Long-term follow-up of a high- and a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting– a randomized trial

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention for lung screening patients. Participants ( N = 39) were enrolled in a single-arm pilot study of a four-session telephone-based intervention. Self-report measures were completed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Participants were long-term smokers; 62 percent were not motivated to quit. Twenty-three percent attempted quitting, 29 percent decreased their smoking, and 11 percent reported abstinence. Confidence increased ( p < .001) and there were trends toward increased importance ( p = .09) and comparative disease risk ( p = .02). This intervention was acceptable and associated with improvements in smoking-related beliefs and behaviors.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030934 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. e030934 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Inna Feldman ◽

Asgeir Runar Helgason ◽

Pia Johansson ◽

Åke Tegelberg ◽

Eva Nohlert

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

High Intensity ◽

Short Term ◽

Low Intensity ◽

Cessation Treatment ◽

Long Term Follow Up

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up.Design and outcome measuresIntervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5–8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (€) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.SettingThe study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.Participants294 smokers aged 19–71 years were included in the study.InterventionsBehaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).ResultsThe more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5–8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to €918 and €3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.ConclusionCEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of a Pharmacy Supported e-Cigarette Smoking Cessation Intervention in North West England

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1038808/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alan D. Price ◽

Margaret Coffey ◽

Lawrence Houston ◽

Penny A. Cook

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cigarette Smoking ◽

Service Providers ◽

Electronic Cigarettes ◽

Public Health Intervention ◽

Smoking Cessation Intervention ◽

Service Users ◽

Cessation Intervention

Abstract Background: Cigarette smoking cessation has been described as the world’s most important public health intervention. Electronic cigarettes are a relatively new tool for assisting smoking cessation but there is a lack of data on their efficacy. This article reports on a pharmacy supported e-cigarette smoking cessation intervention undertaken in a metropolitan area in the north of England.Methods: Longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation incorporating analysis of secondary data, interviews with service users, and interviews with service providers at 3-month and 12-month follow-up, with an additional text message survey of service users at 12-month follow-up. Results: The four-week follow-up data suggest that for every twenty people given an e-cigarette, six quit smoking tobacco and three people cut their cigarette intake by more than five cigarettes per day. Long-term follow-up results were positive but only a small number of participants were still engaged with the study at 12 months. Service users and providers spoke positively about the combination of e-cigarettes and pharmacy support.Conclusions: E-cigarette distribution combined with pharmacy support appears to be an agreeable and effective intervention for smoking cessation, but further data are needed on long-term quit rates and health effects.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of telephone-based follow-up support delivered in combination with a multi-component smoking cessation intervention in family practice: A cluster-randomized trial

Preventive Medicine ◽

10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.02.018 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 56 (6) ◽

pp. 390-397 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Sophia Papadakis ◽

Paul W. McDonald ◽

Andrew L. Pipe ◽

Scott T. Letherdale ◽

Robert D. Reid ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Randomized Trial ◽

Family Practice ◽

Cluster Randomized Trial ◽

Smoking Cessation Intervention ◽

Cessation Intervention ◽

Cluster Randomized

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of a High- and a Low-Intensity Smoking Cessation Intervention in Sweden: A Randomized Trial

Nicotine & Tobacco Research ◽

10.1093/ntr/ntt009 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 15 (9) ◽

pp. 1519-1527 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

E. Nohlert ◽

A. R. Helgason ◽

P. Tillgren ◽

A. Tegelberg ◽

P. Johansson

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomized Trial ◽

Smoking Cessation Intervention ◽

Low Intensity ◽

Cessation Intervention ◽

The Cost

Download Full-text

Does Effectiveness of Adolescent Smoking-Cessation Intervention Endure Into Young Adulthood? 7-Year Follow-Up Results from a Group-Randomized Trial

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0146459 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e0146459 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Arthur V. Peterson ◽

Patrick M. Marek ◽

Kathleen A. Kealey ◽

Jonathan B. Bricker ◽

Evette J. Ludman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Randomized Trial ◽

Young Adulthood ◽

Adolescent Smoking ◽

Smoking Cessation Intervention ◽

Cessation Intervention ◽

Group Randomized Trial

Download Full-text

Assessing the efficacy and impact of a personalised smoking cessation intervention among type 2 diabetic smokers: study protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial (DISCGO-RCT)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040117 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (11) ◽

pp. e040117

Author(s):

Carole Clair ◽

Aurélie Augsburger ◽

Priska Birrer ◽

Isabella Locatelli ◽

Joelle Schwarz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Smoking Cessation ◽

Smoking Cessation Intervention ◽

Randomised Control Trial ◽

Primary Study ◽

Smoking Abstinence ◽

Open Label ◽

Cessation Intervention

IntroductionFew studies have assessed the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in individuals with type 2 diabetes, but interventions adapted to the specific needs of this population are warranted. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a smoking cessation intervention in a population of smokers with type 2 diabetes and to measure the metabolic impact of smoking cessation.Methods and analysisThe study is an open-label, randomised control trial. Participants recruited from a sanitary region of Switzerland will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or the control arm. The intervention group will have four individual counselling sessions over 12 weeks. Trained research nurses will conduct the behavioural intervention, using motivational interviews and addressing diabetes and gender specificities. The control group will have one short counselling session at baseline and will be given written information on smoking cessation. Both groups will have a follow-up visit at 26 and 52 weeks. Demographic and medical data will be collected at baseline and follow-up, along with blood and urine samples. The primary study outcome is continuous smoking abstinence validated by expired-air carbon monoxide from week 12 to week 52. Secondary study outcomes are continuous and 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 and 26 weeks; change in motivation to quit and cigarette consumption; and change in glycosylated haemoglobin levels, body weight, waist circumference and renal function after smoking cessation. In a subsample of 80 participants, change in stool microbiota from baseline will be measured at 3, 8 and 26 weeks after smoking cessation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained by the competent ethics committee (Commission cantonale d’éthique de la recherche sur l’être humain, CER-VD 2017–00812). The results of the study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numbersClinicalTrials.gov NCT03426423 and SNCTP000002762; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

A randomized trial of levamisole versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in malignant melanoma.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.1991.9.5.736 ◽

1991 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 736-740 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

Author(s):

L E Spitler

Keyword(s):

Malignant Melanoma ◽

Adjuvant Therapy ◽

Randomized Trial ◽

Control Groups ◽

Disease Free Interval ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Long Term Follow Up ◽

And Control

We conducted a long-term follow-up (median, 10.5 years) of patients included in a randomized trial of levamisole versus placebo as surgical adjuvant therapy in 203 patients with malignant melanoma. Of the patients randomized, 104 received levamisole, and 99 received placebo. The results show that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups with regard to any of the three end points analyzed. These included disease-free interval, time to appearance of visceral metastasis, and survival. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the treatment and control groups after adjusting for age, sex, or stage of disease.

Download Full-text