Nicola Lindson1, Susan Michie2, Paul Aveyard1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Around half of smokers attempt to stop by cutting-down first. Evidence suggests that this results in similar quit rates to abrupt quitting. Evidence for the effectiveness and popularity of different gradual cessation methods is sparse. METHODS: Secondary, exploratory, analyses of a randomized trial of gradual versus abrupt smoking cessation. Gradual participants (N = 342) chose between four methods of cutting-down over 2 weeks: cutting-out the easiest cigarettes first (HR-E); cutting-out the most difficult cigarettes first (HR-D); smoking on an increasing time schedule (SR); and not smoking during particular periods (SFP). Nicotine replacement therapy and behavioral support were provided before and after quit day. We used logistic and linear regression modeling to test whether the method chosen was associated with smoking reduction, quit attempts, and abstinence, while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS:Participants were on average 49 years old, smoked 20 cigarettes per day, and had a Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence score of 6. 14.9% (51/342) chose HR-E, 2.1% (7/342) HR-D, 46.2% (158/342) SFP, and 36.8% (126/342) SR. We found no evidence of adjusted or unadjusted associations between method and successful 75% reduction in cigarette consumption, reduction in percentage cigarettes per day or exhaled carbon monoxide, quit attempts, or abstinence at 4-week or 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Future research and practice could focus more heavily on the SR and SFP methods as these appeared notably more popular than HR. There was substantial imprecision in the efficacy data, which should be treated with caution; however, none of the gradual cessation methods showed clear evidence of being more efficacious than others. IMPLICATIONS: There is evidence that people who would like to quit smoking gradually should be supported to do so. However, as this is relatively new thinking and there is large potential for variation in methods, guidance on the best way to offer support is sparse. This article is an exploratory analysis of the popularity and efficacy of various methods in an attempt to move the topic forward and inform the implementation of gradual smoking cessation methods in practice. The identified popularity of some methods over others signposts directions for future research.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Around half of smokers attempt to stop by cutting-down first. Evidence suggests that this results in similar quit rates to abrupt quitting. Evidence for the effectiveness and popularity of different gradual cessation methods is sparse. METHODS: Secondary, exploratory, analyses of a randomized trial of gradual versus abrupt smoking cessation. Gradual participants (N = 342) chose between four methods of cutting-down over 2 weeks: cutting-out the easiest cigarettes first (HR-E); cutting-out the most difficult cigarettes first (HR-D); smoking on an increasing time schedule (SR); and not smoking during particular periods (SFP). Nicotine replacement therapy and behavioral support were provided before and after quit day. We used logistic and linear regression modeling to test whether the method chosen was associated with smoking reduction, quit attempts, and abstinence, while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS:Participants were on average 49 years old, smoked 20 cigarettes per day, and had a Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence score of 6. 14.9% (51/342) chose HR-E, 2.1% (7/342) HR-D, 46.2% (158/342) SFP, and 36.8% (126/342) SR. We found no evidence of adjusted or unadjusted associations between method and successful 75% reduction in cigarette consumption, reduction in percentage cigarettes per day or exhaled carbon monoxide, quit attempts, or abstinence at 4-week or 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Future research and practice could focus more heavily on the SR and SFP methods as these appeared notably more popular than HR. There was substantial imprecision in the efficacy data, which should be treated with caution; however, none of the gradual cessation methods showed clear evidence of being more efficacious than others. IMPLICATIONS: There is evidence that people who would like to quit smoking gradually should be supported to do so. However, as this is relatively new thinking and there is large potential for variation in methods, guidance on the best way to offer support is sparse. This article is an exploratory analysis of the popularity and efficacy of various methods in an attempt to move the topic forward and inform the implementation of gradual smoking cessation methods in practice. The identified popularity of some methods over others signposts directions for future research.
Authors: Saul Shiffman; John R Hughes; Stuart G Ferguson; Janine L Pillitteri; Joseph G Gitchell; Steven L Burton Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Nicola Lindson; Paul Aveyard; Jackie T Ingram; Jennie Inglis; Jane Beach; Robert West; Susan Michie Journal: Trials Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Nicola Lindson-Hawley; Miriam Banting; Robert West; Susan Michie; Bethany Shinkins; Paul Aveyard Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Chelsea M Cox; Jennifer C Westrick; Danielle E McCarthy; Matthew J Carpenter; Amanda R Mathew Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 2.582