Tobacco use: prevention, cessation, and control (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2012
Background. Policymakers need estimates of the impact of tobacco control (TC) policies to set priorities and targets for reducing tobacco use. We systematically reviewed the independent effects of TC policies on smoking behavior. Methods. We searched MEDLINE (through January 2012) and EMBASE and other databases through February 2009, looking for studies published after 1989 in any language that assessed the effects of each TC intervention on smoking prevalence, initiation, cessation, or price participation elasticity. Paired reviewers extracted data from studies that isolated the impact of a single TC intervention. Findings. We included 84 studies. The strength of evidence quantifying the independent effect on smoking prevalence was high for increasing tobacco prices and moderate for smoking bans in public places and antitobacco mass media campaigns. Limited direct evidence was available to quantify the effects of health warning labels and bans on advertising and sponsorship. Studies were too heterogeneous to pool effect estimates. Interpretations. We found evidence of an independent effect for several TC policies on smoking prevalence. However, we could not derive precise estimates of the effects across different settings because of variability in the characteristics of the intervention, level of policy enforcement, and underlying tobacco control environment.
Population-based tobacco treatment: study design of a randomized controlled trial
BMC Public Health, 2012
Background: Most smokers do not receive comprehensive, evidence-based treatment for tobacco use that includes intensive behavioral counseling along with pharmacotherapy. Further, the use of proven, tobacco treatments is lower among minorities than among Whites. The primary objectives of this study are to: (1) Assess the effect of a proactive care intervention (PRO) on population-level smoking abstinence rates (i.e., abstinence among all smokers including those who use and do not utilize treatment) and on utilization of tobacco treatment compared to reactive/usual care (UC) among a diverse population of smokers, (2) Compare the effect of PRO on population-level smoking abstinence rates and utilization of tobacco treatments between African American and White smokers, and (3) Determine the cost-effectiveness of the proactive care intervention. Methods/Design: This prospective randomized controlled trial identifies a population-based sample of current smokers from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic medical record health factor dataset. The proactive care intervention combines: (1) proactive outreach and (2) offer of choice of smoking cessation services (telephone or face-to-face). Proactive outreach includes mailed invitation materials followed by an outreach call that encourages smokers to seek treatment with choice of services. Proactive care participants who choose telephone care receive VA telephone counseling and access to pharmacotherapy. Proactive care participants who choose face-to-face care are referred to their VA facility's smoking cessation clinic. Usual care participants have access to standard smoking cessation services from their VA facility (e.g., pharmacotherapy, smoking cessation clinic) and from their state telephone quitline. Baseline data is collected from VA administrative databases and participant surveys. Outcomes from both groups are collected 12 months post-randomization from participant surveys and from VA administrative databases. The primary outcome is self-reported smoking abstinence, which is assessed at the population-level (i.e., among those who utilize and those who do not utilize tobacco treatment). Primary analyses will follow intention-to-treat methodology. Discussion: This randomized trial is testing proactive outreach strategies offering choice of smoking cessation services, an innovation that if proven effective and cost-effective, will transform the way tobacco treatment is delivered. National dissemination of proactive treatment strategies could dramatically reduce tobacco-related morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Clinical trials registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00608426.
Proactive Tobacco Treatment and Population-Level Cessation
JAMA Internal Medicine, 2014
IMPORTANCE Current tobacco use treatment approaches require smokers to request treatment or depend on the provider to initiate smoking cessation care and are therefore reactive. Most smokers do not receive evidence-based treatments for tobacco use that include both behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of a proactive, population-based tobacco cessation care model on use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments and on population-level smoking cessation rates (ie, abstinence among all smokers including those who use and do not use treatment) compared with usual care among a diverse population of current smokers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Veterans Victory Over Tobacco Study, a pragmatic randomized clinical trial involving a population-based registry of current smokers aged 18 to 80 years. A total of 6400 current smokers, identified using the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic medical record, were randomized prior to contact to evaluate both the reach and effectiveness of the proactive care intervention. INTERVENTIONS Current smokers were randomized to usual care or proactive care. Proactive care combined (1) proactive outreach and (2) offer of choice of smoking cessation services (telephone or in-person). Proactive outreach included mailed invitations followed by telephone outreach to motivate smokers to seek treatment with choice of services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 6-month prolonged smoking abstinence at 1 year and was assessed by a follow-up survey among all current smokers regardless of interest in quitting or treatment utilization. RESULTS A total of 5123 participants were included in the primary analysis. The follow-up survey response rate was 66%. The population-level, 6-month prolonged smoking abstinence rate at 1 year was 13.5% for proactive care compared with 10.9% for usual care (P = .02). Logistic regression mixed model analysis showed a significant effect of the proactive care intervention on 6-month prolonged abstinence (odds ratio [OR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]). In analyses accounting for nonresponse using likelihood-based not-missing-atrandom models, the effect of proactive care on 6-month prolonged abstinence persisted (OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.17-1.51]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Proactive, population-based tobacco cessation care using proactive outreach to connect smokers to evidence-based telephone or in-person smoking cessation services is effective for increasing long-term population-level cessation rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00608426
Aims This paper provides a concise review of the efficacy, effectiveness and affordability of health-care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation, in order to inform national guideline development and assist countries in planning their provision of tobacco cessation support. Methods Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of major health-care tobacco cessation interventions were used to derive efficacy estimates in terms of percentage-point increases relative to comparison conditions in 6–12-month continuous abstinence rates. This was combined with analysis and evidence from 'real world' studies to form a judgement on the probable effectiveness of each intervention in different settings. The affordability of each intervention was assessed for exemplar countries in each World Bank income category (low, lower middle, upper middle, high). Based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, an intervention was judged as affordable for a given income category if the estimated extra cost of saving a life-year was less than or equal to the per-capita gross domestic product for that category of country. Results Brief advice from a health-care worker given opportunistically to smokers attending health-care services can promote smoking cessation, and is affordable for countries in all World Bank income categories (i.e. globally). Proactive telephone support, automated text messaging programmes and printed self-help materials can assist smokers wanting help with a quit attempt and are affordable globally. Multi-session, face-to-face behavioural support can increase quit success for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and is affordable in middle-and high-income countries. Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, nortriptyline, varenicline and cytisine can all aid quitting smoking when given with at least some behavioural support; of these, cytisine and nortripty-line are affordable globally. Conclusions Brief advice from a health-care worker, telephone helplines, automated text messaging, printed self-help materials, cytisine and nortriptyline are globally affordable health-care interventions to promote and assist smoking cessation. Evidence on smokeless tobacco cessation suggests that face-to-face behavioural support and varenicline can promote cessation.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): community health services, decision-making, evidencebased medicine, practice guidelines, preventive health services, public health practice, smoking cessation, meta-analysis, review literature, tobacco smoke pollution, tobacco use cessation (Am J Prev Med 2001;20(2S):67-87)
Offering Population-Based Tobacco Treatment in a Healthcare Setting
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2011
Background-The healthcare system is a key channel for delivering treatment to tobacco users. Brief clinic-based interventions are effective but not reliably offered. Population management strategies might improve tobacco treatment delivery in a healthcare system.
The American Stop Smoking Intervention Study: Conceptual Framework and Evaluation Design
Evaluation Review, 1999
EVALUATION REVIEW / JUNE 1999 Stillman et al. / STOP SMOKING INTERVENTION STUDY Reducing tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, is a public health priority. The American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST) was initiated in 1991 to prevent and reduce tobacco use primarily through policy-based approaches to alter the social-political environment. This article describes the conceptual design, research framework, evaluation components, and analytic strategies that are guiding the evaluation of this demonstration research endeavor. The ASSIST evaluation is a unique analysis of the complex relationships between the social context, public health activity at the state level, tobacco use, and individual behavior. The measures of tobacco control activity developed for this evaluation may be useful in ongoing national cancer control surveillance efforts, and the lessons learned will enhance the development of tobacco control programs.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
Objectives: To compare the methods and findings of systematic reviews (SRs) on common tobacco control interventions from two organizations: the Cochrane Collaboration (''Cochrane'') and the US Task Force for Community Preventive Services (''the Guide''). Study Design and Setting: Literature review. We retrieved all reviews pertaining to tobacco control produced by the Cochrane and the Guide. We identified seven common topics and compared methods and findings of the retrieved reviews. Results: There was considerable variability in the designs of included studies and methods of data synthesis. On average, Cochrane identified more studies than did the Guide (Mean 43.7 vs. 19.0), with only limited overlap between sets of included studies. Most Cochrane reviews (71.4%) were synthesized narratively, whereas most Guide reviews (85.7%) were synthesized using a median of effect size. Despite these differences, findings of the reviews yielded substantial agreement. Conclusion: Cochrane and the Guide conduct SRs on similar tobacco control-related topics differently. The SRs of the two organizations include overlapping, but nonidentical sets, of studies. Still, they usually reach similar conclusions. Identification of all pertinent original studies seems to be a weak point in the SR process. Policy makers should use reviews from both organizations in formulating tobacco control policy.