Literature DB >> 35634095

Is the motivation to quit smoking greater if the smoker is going to quit smoking of their own free will or when advised by a health professional?

José I de Granda-Orive1, José Francisco Pascual-Lledó2, Santos Asensio-Sánchez2, Segismundo Solano-Reina3, Marcos García-Rueda4, Manuel Ángel Martínez-Muñiz5, Lourdes Lázaro-Asegurado6, Daniel Buljubasich7, Susana Luhning8, Rogelio Pendino7, Isabel Cienfuegos-Agustín1, Carlos A Jiménez-Ruiz9.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  motivation scales; smoking; smoking cessation; volition

Year:  2022        PMID: 35634095      PMCID: PMC9100290          DOI: 10.18332/tid/146961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Induc Dis        ISSN: 1617-9625            Impact factor:   5.163


× No keyword cloud information.
Dear Editor, As a complement to a previous study by our group whose data and methodology have already been published[1,2], we hypothesize that the motivation to quit smoking could be greater if the subject is going to quit smoking of their own free will (OFW) than if they are sent on the advice of a health professional. The aim of the study was to check whether the degree of motivation to quit smoking is different depending on who refers the smoker to the smoking treatment consultation, considering three sources of remission (variable ‘referred by’): primary care (PC), medical specialist (OS) or by OFW. For this analysis, the subjects finally included were 292 [72.1%; 155 women (53.1%); mean age 51.1 ± 11.0 years (range: 25–77)]. Ninety-nine subjects (33.9%) attended our smoking clinics on PC advice, 116 (29.7%) subjects on OS advice, and 77 subjects (26.4%) on OFW. We have used four motivational tests to quit smoking (MTQS): Richmond Test (RT), the Henri Mondor Paris Motivation Test (HMPMT), Khiwji-Watts test (KWT) and the visual analogue scale (VAS)[1]. Supplementary file Table 1 shows the distribution of the three categories of the variable ‘referred by’ for all participants and by sex, and we found no significant differences. Table 1 shows the mean age values for all participants, by sex, and by each category of the variable ‘referred by’. There were no statistically significant differences between the mean ages of the different categories. Table 1 also shows the mean values of the scores of the MTQS according to the categories of the variable ‘referred by’, for all participants and by sex. Only in the HMPMT were there significant differences between PC versus OS, but this was only for men.
Table 1

Description of the quantitative variables for all participants, by sex, and by ‘referred by’

Characteristics All Males Females p
Total, n292137155
Age (years), mean ± SD (range)51.1 ± 11.0 (25–77)51.5 ± 11.1 (27–77)50.7 ± 10.9 (25–76)0.522
Referred by Primary Care Other Specialties Own Free-Will p
Total, n
All9911677
Males456131
Females545546
Age (years), mean ± SD (range)
All50.0 ± 10.9 (29–77)53.0 ± 10.9 (25–77)48.7 ± 10.9 (26–72)0.084
Males51.4 ± 11.0 (29–77)53.6 ± 10.6 (28–77)47.8 ± 11.7 (27–66)0.122
Females48.9 ± 10.8 (29–70)52.3 ± 11.3 (25–76)50.9 ± 10.3 (26–72)0.248
Motivation scales (scores), mean ± SD (range)
All
RT 7.9 ± 1.6 (3–10)7.8 ± 1.5 (4–10)8.2 ± 1.4 (5–10)0.340
HMPMT 13.8 ± 2.4 (6–18)12.6 ± 2.7 (3–18)13.5 ± 2.9 (5–18)0.003
KWT 11.6 ± 2.6 (5–15)11.2 ± 2.6 (5–15)11.7 ± 2.4 (7–15)0.302
VAS 8.1 ± 1.8 (0–10)7.7 ± 2.1 (0–10)8.2 ± 1.7 (0–10)
MD (SE) (95% CI)*1.2 (0.4) (0.3–2.1)
Males
RT 7.9 ± 1.6 (3–10)7.9 ± 1.5 (4–10)8.5 ± 1.3 (6–10)0.122
HMPMT 14.2 ± 2.3 (10–18)12.7 ± 2.7 (7–18)13.5 ± 3.1 (7–18)0.021
KWT 11.3 ± 2.6 (7–15)10.9 ± 2.6 (5–15)12.3 ± 2.6 (7–15)0.054
VAS 8.3 ± 1.9 (0–10)7.9 ± 1.9 (2–10)8.5 ± 1.6 (4–10)0.216
MD (SE) (95% CI)*1.5 (0.5) (0.2–2.8)
Females
RT 7.9 ± 1.7 (4–10)7.8 ± 1.6 (4–10)7.9 ± 1.4 (5–10)0.890
HMPMT 13.4 ± 2.5 (6–18)12.4 ± 2.8 (3–18)13.5 ± 2.7 (5–18)0.068
KWT 11.8 ± 2.7 (5–15)11.5 ± 2.7 (5–15)11.3 ± 2.3 (7–15)0.475
VAS 8.0 ± 1.7 (3–10)7.5 ± 2.3 (0–10)8 ± 1.7 (0–10)0.733

RT: Richmond Test. HMPMT: Henri Mondor Paris Motivation Test. KWT: Khiwji-Watts Test. VAS: Visual Analogue Scale. SD: standard deviation. MD: means differences. SE: standard error.

Primary Care versus Other Specialties for HMPMT.

Description of the quantitative variables for all participants, by sex, and by ‘referred by’ RT: Richmond Test. HMPMT: Henri Mondor Paris Motivation Test. KWT: Khiwji-Watts Test. VAS: Visual Analogue Scale. SD: standard deviation. MD: means differences. SE: standard error. Primary Care versus Other Specialties for HMPMT. A previous study concluded that smoking cessation is motivated by concern for self-health and family’s health, family’s support, and social pressures[3]. In some studies, promptings by doctors were reported as being a reason for quitting by only 13% of respondents, and only one quarter of respondents received cessation-related awareness from their doctors[4]. It is known that personal willpower is an essential feature of the 5As model in ‘Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence’[5], of which the first three As build towards willingness to quit and the last two As facilitate those willing to quit to take the final decision to quit[5]. This suggests how personal motivation that arises from within the individual is more likely to lead to successful cessation than when it arises externally[3], but also, it is known, that a specific referral to a smoking cessation program can increase participation by patients[6,7]. So, we cannot demonstrate differences in the scores of the analyzed smoking cessation motivation scales depending on who refers the subject. Subjects who attend smoking cessation clinics of their OFW do not have higher scores on the motivation questionnaires used when compared to those who attend on the advice of their PC or OS. Click here for additional data file.
  6 in total

1.  Patient referral to a smoking cessation program: who follows through?

Authors:  E Lichtenstein; J Hollis
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 0.493

2.  When Should We Measure Self-Efficacy as an Aid to Smoking Cessation?

Authors:  José Ignacio de Granda-Orive; José Francisco Pascual-Lledó; Segismundo Solano-Reina; Santos Asensio-Sánchez; Marcos García-Rueda; Manuel Ángel Martínez-Muñiz; Lourdes Lázaro-Asegurado; Susana Luhning; Daniel Bujulbasich; Rogelio Pendino; Isabel Cienfuegos-Agustín; Carlos A Jiménez-Ruiz
Journal:  Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed)       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Is There an Association Between the Degree of Nicotine Dependence and the Motivation to Stop Smoking?

Authors:  José Ignacio de Granda-Orive; José Francisco Pascual-Lledó; Santos Asensio-Sánchez; Segismundo Solano-Reina; Marcos García-Rueda; Manuel Ángel Martínez-Muñiz; Lourdes Lázaro-Asegurado; Daniel Bujulbasich; Rogelio Pendino; Susana Luhning; Isabel Cienfuegos-Agustín; Carlos A Jiménez-Ruiz
Journal:  Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed)       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Qualitative study of patients' perceptions of doctors' advice to quit smoking: implications for opportunistic health promotion.

Authors:  C C Butler; R Pill; N C Stott
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-20

5.  Factors motivating smoking cessation: a cross-sectional study in a lower-middle-income country.

Authors:  Russell Seth Martins; Muhammad Umer Junaid; Muhammad Sharjeel Khan; Namrah Aziz; Zoha Zahid Fazal; Mariam Umoodi; Fatima Shah; Javaid Ahmed Khan
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-07-18       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Is the motivation to quit smoking a predictor of abstinence maintenance?

Authors:  José I de Granda-Orive; José F Pascual-Lledó; Santos Asensio-Sánchez; Segismundo Solano-Reina; Marcos García-Rueda; Manuel Á Martínez-Muñiz; Lourdes Lázaro-Asegurado; Daniel Buljubasich; Susana Luhning; Roge-Lio Pendino; Isabel Cienfuegos-Agustín; Carlos A Jiménez-Ruiz
Journal:  Tob Prev Cessat       Date:  2021-06-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.