Advertisement

Extended Self-Help for Smoking Cessation

A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published:February 08, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.12.016

      Introduction

      Far too few smokers receive recommended interventions at their healthcare visits, highlighting the importance of identifying effective, low-cost smoking interventions that can be readily delivered. Self-help interventions (e.g., written materials) would meet this need, but they have shown low efficacy. The purpose of this RCT was to determine the efficacy of a self-help intervention with increased duration and intensity.

      Design

      Randomized parallel trial design involving enrollment between April 2010 and August 2011 with follow-up data for 24 months.

      Setting/participants

      U.S. national sample of daily smokers (N=1,874).

      Intervention

      Participants were randomized to one of three arms of a parallel trial design: Traditional Self-Help (TSH, n=638), Standard Repeated Mailings (SRM, n=614), or Intensive Repeated Mailings (IRM, n=622). TSH received an existing self-help booklet for quitting smoking. SRM received eight different cessation booklets mailed over a 12-month period. IRM received monthly mailings of ten booklets and additional material designed to enhance social support over 18 months.

      Main outcome measures

      The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence collected at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

      Results

      Data were analyzed between 2013 and 2015. A dose−response effect was found across all four follow-up points. For example, by 24 months, IRM produced the highest abstinence rate (30.0%), followed by SRM (24.4%) and TSH (18.9%). The difference in 24-month abstinence rates between IRM and TSH was 11.0% (95% CI=5.7%, 16.3%). Cost analyses indicated that, compared with TSH, the incremental cost per quitter who received SRM and IRM was $560 and $361, respectively.

      Conclusions

      Self-help interventions with increased intensity and duration resulted in significantly improved abstinence rates that extended 6 months beyond the end of the intervention. Despite the greater intensity, the interventions were highly cost effective, suggesting that widespread dissemination in healthcare settings could greatly enhance quitting.

      Trial Registration

      This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01352195.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Jha P.
        • Peto R.
        Global health: global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 60-68https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1308383
        • Pierce J.P.
        • Cummins S.E.
        • White M.M.
        • Humphrey A.
        • Messer K.
        Quitlines and nicotine replacement for smoking cessation: do we need to change policy?.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 2012; 33: 341-356https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124624
        • Papadakis S.
        • McDonald P.
        • Mullen K.A.
        • Reid R.
        • Skulsky K.
        • Pipe A.
        Strategies to increase the delivery of smoking cessation treatments in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Prev Med. 2010; 51: 199-213https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.06.007
        • Hartmann-Boyce J.
        • Lancaster T.
        • Stead L.
        Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 6: CD001118https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001118.pub3
        • Fiore M.C.
        • Jaen C.R.
        • Baker T.B.
        • et al.
        Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update.
        U.S. DHHS, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD2008
        • Lancaster T.
        • Stead L.F.
        Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 2: CD001292https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001292.pub2
        • Brandon T.H.
        • Collins B.N.
        • Juliano L.M.
        • Lazev A.B.
        Preventing relapse among former smokers: a comparison of minimal interventions through telephone and mail.
        J Consul Clin Psychol. 2000; 68: 103-113https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.1.103
        • Brandon T.H.
        • Meade C.D.
        • Herzog T.A.
        • Chirikos T.N.
        • Webb M.S.
        • Cantor A.B.
        Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a minimal intervention to prevent smoking relapse: dismantling the effects of amount of content versus contact.
        J Consul Clin Psychol. 2004; 72: 797-808https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.797
        • Brandon T.H.
        • Simmons V.N.
        • Meade C.D.
        • et al.
        Self-help booklets for preventing postpartum smoking relapse: a randomized trial.
        Am J Public Health. 2012; 102: 2109-2115https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300653
        • Agboola S.
        • McNeill A.
        • Coleman T.
        • Leonardi Bee J.
        A systematic review of the effectiveness of smoking relapse prevention interventions for abstinent smokers.
        Addiction. 2010; 105: 1362-1380https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02996.x
        • Chirikos T.N.
        • Herzog T.A.
        • Meade C.D.
        • Webb M.S.
        • Brandon T.H.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of a complementary health intervention: the case of smoking relapse prevention.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004; 20: 475-480https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462304001382
        • Westmaas J.L.
        • Bontemps-Jones J.
        • Bauer J.E.
        Social support in smoking cessation: reconciling theory and evidence.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2010; 12: 695-707https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq077
        • Unrod M.
        • Simmons V.N.
        • Sutton S.K.
        • et al.
        A randomized clinical trial of self-help intervention for smoking cessation: research design, interventions, and baseline data.
        Contemp Clin Trials. 2014; 38: 284-290https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.010
        • Biener L.
        • Abrams D.B.
        The Contemplation Ladder: validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation.
        Health Psychol. 1991; 10: 360-365https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.10.5.360
      1. U.S. DHHS, NIH, National Cancer Institute. Clearing the Air: Quit Smoking Today. NIH Publication No. 03-1647. https://www.myhealth.va.gov/mhv-portal-web/ShowDoc/BEA%20Repository/healthy_living/Smoking%20Cessation%20Clearing%20the%20Air.pdf. Published April 2003. Accessed January 12, 2016.

        • Marlatt G.A.
        Relapse prevention: theoretical rationale and overview of the model.
        Relapse Prev. 1985; : 3-70
        • Shiffman S.
        • Shumaker S.A.
        • Abrams D.B.
        • et al.
        Models of smoking relapse.
        Health Psychol. 1986; 5: 13-27https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.5.Suppl.13
        • Meade C.D.
        • Byrd J.C.
        Patient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature.
        Am J Public Health. 1989; 79: 204-206https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.79.2.204
        • Creswell K.G.
        • Cheng Y.
        • Levine M.D.
        A test of the stress-buffering model of social support in smoking cessation: is the relationship between social support and time to relapse mediated by reduced withdrawal symptoms?.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 17: 566-571https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu192
      2. Scholz U, Stadler G, Ochsner S, Rackow P, Hornung R, Knoll N. Examining the relationship between daily changes in support and smoking around a self-set quit date. Health Psychol. In press. Online October 12, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000286.

        • Heatherton T.F.
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Frecker R.C.
        • Fagerstrom K.O.
        The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire.
        Br L Addiction. 1991; 86: 1119-1127https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x
        • Attkisson C.C.
        • Greenfield T.K.
        Client satisfaction questionnaire-8 and service satisfaction scale-30.
        in: Maruish M. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ1994: 402-420
        • Benowitz N.L.
        • Jacob P.
        • Hall S.
        • et al.
        Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2002; 4: 149-159https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200210123581
        • Li P.
        • Stuart E.A.
        • Allison D.B.
        Multiple imputation: a flexible tool for handling missing data.
        JAMA. 2015; 314: 1966-1967https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15281
        • Schafer J.L.
        Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data.
        Chapman & Hall, New York, NY1997https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439821862
        • Rubin D.B.
        Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys.
        John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY1987https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696
        • Lancaster T.
        • Stead L.F.
        Self-help interventions for smoking cessation.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 3: CD001118https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001118.pub2
        • Xu X.
        • Alexander Jr, R.L.
        • Simpson S.A.
        • et al.
        A cost-effectiveness analysis of the first federally funded antismoking campaign.
        Am J Prev Med. 2015; 48: 318-325https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.011
        • Ronckers E.T.
        • Groot W.
        • Ament A.J.
        Systematic review of economic evaluations of smoking cessation: standardizing the cost-effectiveness.
        Med Decis Making. 2005; 25: 437-448https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X05278431
        • Cromwell J.
        • Bartosch W.J.
        • Fiore M.C.
        • Hasselblad V.
        • Baker T.
        Cost-effectiveness of the clinical practice recommendations in the AHCPR guideline for smoking cessation.
        JAMA. 1997; 278: 1759-1766https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550210057039
        • Curry S.J.
        • Grothaus L.C.
        • McAfee T.
        • Pabiniak C.
        Use and cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation services under four insurance plans in a health maintenance organization.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 673-679https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199809033391006
        • Smit E.S.
        • Evers S.M.
        • de Vries H.
        • Hoving C.
        Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Internet-based computer tailoring for smoking cessation.
        J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15: e57https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2059
        • Nohlert E.
        • Helgason Á.R.
        • Tillgren P.
        • Tegelberg Å.
        • Johansson P.
        Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a high-and a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in Sweden: a randomized trial.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2013; 15: 1519-1527https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntt009
        • Smith M.Y.
        • Cromwell J.
        • DePue J.
        • Spring B.
        • Redd W.
        • Unrod M.
        Determining the cost-effectiveness of a computer-based smoking cessation intervention in primary care.
        Manag Care. 2007; 16: 48-55
        • Song F.
        • Raftery J.
        • Aveyard P.
        • Hyde C.
        • Barton P.
        • Woolacott N.
        Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: a literature review and a decision analytic analysis.
        Med Decis Making. 2002; 22: S26-S37https://doi.org/10.1177/027298902237708
      3. Leif Associates. Report: the business case for coverage of tobacco cessation−2012 update. www.naquitline.org/news/86973/The-Business-Case-for-Coverage-of-Tobacco-Cessation.htm. Accessed December 16, 2015.

        • Fraser D.
        • Kobinsky K.
        • Smith S.S.
        • Kramer J.
        • Theobald W.E.
        • Baker T.B.
        Five population-based interventions for smoking cessation: a MOST trial.
        Transl Behav Med. 2014; 4: 382-390https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0278-8
        • Graham A.L.
        • Cobb N.K.
        • Papandonatos G.D.
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of Internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation.
        Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 46-53https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.451