcare providers. DISCUSSION: The new ABC tool complies with the 2014 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines, which describe the necessity to classify patients on both their airway obstruction and a comprehensive symptom assessment. It has been developed to classify patients, but also to provide visual insight into the burden of COPD and to provide treatment advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3788.

How effective and cost-effective was the national mass media smoking cessation campaign 'Stoptober'?

BACKGROUND: A national smoking cessation campaign based on behaviour change theory and operating through both traditional and new media was launched across England during late 2012 ('Stoptober'). In addition to attempting to start a movement in which smokers would quit at the same time in response to a positive mass quitting trigger, the campaign set smokers the goal of being smoke-free for October and embodied other psychological principles in a range of tools and communications. METHODS: Data on quit attempts were obtained from 31,566 past-year smokers during nationally representative household surveys conducted monthly between 2007 and 2012. The effectiveness of the campaign was assessed by the increase in national quit attempt rate in October relative to other months in 2012 vs. 2007-2011. RESULTS: Relative to other months in the year, more people tried to quit in October in 2012 compared with 2007-2011 (OR=1.79, 95%CI=1.20-2.68). In 2012 there was an approximately 50% increase in quitting during October compared with other months of the same year (9.6% vs. 6.6%; OR=1.50, 95%CI=1.05-2.15), whereas in 2007-2011 the rate in October was non-significantly less than in other months of the same period (6.4% vs. 7.5%; OR=0.84, 95%CI=0.70-1.00). Stoptober is estimated to have generated an additional 350,000 quit attempts and saved 10,400 discounted life years (DLY) at less than £415 per DLY in the modal age group. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a national public health campaign with a clear behavioural target (making a serious quit attempt) using key psychological principles can yield substantial behaviour change and public health impact.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that provision of financial assistance for smokers trying to quit, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs of providing or using smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use and/or prescription of smoking cessation treatment and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. We included economic evaluations when a study presented the costs and effects of two or more alternatives. MAIN RESULTS: We found eleven trials involving financial interventions directed at smokers and healthcare providers.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a statistically significant favourable effect on abstinence at six months or greater when compared to no intervention (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.12, I² = 59%, 4 studies). There was also a significant effect of full financial interventions when compared to no interventions on the number of participants making a quit attempt (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32, I² = 15%) and use of smoking cessation treatment (NRT: RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.15, I² = 43%; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65). There was no evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%). Comparisons of full coverage with partial coverage, partial coverage with no coverage, and partial coverage with another partial coverage intervention did not detect significant effects. Comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage resulted in costs per additional quitter ranging from $119 to $6450. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting.  The absolute differences are small but the costs per additional quitter are low to moderate. We did not detect an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. The methodological qualities of the included studies need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Smoking cessation practices of Dutch general practitioners, cardiologists, and lung physicians.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the smoking cessation practices and smoking behavior of Dutch general practitioners (GPs), cardiologists, and lung physicians. METHODS: We conducted questionnaire surveys among a random sample of 2000 Dutch GPs, all Dutch cardiologists (N=594), and all Dutch lung physicians (N=375). RESULTS: In total, 834 GPs (41.7%), 300 cardiologists (50.5%), and 258 lung physicians (68.8%) filled out and returned the questionnaire. The prevalence of current smokers was 8.2% among GPs, 4.3% among cardiologists, and 3.5% among lung physicians. Of the pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, physicians recommended bupropion most frequently, followed by nicotine patches and nicotine gum. More lung physicians recommended the use of these three aids (67.0%, 36.3% and 18.2%, respectively) than GPs (65.7%, 18.7% and 9.8%, respectively), and than cardiologists (31.6%, 19.7% and 13.2%, respectively). A higher proportion of lung physicians (69.3%) had referred at least one smoker to a nurse for smoking cessation treatment than cardiologists (25%), and than GPs (11.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this national survey, one may conclude that the prevalence of current smoking among Dutch physicians is relatively low and has further decreased since 1988. Dutch GPs, cardiologists, and lung physicians mainly use interventions for smoking cessation that are easy to administer and are not very time consuming. Furthermore, more lung physicians than GPs and cardiologists recommend the use of bupropion, nicotine patch, and nicotine gum. When designing interventions for smoking cessation, one should take into account that physicians are often reluctant to provide interventions which demand much time. Therefore, intensive counseling of smokers who want to quit smoking may be more feasible for trained non-physicians, such as nurses.