Abstract
BACKGROUND
Relapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic 'emergency' use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions.
DESIGN
A randomised controlled trial.
SETTING
English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC.
PARTICIPANTS
Ex-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned sample size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages (n = 60), (2) the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol and interactive text messages (n = 57), (3) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes plus the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol with interactive text messages (n = 58) or (4) usual care plus static text messages (n = 59).
OUTCOME MEASURES
Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete.
RESULTS
The 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively (p = 0.11). Sustained abstinence rates were 41.7%, 54.8% and 50.9%, respectively (p = 0.17). Electronic cigarettes were chosen more frequently than nicotine replacement treatment in Australia (71.1% vs. 29.0%; p = 0.001), but not in England (54.0% vs. 46.0%; p = 0.57). Of participants allocated to nicotine products, 23.1% were using them daily at 6 months. The online intervention received positive ratings from 63% of participants at 6 months, but the majority of participants (72%) completed one assessment only. Coping strategies taught in the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol were used with similar frequency in all study arms, suggesting that these are strategies people had already acquired. Only one participant used the interactive texting, and interactive and static messages received virtually identical ratings.
LIMITATIONS
The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
Recruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution.
FUTURE WORK
Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia (NHMRC APP1095880). Public Health England provided the funds to purchase the nicotine products in England.
Plain language summary
Stop smoking services help people to stop smoking over a short period of time. However, nearly three-quarters of quitters return to smoking (i.e. relapse) within 1 year. Effective relapse prevention strategies are needed. Traditional behavioural relapse prevention strategies (e.g. teaching techniques to resist having a cigarette) have not proved effective. However, an earlier study showed that an online programme guiding smokers in stopping smoking and remaining abstinent reduced relapse between 1 week and 6 months. Long-term use of stop smoking medications (e.g. nicotine replacement treatment) can also help, but most successful quitters do not continue to use them. Nicotine mouth spray, lozenges or electronic cigarettes that can quickly help relieve urges to smoke and that ex-smokers can use ‘in emergencies’ could be a more attractive option. We planned to test these two interventions, on their own and together, in 1400 participants who had quit ≥ 4 weeks previously and who were recruited from English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines. We would then compare these participants with the participants following usual care (i.e. access to stop smoking medications used during the quit attempt for up to 3 months). Owing to delays in study set-up and difficulties in recruiting, the study recruited only 234 participants (n = 131 in Australia and n = 103 in England). We studied participants’ reactions to the two interventions and to their combination, and how clinically effective the interventions were. Both interventions were rated positively by most participants. Among the participants in Australia, electronic cigarettes were more popular than medical nicotine products. In England, both products were equally popular. Participants in the online intervention group appreciated the advice on coping strategies, but they rarely completed repeat assessments. In addition, participants who were not in this group used the strategies just as much. There were hints that the interventions may be helpful in preventing relapse. There is an indication that the two interventions combined did not do any better than each on its own, but this requires replication in a larger study. Although the interventions show promise, the small number of participants recruited means that we are unable to make strong conclusions. The study identified areas for future work.
Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.
References
- Stapleton J. Cigarette smoking prevalence, cessation and relapse. Stat Method Med Res 1998;7:187–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029800700206 doi: 10.1177/096228029800700206. [DOI] [PubMed]
- NHS Digital. Statistics on NHS Stop Smoking Services in England April 2019 to June 2019. 2019. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-nhs-stop-smoking-services-in-england/april-2019-to-june-2019 (accessed September 2020).
- Marlatt GA, Donovan DM. Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005.
- Livingstone-Banks J, Norris E, Hartmann-Boyce J, West R, Jarvis M, Chubb E, Hajek P. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub6 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Agboola S, McNeill A, Coleman T, Leonardi Bee J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of smoking relapse prevention interventions for abstinent smokers. Addiction 2010;105:1362–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02996.x doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02996.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Segan C, Borland R. Does extended telephone callback counselling prevent smoking relapse? Health Educ Res 2011;26:336–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyr009 doi: 10.1093/her/cyr009. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Turner J, McNeill A, Coleman T, Bee JL, Agboola S. Feasibility of offering nicotine replacement therapy as a relapse prevention treatment in routine smoking cessation services. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-38 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Snuggs S, McRobbie H, Myers K, Schmocker F, Goddard J, Hajek P. Using text messaging to prevent relapse to smoking: intervention development, practicability and client reactions. Addiction 2012;107(Suppl. 2):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04084.x doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04084.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Hajek P, Stead LF, West R, Jarvis M, Lancaster T. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:CD003999. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Smith AL, Carter SM, Dunlop SM, Freeman B, Chapman S. The views and experiences of smokers who quit smoking unassisted. A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0127144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127144 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Borland R, Balmford J, Swift E. Effects of encouraging rapid implementation and/or structured planning of quit attempts on smoking cessation outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med 2015;49:732–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9706-3 doi: 10.1007/s12160-015-9706-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Brown J, West R, Beard E, Michie S, Shahab L, McNeill A. Prevalence and characteristics of e-cigarette users in Great Britain: Findings from a general population survey of smokers. Addict Behav 2014;39:1120–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.03.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Action on Smoking and Health. Use of Electronic Cigarettes (Vapourisers) Among Adults in Great Britain. 2015. URL: https://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/fact-sheets/statistical/use-of-e-cigarettes-among-adults-in-great-britain-2019/ (accessed September 2020).
- Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Stead LF, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;9:CD010216. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, Bisal N, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med 2019;380:629–37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779. [DOI] [PubMed]
- McNeill A, Driezen P, Hitchman SC, Cummings KM, Fong JT, Borland R. Indicators of cigarette smoking dependence and relapse in former smokers who vape compared with those who do not: findings from the 2016 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Addiction 2019;114:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14722 doi: 10.1111/add.14722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol 1999;54:493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493. [DOI]
- Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 1991;86:1119–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
- The Euroqol Group. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. Rotterdam: The Euroqol Group; 2013.
- Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008;4:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415 doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415. [DOI] [PubMed]
- West R, Hajek P, Stead L, Stapleton J. Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005;100:299–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00995.x doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00995.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction; 1967. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 doi: 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014. [DOI]
- Higginbotham N, Albrecht G, Connor L. Health Social Science: A Transdisciplinary and Complexity Perspective. Docklands, VIC: Oxford University Press; 2001.
- Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. New York, NY: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1990.
- Ferguson SG, Shiffman S. Effect of high-dose nicotine patch on the characteristics of lapse episodes. Health Psychol 2010;29:358–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019367 doi: 10.1037/a0019367. [DOI] [PubMed]
- White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
- McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:267–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Notley C, Ward E, Dawkins L, Holland R, Jakes S. Vaping as an alternative to smoking relapse following brief lapse. Drug Alcohol Rev 2019;38:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12876 doi: 10.1111/dar.12876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- West R, Hajek P, Foulds J, Nilsson F, May S, Meadows A. A comparison of the abuse liability and dependence potential of nicotine patch, gum, spray and inhaler. Psychopharmacology 2000;149:198–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130000382 doi: 10.1007/s002130000382. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Hajek P, McRobbie H, Gillison F. Dependence potential of nicotine replacement treatments: effects of product type, patient characteristics, and cost to user. Prev Med 2007;44:230–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Aubin HJ, Farley A, Lycett D, Lahmek P, Aveyard P. Weight gain in smokers after quitting cigarettes: meta-analysis. BMJ 2012;345:e4439. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4439 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Balmford J, Swift E, Borland R. Reported planning before and after quitting and quit success: retrospective data from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Psychol Addict Behav 2014;28:899–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035711 doi: 10.1037/a0035711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Beard E, Jackson SE, West R, Kuipers MAG, Brown J. Population-level predictors of changes in success rates of smoking quit attempts in England: a time series analysis. Addiction 2020;115:315–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14837 doi: 10.1111/add.14837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Jackson SE, Kotz D, West R, Brown J. Moderators of real-world effectiveness of smoking cessation aids: a population study. Addiction 2019;114:1627–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14656 doi: 10.1111/add.14656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]