BACKGROUND: Several large and well-conducted community interventions have failed to detect an effect on prevalence of smoking. METHODS:Two thousand four hundred eight daily smokers in all motivational stages were actively recruited and included in a randomised population-based intervention study in Copenhagen, Denmark. All smokers completed a questionnaire and underwent a health examination and a lifestyle consultation. Daily smokers in the high intensity intervention group were offered assistance to quit in smoking cessation groups. RESULTS: The validated abstinence rate at 1-year follow-up was 16.3% in the high intensity group and 12.7% in the low intensity group compared with a self-reported abstinence rate of 7.3% in the background population. The adjusted odds ratio of abstinence in the high intervention group was significantly higher, OR = 2.2 (1.6-3.0) than in the background population, also in the 'intention-to-treat' analyses, OR = 1.5 (1.1-2.0). Higher socioeconomic status, higher age at onset of daily smoking, and a higher wish to quit were predictors of success. CONCLUSION: In a population-based setting, using active recruitment and offering assistance to quit, it was possible to include many smokers and to achieve a significantly higher validated abstinence in the high intensity intervention than in the background population, even when using 'intention-to-treat' analyses.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several large and well-conducted community interventions have failed to detect an effect on prevalence of smoking. METHODS: Two thousand four hundred eight daily smokers in all motivational stages were actively recruited and included in a randomised population-based intervention study in Copenhagen, Denmark. All smokers completed a questionnaire and underwent a health examination and a lifestyle consultation. Daily smokers in the high intensity intervention group were offered assistance to quit in smoking cessation groups. RESULTS: The validated abstinence rate at 1-year follow-up was 16.3% in the high intensity group and 12.7% in the low intensity group compared with a self-reported abstinence rate of 7.3% in the background population. The adjusted odds ratio of abstinence in the high intervention group was significantly higher, OR = 2.2 (1.6-3.0) than in the background population, also in the 'intention-to-treat' analyses, OR = 1.5 (1.1-2.0). Higher socioeconomic status, higher age at onset of daily smoking, and a higher wish to quit were predictors of success. CONCLUSION: In a population-based setting, using active recruitment and offering assistance to quit, it was possible to include many smokers and to achieve a significantly higher validated abstinence in the high intensity intervention than in the background population, even when using 'intention-to-treat' analyses.
Authors: Darla E Kendzor; Lorraine R Reitzel; Carlos A Mazas; Ludmila M Cofta-Woerpel; Yumei Cao; Lingyun Ji; Tracy J Costello; Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Michael S Businelle; Yisheng Li; Yessenia Castro; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Paul M Cinciripini; David W Wetter Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Geoffrey T Fong; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Anne C K Quah; Buppha Sirirassamee; Maizurah Omar; Mark P Zanna; Omid Fotuhi Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Gabriella Galatà; Andrés C García-Montero; Thomas Kristensen; Ahmed A Z Dawoud; Javier I Muñoz-González; Manja Meggendorfer; Paola Guglielmelli; Yvette Hoade; Ivan Alvarez-Twose; Christian Gieger; Konstantin Strauch; Luigi Ferrucci; Toshiko Tanaka; Stefania Bandinelli; Theresia M Schnurr; Torsten Haferlach; Sigurd Broesby-Olsen; Hanne Vestergaard; Michael Boe Møller; Carsten Bindslev-Jensen; Alessandro M Vannucchi; Alberto Orfao; Deepti Radia; Andreas Reiter; Andrew J Chase; Nicholas C P Cross; William J Tapper Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Julia V Marley; David Atkinson; Carmel Nelson; Tracey Kitaura; Dennis Gray; Sue Metcalf; Richard Murray; Graeme P Maguire Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.295