Search

Objectives: Cigarette smoking negatively affects oral health. Nicotine replacement therapies (NRT; e.g. nicotine patch or lozenge) and brief interventions (e.g. Ask‐Advise‐Refer; AAR) can improve cessation outcomes but are underutilized. NRT sampling (NRTS) increases NRT utilization by providing patients with samples of NRT as part of routine healthcare. Ask‐Advise‐Refer is a brief intervention where practitioners: ask patients about tobacco use, advise those using tobacco to quit and refer to the state quit line. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore dental care practitioners' and patients' attitudes and experiences regarding tobacco cessation treatment and perceptions of two brief intervention models, assessed separately: NRTS and AAR. Methods: Twenty‐four dental care practitioners and nine patients, recruited through the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network, participated in semi‐structured telephone interviews. Interviews assessed experiences with tobacco use intervention and attitudes towards NRTS and AAR. Thematic analysis identified emergent themes related to feasibility and acceptability of NRTS and AAR. Results: Practitioners varied on how they address tobacco use, from systematically to idiosyncratically. Some practitioners recommend NRT; few had prescribed it. Practitioners had favourable attitudes towards AAR and NRTS, with most believing that both interventions would be acceptable and feasible to implement. Concerns regarding AAR were time and patient resistance to discussing tobacco use. Concerns regarding NRTS were patient resistance to using NRT, side effects or medication interactions, and capacity to provide follow‐up. Patients reported that oral health practitioners generally ask about tobacco use but do not provide interventions. Patients were open to discussing their tobacco use with practitioners and had favourable attitudes about NRTS. Conclusions: This formative work suggests that NRTS and AAR may be feasible to implement in dental care settings. Future studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and implementation potential of NRTS in dental care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Most smoking cessation studies have used long-term abstinence as their primary outcome measure. Recent research has suggested that long-term abstinence may be an insensitive index of important smoking cessation mechanisms. The goal of the current study was to examine the effects of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies using Shiffman et al.'s (2006) approach of examining the effect of smoking cessation medications on 3 process markers of cessation or smoking cessation milestones: initial abstinence, lapse, and the lapse-relapse transition. Method: The current study (N = 1,504; 58.2% female and 41.8% male; 83.9% Caucasian, 13.6% African American, 2.5% other races) examined the effect of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapy treatments versus placebo (bupropion, nicotine lozenge, nicotine patch, bupropion + lozenge, patch + lozenge) on Shiffman et al.'s smoking cessation milestones over 8 weeks following a quit attempt. Results: Results show that all 5 medication conditions decreased rates of failure to achieve initial abstinence and most (with the exception of the nicotine lozenge) decreased lapse risk; however, only the nicotine patch and bupropion + lozenge conditions affected the lapse-relapse transition. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that medications are effective at aiding initial abstinence and decreasing lapse risk but that they generally do not decrease relapse risk following a lapse. The analysis of cessation milestones sheds light on important impediments to long-term smoking abstinence, suggests potential mechanisms of action of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, and identifies targets for future treatment development. (Contains 3 figures, 3 footnotes and 2 tables.)

Few studies have examined whether nicotine dependence self-report questionnaires can predict specific behaviors and symptoms at specific points in time. The present study used data from a randomized clinical trial (N = 608; M. E. Piper et al., 2007) to assess the construct validity of scales and items from 3 nicotine dependence measures: the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (T. F. Heatherton, L. T. Kozlowski, R. C. Frecker & K.-O. Fagerstrom, 1991), the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale (S. Shiffman, A. J. Waters, & M. Hickcox, 2004), and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (M. E. Piper et al., 2004). Scales from these measures were used to predict participants' reports on real-time measures of withdrawal symptoms and smoking behavior and retrospective self-report questionnaires to assess convergent and discriminative validity. The nicotine dependence measures' scales and items generally predicted the real-time measures of similar constructs, but the percent of variance accounted for was low. The nicotine dependence measures did, however, show evidence of discriminative validity. Thus, this study provides modest support for the construct validity of these nicotine dependence scales. (Contains 10 footnotes, 5 tables, and 1 figure.)

The construct of tobacco dependence is important from both scientific and public health perspectives, but it is poorly understood. The current research integrates person-centered analyses (e.g., latent profile analysis) and variable-centered analyses (e.g., exploratory factor analysis) to clarify the latent structure of nicotine dependence and to guide distillation of the phenotype. Using data from 4 samples of smokers, latent profiles were derived using the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives subscale scores. Across all 4 samples, results revealed a unique latent profile that had relative elevations on 4 subscales (Automaticity, Craving, Loss of Control, and Tolerance). Variable-centered analyses supported the uniqueness of these 4 subscales as they constituted a distinct common factor and were the strongest predictors of relapse and other dependence criteria. Conversely, the remaining 9 motives carried little unique predictive validity regarding dependence. Applications of a factor mixture model further supported the presence of a unique class of smokers in relation to a common factor underlying the 4 subscales. The results suggest that a pattern of smoking that is heavy, pervasive, automatic, and relatively unresponive to instrumental contingencies is a necessary and sufficient condition for severe nicotine dependence. Keywords: nicotine dependence, latent profile, latent class, phenotype, relapse

Abstract Background A hospital admission offers smokers an opportunity to quit. Smoking cessation counseling provided in the hospital is effective, but only if it continues for more than one month after discharge. Providing smoking cessation medication at discharge may add benefit to counseling. A major barrier to translating this research into clinical practice is sustaining treatment during the transition to outpatient care. An evidence-based, practical, cost-effective model that facilitates the continuation of tobacco treatment after discharge is needed. This paper describes the design of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a hospital-initiated intervention against standard care. Methods/design A two-arm randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of standard post-discharge care with a multi-component smoking cessation intervention provided for three months after discharge. Current smokers admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital who receive bedside smoking cessation counseling, intend to quit after discharge and are willing to consider smoking cessation medication are eligible. Study participants are recruited following the hospital counseling visit and randomly assigned to receive Standard Care or Extended Care after hospital discharge. Standard Care includes a recommendation for a smoking cessation medication and information about community resources. Extended Care includes up to three months of free FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and five proactive computerized telephone calls that use interactive voice response technology to provide tailored motivational messages, offer additional live telephone counseling calls from a smoking cessation counselor, and facilitate medication refills. Outcomes are assessed at one, three, and six months after hospital discharge. The primary outcomes are self-reported and validated seven-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at six months. Other outcomes include short-term and sustained smoking cessation, post-discharge utilization of smoking cessation treatment, hospital readmissions and emergency room visits, and program cost per quit. Discussion This study tests a disseminable smoking intervention model for hospitalized smokers. If effective and widely adopted, it could help to reduce population smoking rates and thereby reduce tobacco-related mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. Trial registration United States Clinical Trials Registry NCT01177176.

Introduction: Nicotine replacement therapy sampling (NRTS) refers to providing all smokers, regardless of interest in quitting, with free samples of over-the-counter NRT. NRTS has been shown to increase quit attempts and abstinence. Aims: We conducted a pilot trial with a goal to establish the feasibility and acceptability of NRTS in a dental clinic, where providing free samples is routine and universal. Methods: Participants (N = 30) completed a baseline survey and were randomized to receive or not receive a 2-week supply of NRT samples (14 mg patches and 4 mg lozenges) in a 3:1 ratio. Results: We enrolled 30 of 50 potentially eligible patients, of whom 26 completed a 4-week follow-up survey. At follow-up, 61% of the NRT group reported use of the samples and 26% said they used more NRT obtained on their own. In the No NRT group, only one patient reported using NRT. No patients reported past week abstinence, but 43% of the NRT group vs. 29% of the No NRT group reported making a quit attempt lasting longer than 24 h. Conclusions: The pattern of results suggests that conducting a larger trial would be feasible and that the NRTS intervention was acceptable to dental patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to explore the association of smoking status and clinically relevant duration of smoking cessation with long-term survival after lung cancer (LC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. We compared survival of patients with LC and CRC who were never-smokers, long-term, medium-term, and short-term quitters, and current smokers around diagnosis.Methods: We studied 5575 patients in Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS), a national, prospective observational cohort study, who provided smoking status information approximately 5 months after LC or CRC diagnosis. Smoking status was categorized as: never-smoker, quit >5 years prior to diagnosis, quit between 1-5 years prior to diagnosis, quit less than 1 year before diagnosis, and current smoker. We examined the relationship between smoking status around diagnosis with mortality using Cox regression models.Results: Among participants with LC, never-smokers had lower mortality risk compared with current smokers (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89). Among participants with CRC, never-smokers had a lower mortality risk as compared to current smokers (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99).Conclusions: Among both LC and CRC patients, current smokers at diagnosis have higher mortality than never-smokers. This effect should be further studied in the context of tumor biology. However, smoking cessation around the time of diagnosis did not affect survival in this sample.Implications: The results from our analysis of patients in the CanCORS consortium, a large, geographically diverse cohort, show that both LC and CRC patients who were actively smoking at diagnosis have worse survival as compared to never-smokers. While current smoking is detrimental to survival, cessation upon diagnosis may not mitigate this risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]