Quitlines and Nicotine Replacement for Smoking Cessation: Do We Need to Change Policy?
Moores UCSD Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA. Annual Review of Public Health
(Impact Factor: 6.47).
04/2011; 33(1):341-56. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124624
In the past 20 years, public health initiatives on smoking cessation have increased substantially. Randomized trials indicate that pharmaceutical cessation aids can increase success by 50% among heavier smokers who seek help, and use of these aids has increased markedly. Quitlines provide a portal through which smokers can seek assistance to quit and are promoted by tobacco control programs. Randomized trials have demonstrated that telephone coaching following a quitline call can also increase quitting, and a combination of quitlines, pharmaceutical aids and physician monitoring can help heavier smokers to quit. While quit attempts have increased, widespread dissemination of these aids has not improved population success rates. Pharmaceutical marketing strategies may have reduced expectations of the difficulty of quitting, reducing success per attempt. Some policies actively discourage unassisted smoking cessation despite the documented high success rates of this approach. There is an urgent need to revisit public policy on smoking cessation.
Available from: Jeremiah Mock
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) over the past two decades locally relevant tobacco control research has been scant. Experience shows that tobacco control measures should be based on sound research findings to ensure that measures are appropriate for local conditions and that they are likely to have an impact. Research should also be integrated within tobacco control measures to ensure ongoing learning and the production of knowledge. Thailand, a middle-income country, has a public health community with a record of successful tobacco control and a longstanding commitment to research. Thailand's comprehensive approach includes taxation; bans on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion; smoke-free areas; graphic cigarette pack warnings; social marketing campaigns; cessation counseling; and an established tobacco control research program. The purpose of this study was to document and analyze the development of tobacco control research capacity in Thailand and the impact of research on Thai tobacco control measures.
We used mixed methods including review of historical documentation and policy reports, qualitative interviews with key members of Thailand's tobacco control community, and an analysis of research productivity.
In Thailand, tobacco control research has evolved through three phases: (1) discovery of the value of research in the policymaking arena, (2) development of a structure to support research capacity building through international collaborations supported by foreign funding agencies, and (3) delivery of locally relevant research made possible largely through substantial stable funding from a domestic health promotion foundation. Over two decades, Thai tobacco control advocates have constructed five steppingstones to success: (1) adapting foreign research to inform policymaking and lobbying for more support for domestic research; (2) attracting foreign funding agencies to support small-scale research and capacity building; (3) participating in multi-country research and capacity building programs; (4) using collaborative experiences to demonstrate the need for domestic support of locally relevant research; and (5) maintaining an unwavering commitment to research while being vigilant to ensure continued research support.
The evolution of tobacco control research in Thailand provides examples of steppingstones that LMICs may be able to use to construct their own tobacco control research pathways.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Use of evidence-based smoking cessation aids (SCA) is an efficacious way to improve smoking cessation relapse rates. However, use of SCA in the Netherlands is particularly low. This study examined determinants of intention to use SCA in smokers willing to quit. METHODS: The Dutch Continuous Survey of Smoking Habits, a cross-sectional population survey, was used. Respondents were smokers (n = 594) wanting to quit sometime in the future and who made at least one quit attempt in the past, categorized as past users of evidence-based SCA, past users of nonevidence-based SCA, and smokers who had never used SCA before (nonusers). Respondents were asked about past SCA use, motivational determinants regarding smoking cessation and SCA use, and intention to use SCA during a future quit attempt. RESULTS: Older and more addicted smokers were more likely to have used evidence-based SCA. Evidence-based and nonevidence-based users reported stronger attitudes and perceived social norm as well as lower self-efficacy expectations regarding smoking cessation and SCA use than nonusers. Having positive outcome expectations and perceived social norm regarding SCA use were strong predictors of intention to use SCA. Self-efficacy regarding smoking cessation was negatively related with intention to use SCA.Conclusions:Nonusers, nonevidence-based users, and evidence-based users have different motivations for using evidence-based SCA and should not be treated as a homogenous group in smoking cessation programs. Additionally, it is unclear whether nonusers should be encouraged to use SCA, given that this group is less addicted and more confident about quitting.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Large pharmaceutical companies are major funders of anti‐smoking lobby groups. The same firms manufacture the products used in Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) and stand to gain when governments recommend this approach to smoking cessation. There is growing evidence, however, that NRT is less effective than ‘cold turkey’ methods, and, indeed, that it has a number of harmful side effects. Its continued promotion, together with counterproductive anti‐smoking measures, raises serious questions about the influence of special interests over tobacco policy.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.