Table 3

Crude responses and logistic mixed modelling for perceptions regarding NRT safety, efficacy and adherence

Time pointVery safeAlways safer than smokingSafer than smoking but some concernsNot safeIntraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)*Logistic mixed modelling
Health providersServiceOR
(95% CI)
(Very safe/Always safer vs rest)
P value
NRT safetyPre2 (4.5%)20 (45.5%)20 (45.5%)2 (4.5%)0.140.092.70 (0.74 to 9.94)0.12
Post2 (10.0%)12 (60.0%)6 (30.0%)0 (0.0%)
Time pointVery effectiveModerately effectiveLow effectivenessNot effectiveHealth providersserviceVery/Moderately effective versus restP value
NRT effectivenessPre6 (14.0%)29 (67.4%)8 (18.6%)0 (0.0%)<0.010.456.68 (0.42 to 106.87)0.16
Post4 (20.0%)15 (75.0%)1 (5.0%)0 (0.0%)
Time pointMost adhere to NRT wellEqual numbers adhere well and poorlyFew adhere to NRT wellHealth providersServiceAdhere well versus restP value
NRT adherencePre4 (9.3%)23 (53.5%)16 (37.2%)0.05<0.014.24 (0.9 to 19.93)
Post6 (30.0%)8 (40.0%)6 (30.0%)
  • *ICC reported as <0.01 may be negligible correlation due to low numbers of HPs with measurements at both time points, or due to low number of services.

  • HPs, health providers; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy.