Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment ...for alcohol abuse, but may help smokers to a make a successful attempt to quit.
To determine the effects of motivational interviewing in promoting smoking cessation.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with terms (motivational OR motivation OR motivating OR motivate OR behavi* OR motivat*) and (interview* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi*) in the title or abstract, or as keywords. Date of the most recent search: April 2009.
Randomized controlled trials in which motivational interviewing or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation.
We extracted data in duplicate. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were treated as continuing smokers. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model.
We identified 14 studies published between 1997 and 2008, involving over 10,000 smokers. Trials were conducted in one to four sessions, with the duration of each session ranging from 15 to 45 minutes. All but two of the trials used supportive telephone contacts, and supplemented the counselling with self-help materials. MI was generally compared with brief advice or usual care in the trials. Interventions were delivered by primary care physicians, hospital clinicians, nurses or counsellors. Our meta-analysis of MI versus brief advice or usual care yielded a modest but significant increase in quitting (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42). Subgroup analyses suggested that MI was effective when delivered by primary care physicians (RR 3.49; 95% CI 1.53 to 7.94) and by counsellors (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.43), and when it was conducted in longer sessions (more than 20 minutes per session) (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.49). Multiple session treatments may be slightly more effective than single sessions, but both regimens produced positive outcomes. Evidence is unclear at present on the optimal number of follow-up calls.There was variation across the trials in treatment fidelity. All trials used some variant of motivational interviewing.Critical details in how it was modified for the particular study population, the training of therapists and the content of the counselling were sometimes lacking from trial reports.
Motivational interviewing may assist smokers to quit. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to variations in study quality, treatment fidelity and the possibility of publication or selective reporting bias.
The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.
1. To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in ...controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking.2. To collect and evaluate data on costs and cost effectiveness associated with workplace interventions.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (July 2013), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2013), EMBASE (1985 - June 2013), and PsycINFO (to June 2013), amongst others. We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.
We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces, or companies to intervention or control conditions.
One author extracted information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the studies, and a second author checked them. For this update we have conducted meta-analyses of the main interventions, using the generic inverse variance method to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
We include 57 studies (61 comparisons) in this updated review. We found 31 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and social support, and 30 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole, i.e. environmental cues, incentives, and comprehensive programmes. The trials were generally of moderate to high quality, with results that were consistent with those found in other settings. Group therapy programmes (odds ratio (OR) for cessation 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants), individual counselling (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants), pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.11; five trials, 1092 participants), and multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.82; six trials, 1906 participants), and two relapse prevention programmes (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term abstinence. Incentives did not appear to improve the odds of quitting, apart from one study which found a sustained positive benefit. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors reduced the prevalence of smoking.
1. We found strong evidence that some interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling, pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction, and multiple interventions targeting smoking cessation as the primary or only outcome. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors in reducing the prevalence of smoking, although this finding was not based on meta-analysed data. 3. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer, although one trial demonstrated a sustained effect of financial rewards for attending a smoking cessation course and for long-term quitting. Further research is needed to establish which components of this trial contributed to the improvement in success rates.4. Further research would be valuable in low-income and developing countries, where high rates of smoking prevail and smoke-free legislation is not widely accepted or enforced.
Smoking is the leading preventable cause of illness and premature death worldwide. Some medications have been proven to help people to quit, with three licensed for this purpose in Europe and the ...USA: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline. Cytisine (a treatment pharmacologically similar to varenicline) is also licensed for use in Russia and some of the former socialist economy countries. Other therapies, including nortriptyline, have also been tested for effectiveness.
How do NRT, bupropion and varenicline compare with placebo and with each other in achieving long-term abstinence (six months or longer)? How do the remaining treatments compare with placebo in achieving long-term abstinence? How do the risks of adverse and serious adverse events (SAEs) compare between the treatments, and are there instances where the harms may outweigh the benefits?
The overview is restricted to Cochrane reviews, all of which include randomised trials. Participants are usually adult smokers, but we exclude reviews of smoking cessation for pregnant women and in particular disease groups or specific settings. We cover nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants (bupropion and nortriptyline), nicotine receptor partial agonists (varenicline and cytisine), anxiolytics, selective type 1 cannabinoid receptor antagonists (rimonabant), clonidine, lobeline, dianicline, mecamylamine, Nicobrevin, opioid antagonists, nicotine vaccines, and silver acetate. Our outcome for benefit is continuous or prolonged abstinence at least six months from the start of treatment. Our outcome for harms is the incidence of serious adverse events associated with each of the treatments. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) in The Cochrane Library, for any reviews with 'smoking' in the title, abstract or keyword fields. The last search was conducted in November 2012. We assessed methodological quality using a revised version of the AMSTAR scale. For NRT, bupropion and varenicline we conducted network meta-analyses, comparing each with the others and with placebo for benefit, and varenicline and bupropion for risks of serious adverse events.
We identified 12 treatment-specific reviews. The analyses covered 267 studies, involving 101,804 participants. Both NRT and bupropion were superior to placebo (odds ratios (OR) 1.84; 95% credible interval (CredI) 1.71 to 1.99, and 1.82; 95% CredI 1.60 to 2.06 respectively). Varenicline increased the odds of quitting compared with placebo (OR 2.88; 95% CredI 2.40 to 3.47). Head-to-head comparisons between bupropion and NRT showed equal efficacy (OR 0.99; 95% CredI 0.86 to 1.13). Varenicline was superior to single forms of NRT (OR 1.57; 95% CredI 1.29 to 1.91), and to bupropion (OR 1.59; 95% CredI 1.29 to 1.96). Varenicline was more effective than nicotine patch (OR 1.51; 95% CredI 1.22 to 1.87), than nicotine gum (OR 1.72; 95% CredI 1.38 to 2.13), and than 'other' NRT (inhaler, spray, tablets, lozenges; OR 1.42; 95% CredI 1.12 to 1.79), but was not more effective than combination NRT (OR 1.06; 95% CredI 0.75 to 1.48). Combination NRT also outperformed single formulations. The four categories of NRT performed similarly against each other, apart from 'other' NRT, which was marginally more effective than NRT gum (OR 1.21; 95% CredI 1.01 to 1.46). Cytisine (a nicotine receptor partial agonist) returned positive findings (risk ratio (RR) 3.98; 95% CI 2.01 to 7.87), without significant adverse events or SAEs. Across the 82 included and excluded bupropion trials, our estimate of six seizures in the bupropion arms versus none in the placebo arms was lower than the expected rate (1:1000), at about 1:1500. SAE meta-analysis of the bupropion studies demonstrated no excess of neuropsychiatric (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.31 to 2.50) or cardiovascular events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.59). SAE meta-analysis of 14 varenicline trials found no difference between the varenicline and placebo arms (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55), and subgroup analyses detected no significant excess of neuropsychiatric events (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.67), or of cardiac events (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.62 to 2.56). Nortriptyline increased the chances of quitting (RR 2.03; 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). Neither nortriptyline nor bupropion were shown to enhance the effect of NRT compared with NRT alone. Clonidine increased the chances of quitting (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.18), but this was offset by a dose-dependent rise in adverse events. Mecamylamine in combination with NRT may increase the chances of quitting, but the current evidence is inconclusive. Other treatments failed to demonstrate a benefit compared with placebo. Nicotine vaccines are not yet licensed for use as an aid to smoking cessation or relapse prevention. Nicobrevin's UK license is now revoked, and the manufacturers of rimonabant, taranabant and dianicline are no longer supporting the development or testing of these treatments.
NRT, bupropion, varenicline and cytisine have been shown to improve the chances of quitting. Combination NRT and varenicline are equally effective as quitting aids. Nortriptyline also improves the chances of quitting. On current evidence, none of the treatments appear to have an incidence of adverse events that would mitigate their use. Further research is warranted into the safety of varenicline and into cytisine's potential as an effective and affordable treatment, but not into the efficacy and safety of NRT.
Incentives for smoking cessation Cahill, Kate; Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie; Perera, Rafael
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
05/2015
5
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Material or financial incentives are widely used in an attempt to precipitate or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They operate in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and to ...a lesser extent within community programmes. In this third update of our review we now include trials conducted in pregnant women, to reflect the increasing activity and resources now targeting this high-risk group of smokers.
To determine whether incentives and contingency management programmes lead to higher long-term quit rates.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The most recent searches were in December 2014, although we also include two trials published in 2015.
We considered randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures. We include studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community-, work-, institution-based), and also, for this update, trials in pregnant smokers.
One author (KC) extracted data and a second (JH-B) checked them. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up, and at least six months from the start of the intervention. In the trials of pregnant smokers abstinence was measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy.
Twenty-one mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 8400 participants. Ten studies were set in clinics or health centres, one in Thai villages served by community health workers, two in academic institutions, and the rest in worksites. All but six of the trials were run in the USA. The incentives included lottery tickets or prize draws, cash payments, vouchers for goods and groceries, and in six trials the recovery of money deposited by those taking part. The odds ratio (OR) for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.69; 17 trials, 20 comparisons, 7715 participants). Only three studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group at or beyond the six-month assessment: One five-arm USA trial compared rewards- and deposit-based interventions at individual and group level, with incentives available up to USD 800 per quitter, and demonstrated a quit rate in the rewards groups of 8.1% at 12 months, compared with 4.7% in the deposits groups. A direct comparison between the rewards-based and the deposit-based groups found a benefit for the rewards arms, with an OR at 12 months of 1.76 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.53; 2070 participants). Although more people in this trial accepted the rewards programmes than the deposit programmes, the proportion of quitters in each group favoured the deposit-refund programme. Another USA study rewarded both participation and quitting up to USD 750, and achieved sustained quit rates of 9.4% in the incentives group compared with 3.6% for the controls. A deposit-refund trial in Thailand also achieved significantly higher quit rates in the intervention group (44.2%) compared with the control group (18.8%), but uptake was relatively low, at 10.5%. In the remaining trials, there was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that contingent rewards enhanced success rates over fixed payment schedules. We rated the overall quality of the older studies as low, but with later trials (post-2000) more likely to meet current standards of methodology and reporting.Eight of nine trials with usable data in pregnant smokers (seven conducted in the USA and one in the UK) delivered an adjusted OR at longest follow-up (up to 24 weeks post-partum) of 3.60 (95% CI 2.39 to 5.43; 1295 participants, moderate-quality studies) in favour of incentives. Three of the trials demonstrated a clear benefit for contingent rewards; one delivered monthly vouchers to confirmed quitters and to their designated 'significant other supporter', achieving a quit rate in the intervention group of 21.4% at two months post-partum, compared with 5.9% among the controls. Another trial offered a scaled programme of rewards for the percentage of smoking reduction achieved over the course of the 12-week intervention, and achieved an intervention quit rate of 31% at six weeks post-partum, compared with no quitters in the control group. The largest (UK-based) trial provided intervention quitters with up to GBP 400-worth of vouchers, and achieved a quit rate of 15.4% at longest follow-up, compared to the control quit rate of 4%. Four trials confirmed that payments made to reward a successful quit attempt (i.e. contingent), compared to fixed payments for attending the antenatal appointment (non-contingent), resulted in higher quit rates. Front-loading of rewards to counteract early withdrawal symptoms made little difference to quit rates.
Incentives appear to boost cessation rates while they are in place. The two trials recruiting from work sites that achieved sustained success rates beyond the reward schedule concentrated their resources into substantial cash payments for abstinence. Such an approach may only be feasible where independently-funded smoking cessation programmes are already available, and within a relatively affluent and educated population. Deposit-refund trials can suffer from relatively low rates of uptake, but those who do sign up and contribute their own money may achieve higher quit rates than reward-only participants. Incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improved the cessation rates, both at the end-of-pregnancy and post-partum assessments. Current and future research might continue to explore the scale, loading and longevity of possible cash or voucher reward schedules, within a variety of smoking populations.
Medical students experience burnout, depersonalization, and decreases in empathy throughout medical training. My Life, My Story (MLMS) is a narrative medicine project that aims to combat these ...adverse outcomes by teaching students to interview patients about their life story, with the goal of improving patient-centered care competencies, such as empathy.
The MLMS project was started in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system and has since spread to dozens of VA sites. We adapted and integrated this project into the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University curriculum. As part of the required curriculum, first- and third-year medical students participated in a life story interview with a community-based volunteer or a patient in the inpatient hospital setting, transcribed the story, and reviewed the written story with the patient. We assessed student perceptions of the project, changes in empathy, and changes in burnout symptoms.
A total of 240 students participated in this project. Students spent an average of 70.7 minutes interviewing patients. A majority of the students believed MLMS was a good use of time (77%), fostered connection with patients (79%), and was effective in recognizing patients' thoughts and feelings (69%).
To our knowledge, this is one of the first life story interview interventions to be implemented into a required medical school curriculum and outside the VA setting. MLMS may assist students in improving clinical empathy skills and create a structure for medical trainees to better understand their patients.
Pharmacological treatments for smoking cessation Cahill, Kate; Stevens, Sarah; Lancaster, Tim
JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association,
01/2014, Volume:
311, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Among the 3 first-line smoking cessation treatments (nicotine replacement therapy NRT, bupropion, and varenicline), which is most effective in helping people who smoke achieve and maintain abstinence ...from smoking for at least 6 months, and what serious adverse events are associated with each?
Higher rates of smoking cessation were associated with NRT (17.6%) and bupropion (19.1%) compared with placebo (10.6%). Varenicline (27.6%) and combination NRT (31.5%) (eg, patch plus inhaler) were most effective for achieving smoking cessation. None of the therapies was associated with an increased rate of serious adverse events.
Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a ...lesser extent within community programmes. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.
To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*. The most recent searches were in December 2007.
We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.
Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.
Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. There was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that different types of incentives were more or less effective. There is some evidence that although cessation rates have not been shown to differ significantly, recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis is not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of the intervention has not been demonstrated.
Incentives and competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates, with early success tending to dissipate when the rewards are no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have more potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters.
Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing ...smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).
The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including cytisine, dianicline and varenicline for smoking cessation.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in December 2011. We also searched online clinical trials registers.
We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.
We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
Two recent cytisine trials (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled RR of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87). One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). Fifteen trials compared varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these also included a bupropion treatment arm. We also found one open-label trial comparing varenicline plus counselling with counselling alone. We found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered 12,223 participants, 8100 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 2.02 to 2.55; 14 trials, 6166 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. A meta-analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment and not necessarily considered attributable to treatment suggests there may be a one-third increase in the chance of severe adverse effects among people using varenicline (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79; 17 trials, 7725 people), but this finding needs to be tested further. Post-marketing safety data have raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data are inconclusive, but the possibility of a link between varenicline and serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events cannot be ruled out.
Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events, cannot be ruled out.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of varenicline treatment extended beyond 12 weeks.
PDF
