Search

Introduction: People living in coastal communities have some of the worst health outcomes in the UK, driven in part by high smoking rates. Deprived coastal communities include socially disadvantaged groups that struggle to access traditional stop smoking services. The study aimed to seek the views of people who smoke living in coastal communities, to assess the optimal smoking cessation intervention for this population. In addition, the Template for Intervention Description Replication (TIDieR) checklist was adapted as an analytical framework for qualitative data to inform intervention design. Methods: Current or recent ex-smokers (n = 25) were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews from a range of community locations in a deprived English seaside town. A thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken adapting the TIDieR framework. This analysis was triangulated with relevant literature and notes from stakeholder meetings and observations to map onto the TIDieR checklist to describe the optimal intervention. Results: Barriers to quitting smoking in the target population included low motivation to quit, high anxiety/boredom, normalisation of smoking and widespread illicit tobacco use. There was broad support for combining behavioural support, e-cigarettes and financial incentives, with a strong preference for the intervention to be delivered opportunistically and locally within (non-healthcare) community settings, in a non-pressurising manner, ideally by a community worker specially trained to give stop smoking support. Conclusions: An intensive community-based smoking cessation intervention was acceptable to the target population. Adapting the TIDieR checklist as a deductive qualitative analytical framework offered a systematic approach to intervention development. Combined with other intervention development activities, this ensured that the intervention design process was transparent and the proposed intervention was well defined. It is recommended that prior to intervention development researchers speak to members of the target population who may give valuable insight into the optimal intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) and other species that feed at bird feeders balance the benefit of easy foraging with the added risk of predation. Individual birds respond differently to risky situations, and these differences have been attributed to the birds' personalities, which researchers commonly assess with an "open-field" behavioral assay. However, these behavioral assays in birds have not been compared to behavior in the wild in the context of foraging in the presence of a predator (i.e., risk-taking behavior). We color-banded chickadees in a wild population and conducted behavioral assays in the field. We later used foraging trials to investigate these color-banded individuals' responses to a predator (Cooper's hawk, Accipiter cooperii) model or a series of Cooper's hawk calls. We found that foraging black-capped chickadees responded more strongly to the presence of a predator model than to predator calls. Individual birds differed in their responses, and the behavioral assays (activity and exploration) predicted individual behavior in the wild during the foraging experiments. Activity and exploration assay scores were only weakly related, suggesting these two assays represent different traits. Both highly active birds and fast explorers exhibited some reluctance to visit the feeder (either reduced number of visits or greater latency to visit) when the predator model was present, a relationship that was somewhat unexpected. Our results suggest that standard behavioral assays predict behavior in the wild, but care should be taken when generalizing among species and studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Methods Results Conclusions Youth use of disposable vapes has increased markedly in the United Kingdom in recent years, yet little is known about the motivations, experiences and perceptions of young people themselves. This study aimed to explore young people’s experiences and use of disposable vapes.This was a qualitative study recruiting young people reporting regularly vaping disposables, collecting data via dyad guided, individual and group interviews. Data analysis was theoretically informed by the Social Ecological Model. Inductive and deductive coding approaches were used, with resolution of coded interpretations by consensus.Twenty‐nine young people aged 16–20 years participated in qualitative interviews. At the individual level, participants discussed how characteristics of disposable vapes were important to them—particularly price, accessibility and the attractive designs, colours, names and flavours. Young people frequently engaged in both vaping and tobacco smoking, seeing the behaviours as interchangeable dependent on context, and having inaccurate relative harm perceptions of vaping compared with smoking. Experimentation was widespread and many used vapes as a way of managing stress and anxiety. Vaping was positioned as a social behaviour, common among peers. Parental influence on vaping behaviour was minimal, although vaping initiation could be influenced by family vaping norms. Culturally, vaping was a widespread normalized behaviour. Young people were aware of media reports and potential harms, but were less aware of smoking related harms as a consequence.Disposable vapes appear to be attractive and accessible to young people in the United Kingdom. Vaping is normalized in this population, despite being seen as potentially damaging to health, and vaping and smoking are engaged in interchangeably. Underage sales of vapes are reportedly widespread. Strict regulation, such as banning products or increasing prices, may prompt UK youth to switch from vaping to smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Design Setting Participants Interventions Measurements Findings Conclusions Pathways of transitioning from tobacco smoking to vaping after receiving an e‐cigarette‐based smoking cessation intervention have been minimally explored. Study aims: 1) identify pathways between intervention delivery and final follow‐up; 2) describe baseline and post‐intervention statistical data in relation to smoking/vaping behaviour of the different pathway groups; 3) explore qualitative participant perspectives contextualising pathway groups.Embedded mixed‐methods analysis of data collected for the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (COSTED) randomised controlled trial.Recruitment from 6 Emergency Departments (5 in England and 1 in Scotland) between January and August 2022.366 adult smokers who were randomised to receive the COSTED intervention and provided data at 6‐month follow‐up. Qualitative subsample of 24 participants interviewed after follow‐up.Brief smoking cessation advice, provision of an e‐cigarette starter kit and referral to the local Stop Smoking Service.Descriptive statistical reporting of identified pathways and smoking/vaping behaviour at baseline and 6‐month follow‐up. Semi‐structured phone/video interviews analysed thematically.13.4% (n = 49) of participants quit smoking within 1 month of receiving the intervention, 19.1% (n = 70) quit between 1 and 6 months, 24.9% (n = 91) reduced cigarettes per day (CPD) by at least 50%, and 42.6% did not experience a significant smoking reduction. Approximately a third of participants who quit reported not vaping at follow‐up. Reporting dual use was associated with a reduction in CPD. Appoximately a third reported experimenting with a different device to the one provided as part of the intervention. Quitters reported themes of satisfaction with vaping, changes in environment facilitating quitting and motivation to quit.Dual use of cigarettes and e‐cigarettes can result in a reduction of smoking and may preclude quitting smoking. Sustained e‐cigarette use is not always necessary for quitting success. Success depends on personal context as well satisfaction with vaping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Screening for smoking when people interact with healthcare services and referral of those who smoke to stop smoking services (SSSs) is a key component of efforts to tackle tobacco use. However, little is known about what happens after someone is referred or signposted to SSSs., Methods: As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (NCT04854616), those randomised to intervention (n= 505) were referred to local SSSs (along with receiving brief advice and an e-cigarette starter kit) and those randomised to control (n= 502) were given contact details for the same services (signposted). SSS engagement data was collected: 1) directly from participants and 2) from SSS, additional qualitative data came from 33 participant interviews., Results: Engagement with SSSs was very low. 3.2% (n=16) of those in the intervention group and 2.4% (n=12) in the control group reported attending a one-to-one support session. From SSS data, engagement was also low with 8.9% (n=43) of those referred engaging and 3.1% (n=15) going on to quit with SSS support. The majority of the 24 intervention participants interviewed did not recall being contacted by an SSS., Conclusion: Referral or signposting to stop smoking services within an Emergency Department based trial resulted in very low levels of engagement. Barriers to engagement identified included participants not being contacted by SSSs and the support offered not meeting their needs., Implications: Referral or signposting of those who smoke to Stop smoking services from the Emergency Department resulted in low rates of engagement in this large multi-centre randomised controlled trial. In order to better support those who smoke it may be more effective for smoking cessation advice to be offered 'in the moment' within clinical settings, and follow-up to be proactively offered rather than relying on people being motivated to contact the services themselves or engaging when contacted., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.)

Background: Supporting people to quit smoking is one of the most powerful interventions to improve health. The Emergency Department (ED) represents a potentially valuable opportunity to deliver a smoking cessation intervention if it is sufficiently resourced. The objective of this trial was to determine whether an opportunistic ED-based smoking cessation intervention can help people to quit smoking., Methods: In this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted between January and August 2022, adults who smoked daily and attended one of six UK EDs were randomised to intervention (brief advice, e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services) or control (written information on stop smoking services). The primary outcome was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months., Results: An intention-to-treat analysis included 972 of 1443 people screened for inclusion (484 in the intervention group, 488 in the control group). Of 975 participants randomised, 3 were subsequently excluded, 17 withdrew and 287 were lost to follow-up. The 6-month biochemically-verified abstinence rate was 7.2% in the intervention group and 4.1% in the control group (relative risk 1.76; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.01; p=0.038). Self-reported 7-day abstinence at 6 months was 23.3% in the intervention group and 12.9% in the control group (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.38; p<0.001). No serious adverse events related to taking part in the trial were reported., Conclusions: An opportunistic smoking cessation intervention comprising brief advice, an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services is effective for sustained smoking abstinence with few reported adverse events., Trial Registration Number: NCT04854616., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (COSTED) trial aims to ascertain whether brief advice, the provision of an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services (SSS), increases smoking cessation in people attending the emergency department. Patient and public involvement (PPI) and scoping work were undertaken to select an appropriate e-cigarette for the trial., Design and Setting: PPI consultation and feasibility scoping about potential devices with a professional and lay panel, all based in England. Consultation was via email, telephone or video interview. This work took place between April and July 2021, prior to recruitment commencing for the COSTED trial., Participants: A professional panel (n=7) including representatives from academia, SSS and the independent vaping industry, and a PPI lay panel (n=3) who smoke or vape., Results: The professional panel recommended a shortlist of devices which were tested by the PPI lay panel. Key criteria for selecting an appropriate e-cigarette for smoking cessation intervention include satisfaction, usability, affordability and availability. Simplicity of use was highlighted by the PPI lay panel, who found refillable devices complex, and availability of consumables was highlighted as more important than price by both panels. The pod device selected for inclusion was rated highly for satisfaction and usability and had mid-price range and consumables which were widely available., Conclusions: To select the most appropriate device for the COSTED trial, each criterion required assessment to ensure the best fit to the intervention context and needs of the target population. There is a need for guidance to help enable decision-making about choice of vape products, tailored to service users' needs. We propose a bespoke checklist template, based on our findings, to assist with this process. This has applicability to the recent government announcement of a 'Swap to Stop' programme, offering a vaping starter kit to smokers across England, allowing services flexibility to shape their own programmes and models of delivery., Trial Registration Number: Clinical trial number NCT04854616; pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)