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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.)

Introduction: Attendees of emergency departments (EDs) have a higher than expected prevalence of smoking. ED attendance may be a good opportunity to prompt positive behaviour change, even for smokers not currently motivated to quit. This study aims to determine whether an opportunist smoking cessation intervention delivered in the ED can help daily smokers attending the ED quit smoking and is cost-effective., Methods and Analysis: A two-arm pragmatic, multicentred, parallel-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation and mixed methods process evaluation. The trial will compare ED-based brief smoking cessation advice, including provision of an e-cigarette and referral to local stop smoking services (intervention) with the provision of contact details for local stop smoking services (control). Target sample size is 972, recruiting across 6 National Health Service EDs in England and Scotland. Outcomes will be collected at 1, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome at 6 months is carbon monoxide verified continuous smoking abstinence., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial was approved by the South Central-Oxford B Research Committee (21/SC/0288). Dissemination will include the publication of outcomes, and the process and economic evaluations in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will also be appropriately disseminated to relevant practice, policy and patient representative groups., Trial Registration Number: NCT04854616; protocol V.4.2., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

INTRODUCTION: Biochemical verification of smoking status prior to recruitment into smoking cessation trials is widely used to confirm smoking status, most commonly using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO). There is variation in the level of CO used as a biochemical inclusion criterion, and thus the possibility for people reporting to be current smokers to be incorrectly excluded from trials. METHODS: As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department, people attending the Emergency Department (ED) who reported being current daily smokers underwent CO testing to confirm eligibility. Elective semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the researchers who recruited participants. As part of the interviews, researchers were asked their views and experiences with CO testing. RESULTS: Of the 1320 participants who reported being current daily smokers and underwent CO testing, 300 (22.7%) blew a CO reading of 7 ppm or less and were excluded from taking part. Possible explanations offered by researchers for participants blowing low CO readings were (1) long wait times in the ED, therefore a long period having elapsed since people had last smoked and (2) patients having reduced smoking for the period before the ED attendance due to ill health. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical verification has the potential to improve internal validity of smoking cessation for inclusion in trials, but at the cost of reduced generalisability through exclusion of participants who would receive the intervention if it were implemented in practice. We would recommend researchers carefully consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to include biochemical verification as an inclusion criterion. [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]