Tobacco Control in Denmark - How the Ugly Duckling Turned into a Swan.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of tobacco control policies has been a neglected topic in tobacco research. A comprehensive Tobacco Action Plan including plain packaging, point-of-sale display ban, a ban on characterizing flavours (in products other than cigarettes), a strengthening of the promotion and marketing ban, a ban on the sale of novel nicotine products to minors, smoke-and nicotine-free-school hours in all schools with minors, and a significant increase in tobacco tax, was adopted in Denmark in 2019. METHODS: Eleven people involved or very close to the advocacy process were invited, two did not respond and nine attended our research centre. We used the Nominal Group Technique, a consensus method, to identify the most important driving factors for passing the Tobacco Action Plan. RESULTS: The round-robin identified 39 driving factors merged into 13 in the clarification phase. In the ranking phase, participants agreed on seven factors that they perceived have strongly influenced the political will to strengthen national tobacco control comprehensively. The most important factors were national data and evidence, a nationwide alliance with broad partnerships, a strict focus on young people, continuous media coverage, intensive lobbying by many different advocates, making it a community agenda - not a political one, and effective professional campaigns. CONCLUSION: Our findings agree with experiences from other countries that significantly improved tobacco control. The Danish strategy, including a nationwide alliance with broad partnerships, had a high influence on the political agenda. IMPLICATIONS: In this study, there was a consensus that seven factors strongly influenced the political will to comprehensively strengthen the national tobacco control in Denmark in a short time: national data and evidence; a nationwide alliance with broad partnerships; a strict focus on children and young people; continuous media coverage; intensive lobbying by many different advocates; making it a community agenda - not a political one, and effective professional campaigns. This is consistent with findings from other countries.

Opportunistic screening for COPD among socially marginalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease associated with premature death. Tobacco exposure is the main risk factor, but lower socioeconomic status, early life insults, and occupational exposures are also important risk factors. Socially marginalized people, facing homelessness, substance use disorder, and mental illness, are likely to have a higher risk of developing COPD, and, furthermore, experience barriers to healthcare access and consequently poorer outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess COPD prevalence and the impact of opportunistic screening among hospitalized patients who are in contact with hospital social nurses. These patients constitute a group of patients with a high prevalence of psychiatric and somatic diseases, substance use, low life expectancy, and are socially marginalized. METHODS: The present prospective longitudinal study includes a clinical examination at baseline. Participants will have spirometry done and be interviewed regarding risk factors, socioeconomic conditions, and respiratory symptoms. The 5-year follow-up assessment incorporates data from baseline and register data over the 5 years, including information on morbidity, use of COPD medication, hospital contacts, mortality, and socioeconomic factors. ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Referral for further diagnostic work-up and management after the screening, including COPD treatment and smoking cessation support, is expected to improve survival rates. The study is still enrolling patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04754308 with study status: "enrolling".

The Very Brief Advice method for smoking cessation.

This review delves into the application and effectiveness of Very Brief Advice (VBA) for smoking cessation in Denmark's healthcare system. Despite some evidence, VBA's support remains limited, adopted by only a few hospitals and overlooked by many healthcare professionals. To enhance cessation efforts, we recommend elevating its status from optional to mandatory. Underlining VBA's significance as a referral catalyst is pivotal to ensuring its sustained influence within the broader cessation strategy.

Barriers to implementation of smoking cessation support among healthcare professionals in the secondary healthcare sector: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking cessation support (SCS) in the hospital is essential; patients often struggle to maintain quit attempts, which necessitates assistance from healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, unknown barriers can obstruct the implementation of SCS in hospitals. This study aims to uncover barriers to the implementation of SCS in psychiatric, somatic, inpatient, and outpatient hospital settings. METHODS: In the period from June to September 2021, HCPs in a large secondary care hospital in the Region of Southern Denmark completed an online, cross-sectional study, providing sociodemographic details and listing potential barriers to SCS. They also shared additional barriers in the form of free-text responses. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of free-text responses were performed. RESULTS: Of 1645 HCPs surveyed, 409 elaborated their response in the free-text field assessing unlisted barriers. Top listed barriers, reported by more than one-third of participants, included: 'lack of time' (45.1%), 'lack of patient motivation' (34.3%), and 'insufficient knowledge on how to support' (32.2%). Free-text responses revealed three barrier-related, which we grouped under the themes of: 'Concerned about the patient', 'Not part of my job', and 'Inappropriate setting'. CONCLUSIONS: This quantitative and qualitative study identifies barriers to SCS on multiple levels in the hospital setting, i.e. on the patient, provider, and organizational levels. These results can inform healthcare organizations and professionals in the implementation of SCS in routine hospital care.

Do school-based smoking preventive interventions have unintended effects? Post hoc analysis of the Focus cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Public health interventions are designed to improve specific health-related outcomes; however, they may also produce negative side effects, such as substitution use, psychological or social harms. Knowledge about the unintended effects of school-based smoking preventive interventions is sparse. Hence, this study examined these potential unintended effects of the smoking-reducing intervention, Focus, among students in the vocational education and training setting. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial stratified by school type with 5 months follow-up. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Across Denmark, eight schools were randomised to the intervention group (n=844 students, response proportion 76%) and six schools to the control group (n=815 students, response proportion 75%). This study focused solely on students who smoked at baseline (N=491). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was developed systematically based on theory and a thoroughly mixed-methods needs assessment. Intervention components included a comprehensive school tobacco policy (smoke-free school hours) supported by a 3-day course for school staff and launched by an edutainment session for students; class-based lessons and a quit-and-win competition; and individual telephone smoking cessation support. OUTCOMES: Alternative tobacco and nicotine products (regular use of smokeless tobacco, hookah and e-cigarettes), regular cannabis use, boredom and loneliness at school, stress and perceived stigmatisation among smokers. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant unintended effects of the intervention. Nonetheless, insignificant findings indicated that students in the intervention group were less likely to be bored during school hours (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.10) and experience stress (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10), but more likely to report feeling stigmatised compared with the control group (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.40). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings suggested no unintended effects of the Focus trial with respect to substitution use, psychological, nor group or social harms. Future research is encouraged to report potential harmful outcomes of smoking preventive interventions, and interventions should be aware of the possible stigmatisation of smokers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16455577.