Search

Background Methods Results Conclusion So What? Tobacco smoking rates are higher in rural, regional, and remote (RRR) areas in Australia, and strategies to improve access to quit supports are required. This pilot study examined the feasibility of a smoking cessation intervention for people in RRR areas who smoke with the intention of using this data to design a powered effectiveness trial.A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the feasibility of a 12‐week ‘Outback Quit Pack’ intervention consisting of mailout combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and a proactive referral to Quitline, compared with a minimal support control (1‐page smoking cessation support information mailout) was conducted between January and October 2021. Participants recruited via mailed invitation or Facebook advertising, were adults who smoked tobacco (≥10 cigarettes/day) and resided in RRR areas of New South Wales, Australia. Participants completed baseline and 12‐week follow‐up telephone surveys. Outcomes were feasibility of trial procedures (recruitment method; retention; biochemical verification) and acceptability of intervention (engagement with Quitline; uptake and use of NRT).Facebook advertising accounted for 97% of participant expressions of interest in the study (N = 100). Retention was similarly high among intervention (39/51) and control (36/49) participants. The intervention was highly acceptable: 80% of the intervention group had ≥1 completed call with Quitline, whilst Quitline made 3.7 outbound calls/participant (mean 14:05 mins duration). Most of the intervention group requested NRT refills (78%). No differences between groups in self‐reported cessation outcomes. Biochemical verification using expired air breath testing was not feasible in this study.The Outback Quit Pack intervention was feasible and acceptable. Alternative methods for remote biochemical verification need further study.A powered RCT to test the effectiveness of the intervention to improve access to evidence‐based smoking cessation support to people residing in RRR areas is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue addressed Universities represent important settings for the implementation of public health initiatives such as smoke-free policies. The study aimed to assess staff and student attitudes towards policy enforcement and compliance as well as the acceptability of the provision of cessation support in this setting. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted following the introduction of a designated-areas partial smoke-free policy at two campuses of one Australian university in 2014. Staff (n=533) and students (n=3060) completed separate online surveys assessing attitudes towards smoke-free policy enforcement and compliance, and acceptability of university-provided cessation support. Results Students held significantly stronger beliefs than staff that the smoke-free policy required staff enforcement (69% vs 60%) and violation penalties (67% vs 60%; both P's <0.01); however, most staff (66%) did not believe enforcement was part of their role. Only 55% of student smokers were aware that the university provided any cessation support. 'Free or cheap nicotine replacement therapy' (65%) and 'free stop smoking counselling service' (60%) were the most popular strategies student smokers thought the university should provide. Conclusions University staff and students hold conflicting views over the need for policy enforcement and who is responsible for enforcement roles. Students view the university as an acceptable setting for the provision of smoking cessation support. So what? Where staff are expected to enforce smoke-free policies, specific education and training should be provided. Ongoing monitoring of compliance and enforcement behaviour appears necessary to avoid the pervasive kind of non-compliance to smoke-free policies that have been seen in other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]