Motivating the unmotivated for health behavior change: a randomized trial of cessation induction for smokers.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Hollings Cancer Center,86 Jonathan Lucas St., PO Box 250955, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Clinical Trials (Impact Factor: 1.94). 03/2010; 7(2):157-66. DOI: 10.1177/1740774510361533
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many smokers remain unwilling or unable to make a quit attempt. For these smokers, novel strategies to induce quit attempts are necessary to achieve further reductions in smoking prevalence.
This article describes the design and methods of an ongoing nationwide telephone-based clinical trial for cessation induction, the principal aim of which is to test the hypothesis that samples of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), can induce quit attempts among smokers otherwise unmotivated to quit.
Smokers are recruited proactively through online channels. A 'behavioral filter' is used to identify and separate motivated versus unmotivated smokers, the latter of whom (N = 750) are formally entered into the clinical trial. Participants are randomized to one of two treatment conditions designed to promote self-efficacy and motivation to quit: (1) practice quit attempt (PQA) or (2) PQA plus NRT sampling. The primary outcome measure tested over a 6-month follow-up is the incidence of additional quit attempts as well as hypothesized mediators of treatment effects.
This study details the challenges of identifying and treating smokers who are unmotivated to quit. Strengths include a novel treatment approach, tested among a group of proactively recruited smokers nationwide, with a unique method of identifying cessation-resistant smokers.
The omission of a true control group, testing the effect of the PQA itself, is an inherent limitation to the study design. Online recruitment presents additional study challenges, all of which are discussed in detail.
The study has translational potential to guide both clinical and policy recommendations for cessation induction. Further, while the focus is on smoking, this trial may serve as an example to researchers and clinicians who focus on other health behaviors, and who themselves are challenged with motivating people who are unmotivated for change.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With growing recognition of stagnant rates of attempted cigarette smoking cessation, the current study examined demographic and psychometric characteristics associated with successful and attempted smoking cessation in a nationally representative sample. This additional understanding may help target tobacco cessation treatments toward sub-groups of smokers in order to increase attempts to quit smoking. Data were used from the 2011 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (n = 50,000). Current smoking status and demographics, health characteristics, comorbidities, and health behaviors. In 2011, 18%, 29%, and 52% of U.S. adults were current, former, or never smokers, respectively. Over one quarter (27%) of current smokers were attempting to quit. Current smokers (vs. others) were significantly more likely to be poorer, non-Hispanic White, less educated, ages 45-64, and uninsured, and they had fewer health-conscious behaviors (e.g., influenza vaccination, exercise). Attempting quitters vs. current smokers were significantly less likely to be non-Hispanic White and more likely to be younger, educated, insured, non-obese, with family history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and they had more health-conscious behaviors. Smokers, attempting quitters, and successful quitters differ on characteristics that may be useful for targeting and personalizing interventions aiming to increase cessation attempts, likelihood, and sustainability.
    PLoS ONE 03/2014; 9(3):e93014. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0093014 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quitline use can prompt quit attempts and promote abstinence among smokers, but rates of use are low and outcomes of brief quitline referrals unclear. In this study, a brief intervention was delivered to smokers who expressed motivation to quit in the next 30 days (N = 221) to encourage use of their state quitline. Correlates of quitline use were examined, and quitline callers versus non-callers were compared on the following outcomes at 2-month follow-up: cessation medication use, quit attempts and abstinence. Of the 221 smokers given a quitline referral, 34% called the quitline. Baseline motivation alone distinguished quitline callers from non-callers. Quitline use was positively associated with use of cessation medication, an association that remained robust even after adjusting for baseline motivation to quit. A trend was observed in which callers were marginally more likely than non-callers to report both a 24-h quit attempt and 7-day point prevalence abstinence. Relative to non-callers, callers also endorsed greater confidence to quit and increased self-efficacy to resist smoking temptations at follow-up. This study demonstrates a minimal intervention can promote acceptance of quitlines and favorable cessation outcomes among smokers motivated to quit.
    Health Education Research 08/2014; 30(1). DOI:10.1093/her/cyu041 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub4 · 5.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014