Tobacco smoking cessation characteristics
| Primary outcome | Secondary outcomes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author year (Ref) | Number of patients at start of intervention | Current smokers at baseline; outcome measure | Usual care (number of patients) at follow-up | Intervention (number of patients) at follow-up | Description and follow-up interval | Results | Description and follow-up interval | Results |
| Duffy et al 20064 | 184 (91 UC; 93 I) | 148 (68 UC; 80 I); self-report (smoked in the past 6 months) | 62/68 (91 including those not ‘smokers’ at baseline) | 74/80 (93 including those not ‘smokers’ at baseline) | Self-reported smoking status (patients asked if they were currently smoking); 6 months postintervention | χ2 tests of association using ITT analysis: significant difference in smoking cessation with 47% (35/74) quitting in the intervention group vs 31% (19/62) quitting in the usual care group (p<0.05) | Subgroup analyses: self-reported smoking cessation rates; 6 months postintervention | Smoking cessation rates for only those smokers with comorbid depression and/or alcohol (omitting those who smoked only; n=101); the quit rates remained higher in the intervention group (48%) compared with the usual care group (26%; p<0.05). All patients who smoked in the past 6 months were included as smokers and, as expected, those who smoked more recently were significantly less likely to quit in the enhanced usual care and intervention groups (p<0.001). |
| Gosselin et al 2011 27 | 179 (98 UC; 81 EC) | 179 (98 UC; 81 EC); self-report current tobacco use (105 cigarettes, 2 cigars, 1 pipe, 1 chew) | 60/98 | 52/81 | Self-reported smoking status (patients asked if they were currently smoking); 1-month postintervention | χ2 statistic was used to evaluate differences between the EC and UC groups on smoking behaviour reported. Non-ITT quit rates (assumption that those lost to follow-up were missing at random): EC, 14% vs UC, 13% at 1 month (NS). ITT quit rates (assumption that those lost to follow-up had all returned to smoking): EC, 9% vs UC, 8% at 1 month (NS) | Self-reported quit attempt (those who reported that they were currently smoking were subsequently asked whether or not they had made any attempt to stop smoking during the past month); 1-month follow-up postintervention | χ2 statistic was used to evaluate differences between the EC and UC groups on smoking behaviour reported. Quit attempts at 1-month: I, 56% vs UC, 55% (NS) |
| Gritz et al (1993, 1991)15 28 | 186 (94 UC; 92 I) | 164; self-report (currently smoking or stopped smoking <1 month prior to the baseline interview | 56/92 | 58/94 | Smoking cessation; ever quit (abstinent for 48 consecutive hours or longer at any time during the 12-month follow-up postintervention period after receiving initial smoking cessation advice) Point prevalence abstinence (abstinent for 48 hours or longer at the time of the follow-up interview); 1-month, 6-month or 12-month continuous abstinence (abstinent at the interview with no smoking at all after cessation); 1 month, 6 months and 12 months Cotinine validation of self-reported abstinence | No significant differences between intervention and control at any follow-up on any of the 3 smoking cessation outcomes. I, 80% vs 79.8% at 1 month (NS). I, 84.3% vs UC, 82.6% at 6 months (NS). I, 91.4% vs UC, 89.3% at 12 months (NS). I, 69.4% vs UC, 76.2% at 1 month (NS). I, 71.4% vs UC, 73.9% at 6 months (NS). I, 69% vs UC, 78.6% at 12 months (NS). I, 69.4% vs UC, 75% at 1 month (NS). I, 64.3% vs UC, 71% at 6 months (NS). I, 63.8% vs UC 76.8% at 12 months (NS). Urine samples were collected from 83.8% (258 of 308) of participants who reported abstinence. Cotinine validations rates were 85.6% at 1 month, 91.3% at 6 months, 89.6% at 12 months | Consumption of cigarettes per day. Stage of change; 12-month follow-up (for participants who were current smokers at baseline n=96). Predictors of 12-month continuous abstinence (applied to the 96 baseline smokers who completed the trial) | Participants who were smoking at 12 month follow-up (n=30) had significantly reduced their consumption during the study, from 25.4 cigarettes/day (SD=12.8) at baseline to 12.5 (SD=8.1) at 12 months (t=7.67; p=0.0001). No significant difference between I and UC participants. χ2 of the discrepancy between larger number of precontemplators in I group and larger number of participants in the action stage of change in the UC group (p=0.017) Stepwise logistic regression; action stage of change (p=0.0004) entered the model as significant. |
C, control; EC, enhanced care; I, intervention; ITT, intention to treat; NS, not significant; UC, usual care.