Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2019 Jul 6;114(9):1627–1638. doi: 10.1111/add.14656

Table 4. Associations between use of smoking cessation aids and abstinence.

Unadjusted
abstinence (%)
Model 1
OR [95% CI]
Model 2
OR [95% CI]
Model 3
OR [95% CI]
No aid 16.8 - 0.75 [0.69-0.83]*** -
Prescription NRT1 14.1 0.88 [0.76-1.02] 1.28 [1.08-1.52]** 1.34 [1.12-1.59]**
      Age 16-44 years 11.9 0.69 [0.55-0.87]*** 1.05 [0.821.36] 1.09 [0.85-1.42]
      Age ≥45 years 16.5 1.04 [0.85-1.28] 1.50 [1.19-1.88]** 1.58 [1.25-2.00]***
NRT bought over the counter 11.6 0.68 [0.61-0.75]*** 0.88 [0.79-0.99]* 0.98 [0.87-1.09]
Varenicline 20.4 1.31 [1.11-1.54]** 1.67 [1.38-2.01]*** 1.82 [1.51-2.21]***
Bupropion 11.7 0.74 [0.52-1.05] 1.23 [0.83-1.81] 1.27 [0.86-1.89]
E-cigarettes2 21.2 1.49 [1.34-1.67]*** 1.86 [1.62-2.13]*** 1.95 [1.69-2.24]***
      Men 24.3 1.76 [1.51-2.04]*** 2.15 [1.78-2.60]*** 2.26 [1.87-2.74]***
      Women 18.1 1.25 [1.06-1.47]** 1.58 [1.29-1.94]*** 1.66 [1.35-2.04]***
Face-to-face behavioural support 15.4 1.02 [0.84-1.24] 1.24 [1.00-1.55] 1.20 [0.95-1.50]
Telephone support3,4 11.1 0.66 [0.39-1.12] 0.83 [0.47-1.47] 0.75 [0.42-1.35]
      Low cigarette addiction 10.3 0.57 [0.30-1.07] 0.60 [0.29-1.21] 0.51 [0.25-1.06]
      High cigarette addiction 12.3 1.48 [0.58-3.77] 1.62 [0.63-4.14] 1.67 [0.64-4.37]
      Social grade ABC1 17.7 1.01 [0.51-2.00] 1.52 [0.70-3.32] 1.57 [0.70-3.49]
      Social grade C2DE 7.0 0.44 [0.19-1.00] 1.07 [0.89-1.28] 0.40 [0.16-0.99]*
Written self-help materials3 16.8 0.91 [0.66-1.26] 0.92 [0.64-1.32] 0.91 [0.63-1.32]
      Low cigarette addiction 22.5 1.05 [0.74-1.47] 1.06 [0.71-1.57] 1.07 [0.71-1.60]
      High cigarette addiction 3.3 0.15 [0.02-1.11] 0.17 [0.02-1.22] 0.16 [0.02-1.15]
Websites3,4,5 18.6 1.07 [0.73-1.57] 1.19 [0.78-1.83] 1.25 [0.81-1.92]
      Age 16-44 years 18.5 1.23 [0.80-1.88] 1.42 [0.88-2.28] 1.54 [0.95-2.49]
      Age ≥45 years 19.1 0.74 [0.31-1.76] 0.62 [0.24-1.62] 0.56 [0.21-1.49]
      Low cigarette addiction 21.6 0.94 [0.62-1.43] 1.08 [0.66-1.77] 1.15 [0.70-1.87]
      High cigarette addiction 9.8 1.97 [0.76-5.09] 2.15 [0.82-5.60] 2.51 [0.93-6.75]
      Social grade ABC1 20.0 0.73 [0.40-1.38] 0.73 [0.40-1.35] 0.74 [0.40-1.38]
      Social grade C2DE 17.0 1.46 [0.86-2.49] 2.14 [1.18-3.87]* 2.20 [1.22-3.98]**
Hypnotherapy6 17.3 0.92 [0.58-1.44] 0.81 [0.48-1.35] 0.84 [0.50-1.40]
      Low cigarette addiction 24.3 1.06 [0.66-1.72] 0.85 [0.48-1.51] 0.92 [0.52-1.63]
      High cigarette addiction 2.0 0.34 [0.05-2.49] 0.30 [0.04-2.22] 0.31 [0.04-2.31]

OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; NRT = nicotine replacement therapy. Low cigarette addiction = score of 0-2 on strength of urges to stop scale; high cigarette addiction = score of 3-5 on strength of urges to stop scale.

Model 1 = multivariable model including all smoking cessation aid variables, but no covariates.

Model 2 = multivariable model including all covariates (age, sex, social grade, strength of urges to smoke, time since the quit attempt started, number of prior quit attempts in the past year, whether the quit attempt was planned, whether the respondent quit abruptly versus gradually, and month and year of the survey), but no other smoking cessation aid variables.

Model 3 = fully adjusted multivariable model including all covariates and all smoking cessation aid variables.

Each OR and 95% CI is for using the smoking cessation aid in question relative to not using that smoking cessation aid.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

1

Interactions showed effectiveness differed significantly by age (Table 4).

2

Bayes factor indicated that the data provided moderate evidence of differing effectiveness by sex (Supplementary Table 1) despite the interaction not reaching statistical significance (Table 4).

3

Effectiveness differed significantly by level of cigarette addiction (Table 4).

3

Effectiveness differed significantly by social grade (Table 4).

5

Bayes factor indicated that the data provided strong evidence of differing effectiveness by sex (Supplementary Table 1) despite the interaction not reaching statistical significance (Table 4).

6

Bayes factor indicated that the data provided moderate evidence of differing effectiveness by level of cigarette addiction (Supplementary Table 1) despite the interaction not reaching statistical significance (Table 4).