Use of the Smoking Cessation App Ex-Smokers iCoach and Associations With Smoking-Related Outcomes Over Time in a Large Sample of European Smokers: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions are increasingly used to support smoking cessation. Ex-smokers iCoach was a widely available app for smoking cessation used by 404,551 European smokers between June 15, 2011, and June 21, 2013. This provides a unique opportunity to investigate the uptake of a freely available digital smoking cessation intervention and its effects on smoking-related outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether there were distinct trajectories of iCoach use, examine which baseline characteristics were associated with user groups (based on the intensity of use), and assess if and how these groups were associated with smoking-related outcomes. METHODS: Analyses were performed using data from iCoach users registered between June 15, 2011, and June 21, 2013. Smoking-related data were collected at baseline and every 3 months thereafter, with a maximum of 8 follow-ups. First, group-based modeling was applied to detect distinct trajectories of app use. This was performed in a subset of steady users who had completed at least 1 follow-up measurement. Second, ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the baseline characteristics that were associated with user group membership. Finally, generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between the user groups and smoking status, quitting stage, and self-efficacy over time. RESULTS: Of the 311,567 iCoach users, a subset of 26,785 (8.6%) steady iCoach users were identified and categorized into 4 distinct user groups: low (n=17,422, 65.04%), mild (n=4088, 15.26%), moderate (n=4415, 16.48%), and intensive (n=860, 3.21%) users. Older users and users who found it important to quit smoking had higher odds of more intensive app use, whereas men, employed users, heavy smokers, and users with higher self-efficacy scores had lower odds of more intensive app use. User groups were significantly associated with subsequent smoking status, quitting stage, and self-efficacy over time. For all groups, over time, the probability of being a smoker decreased, whereas the probability of being in an improved quitting stage increased, as did the self-efficacy to quit smoking. For all outcomes, the greatest change was observed between baseline and the first follow-up at 3 months. In the intensive user group, the greatest change was seen between baseline and the 9-month follow-up, with the observed change declining gradually in moderate, mild, and low users. CONCLUSIONS: In the subset of steady iCoach users, more intensive app use was associated with higher smoking cessation rates, increased quitting stage, and higher self-efficacy to quit smoking over time. These users seemed to benefit most from the app in the first 3 months of use. Women and older users were more likely to use the app more intensively. Additionally, users who found quitting difficult used the iCoach app more intensively and grew more confident in their ability to quit over time.

Smoking cessation strategy in the national cervical cancer screening program (SUCCESS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial and process evaluation in Dutch general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer screening in general practice could be a routine moment to provide female smokers with stop smoking advice and support. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a stop smoking strategy delivered by trained practice assistants after the cervical smear, and to evaluate the implementation process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a two-arm, pragmatic cluster randomised trial, in Dutch general practice. Randomisation takes place 1:1 at the level of the general practice. Practices either deliver the SUCCESS stop smoking strategy or the usual care condition. The strategy consists of brief stop smoking advice based on the Ask-Advise-Connect method and is conducted by trained practice assistants after routine cervical cancer screening. The primary outcome is the performance of a serious quit attempt in the 6 months after screening. Secondary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence abstinence, reduction in the number of cigarettes per day and transition in motivation to quit smoking. Follow-up for these measurements takes place after 6 months. Analysis on the primary outcome aims to detect a 10% difference between treatment arms (0.80 power, p=0.05, using a one-sided test), and will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. The process evaluation will assess feasibility, acceptability and barriers or enablers to the strategy's implementation. For this purpose, both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via questionnaires and in-depth interviews, respectively, in both individual study participants and involved staff. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport approved of the trial after an advisory report from the Health Council (Nr. 2018/17). A licence was provided to conduct the study under the Population Screening Act. Study results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL5052 (NTR7451).

Smoking cessation advice after cervical screening: a qualitative interview study of acceptability in Dutch primary care.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening in general practice could be a routine and opportune moment to advise females who smoke to stop smoking. AIM: The aims of this study were to investigate the attitudes of females who smoke to receiving advice about stopping smoking after cervical screening and to identify factors associated with the acceptability of this advice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This qualitative interview study was conducted with Dutch females who smoked, had undergone cervical screening, and were aged 30 to 60 years. Interviews were performed between December 2016 and September 2017. METHOD: In this study 15 participants were interviewed and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Females who smoke were ambivalent (positive or sceptical) about being advised to stop smoking after they had undergone cervical screening. An explanation of why smoking behaviour is addressed by the practice assistant performing the smear, and making females feel at ease during the smear test, were found to be factors that might influence acceptability of such advice. Although a personal and non-judgemental approach to discussing smoking was considered essential, participants expressed different preferences regarding the form and content of cessation support. This was reflected by the variations in knowledge about smoking cessation support, previous experiences of cessation attempts, and received cessation advice or support. CONCLUSION: Study participants had mixed opinions about being given advice about smoking cessation after their cervical smear test and differed in their preferences for the type of support for smoking cessation. An interactive approach might improve how well a smoking cessation intervention is received by females who smoke and cater to their individual needs and preferences.