Search

Introduction: In addition to the prevention of tobacco consumption, the establishment and assurance of high-quality treatment for harmful use and dependence on tobacco products remains an important health-related task in Germany. Regular updating of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) S3 guideline "Smoking and Tobacco Dependence: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment" (Tobacco Guideline) offers a sustainable and reputable source of knowledge on smoking cessation. Methods: Under the auspices of the German Society for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Neurology (DGPPN) and the German Society for Addiction Research and Addiction Therapy (DG-Sucht), the Tobacco Guideline was revised in 2019–2020 by 63 experts, who were involved in the development process of the text, in 11 working groups. Undue influence of conflicts of interest on the guideline could be minimized through careful conflict of interest management. Delegates from 50 professional societies discussed the 80 guideline recommendations and voted online. Results: In addition to recommendations for screening and diagnostics, the Tobacco Guideline takes a positive stance towards the use of low-threshold counseling and support services. If, due to the severity of the tobacco-related disorder, brief counseling, telephone counseling, or internet- or smartphone-based methods are not sufficiently effective, individual or group behavioral therapy, possibly in combination with medication, is indicated. If nicotine replacement therapy is not effective, varenicline or bupropion should be offered. Alternative strategies with a lower level of recommendation are hypnotherapy, mindfulness-based treatments, or medication with cytisine. In adolescents and pregnant women, the use of medication should be limited to well-specified exceptions and nicotine replacement. The mean agreement with the recommendations reached a value of 98%. A general overview of the treatment recommendations of the Tobacco Guideline is provided by three clinical algorithms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Recently, experimental paradigms have been developed to strengthen automatic avoidance or inhibitory responses for smoking cues. However, these procedures have not yet been directly compared regarding their effectiveness and mechanisms of action. Objective: This study compared the effects of avoidance vs. inhibitory training as an add-on to a brief smoking cessation intervention. The standard Approach-Avoidance-Task (AAT) was adapted for both training types and control conditions. Methods: One hundred twenty-four smokers attended behavioral counseling for smoking cessation and were thereafter randomized to one of four training conditions: avoidance-AAT, sham-avoidance-AAT, inhibition-AAT, sham-inhibition-AAT. During a 2-week training period including five training sessions, smokers in the avoidance-AAT trained to implicitly avoid all smoking-related cues, while smokers in the inhibition-AAT trained to implicitly inhibit behavioral response to smoking cues. During sham training, no such contingencies appeared. Self-report and behavioral data were assessed before and after training. Cigarette smoking and nicotine dependence were also assessed at 4- and 12-week follow-ups. Results: At posttest, avoidance training was more effective in reducing daily smoking than inhibition training. However, this difference was no longer evident in follow-up assessments. All training conditions improved other smoking- and health-related outcomes. Neither training changed smoking-related approach biases or associations, but approach biases for smoking-unrelated pictures increased and Stroop interference decreased in all conditions. Smoking devaluation was also comparable in all groups. Conclusions: Avoidance training might be slightly more effective in reducing smoking than inhibitory training. Overall, however, all four training types yielded equivalent therapy and training effects. Hence, a clear preference for one type of training remains premature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]