Smoking cessation in primary care clinics. A randomized trial of smoking cessation interventions in general practice in Italy. Improved smoking cessation in smokers given ultrasound photographs of their own atherosclerotic plaques. Spirometry and smoking cessation advice in general practice: a randomised clinical trial. Impact of carotid plaque screening on smoking cessation and other cardiovascular risk factors: a randomized controlled trial. Efficacy of genotype notification to Japanese smokers on smoking cessation--an intervention study at workplace. Controlled trial of three different antismoking interventions in general practice. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the Step2quit randomised controlled trial. Impact of a brief motivational smoking cessation intervention the Get PHIT randomized controlled trial. Randomized controlled trial of anti-smoking advice by nurses in general practice. Adding spirometry, carbon monoxide, and pulmonary symptom results to smoking cessation counseling: a randomized trial. An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan. Genetic susceptibility testing in smoking-cessation treatment: one-year outcomes of a randomized trial. A randomized, controlled trial of adding expired carbon monoxide feedback to brief stop smoking advice: evaluation of cognitive and behavioral effects.
To document smoking cessation rates achieved by applying the 1996 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) smoking cessation guidelines for primary care clinics, compare these quit rates with historical results, and determine if quit rates improve with an additional motivational intervention that includes education as well as spirometry and carbon monoxide measurements.
                Randomized clinical trial.
                Two university-affiliated community primary care clinics.
                Two hundred five smokers with routinely scheduled appointments.
                All smokers were given advice and support according to AHCPR guidelines. Half of the subjects received additional education with spirometry and carbon monoxide measurements.
                Quit rate was evaluated at 9-month follow-up. Eleven percent of smokers were sustained quitters at follow-up. Sustained quit rate was no different for intervention and control groups (9% vs 14%; [OR] 0.6; 95% [CI] 0.2, 1.4). Nicotine replacement therapy was strongly associated with sustained cessation (OR 6.7; 95% CI 2.3, 19.6). Subjects without insurance were the least likely to use nicotine replacement therapy ( p =.05). Historical data from previously published studies showed that 2% of smokers quit following physician advice, and additional support similar to AHCPR guidelines increased the quit rate to 5%.
                The sustained smoking cessation rate achieved by following AHCPR guidelines was 11% at 9 months, which compares favorably with historical results. Additional education with spirometry did not improve the quit rate. Nicotine replacement therapy was the strongest predictor of cessation, yet was used infrequently owing to cost. These findings support the use of AHCPR guidelines in primary care clinics, but do not support routine spirometry for motivating patients similar to those studied here. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of different practice-based approaches to assist patients of primary care physicians to quit smoking and sustain cessation. Forty-four nonsmoking general practitioners volunteered for the study. After a period of training, they randomized 923 smoking clients, unselected for motivation toward quitting, to four different intervention groups: (i) minimal intervention, consisting of one single counselling session and a brief handout on quitting techniques; (ii) repeated counselling including reinforcing sessions at Months 1, 3, 6, and 9; (iii) repeated counselling and use of nicotine gum; and (iv) repeated counselling and spirometry. Biochemically validated smoking status was assessed at six and 12 months after recruitment. The proportion of verified quitters at 12 months was 4.8 percent among subjects randomized to the minimal intervention group, compared to 5.5 percent, 7.5 percent, and 6.5 percent among those randomized to the three repeated-counselling groups. In no treatment group was the outcome significantly different from that for one-time counselling at the (P less than 0.05) level. Lack of power, contamination, and low attendance at reinforcing sessions should be taken into account in interpreting the results. We examined whether making smokers aware that they had developed peripheral atherosclerosis would improve smoking cessation.
                Smokers selected from the general population were randomly allocated to undergo high-resolution B-mode ultrasonography of their carotid and femoral arteries. All smokers received quit-smoking counseling. Smokers with > or =1 atherosclerotic plaque were given two photographs of a plaque with a relevant explanation. Quit rates were assessed by telephone 6 months later.
                Seventy-nine smokers did not undergo ultrasonography (A). Among the 74 smokers submitted to ultrasonography, 20 had no plaque (B) and 54 had > or =1 plaque (C). Quit rates were, respectively, 6.3, 5.0, and 22.2% in groups A, B, and C. Quit rates were higher in smokers submitted to ultrasonography (B + C vs A; P = 0.031) and in those receiving photographs (C vs A + B; P = 0.003). Smoking cessation was independently associated with intervention C (OR = 6.2; 95% CI = 1.8-21) and a white-collar job but not with age or gender.
                Providing smokers with photographs demonstrating atherosclerosis on their own person was an effective adjunct to physician's advice to quit smoking. Since ultrasonography is used increasingly often in clinical practice for cardiovascular risk stratification, this can provide an additional opportunity and means to deter smokers from smoking.
                Copyright 2002 American Health Foundation and Elsevier Science (USA). To assess the success rate of smoking cessation with the "minimal intervention strategy" in general practice, and to determine the influence of spirometry on this success rate.
                Training in smoking cessation advice was given to 16 general practitioners (GPs). During 12 weeks, these GPs screened their practice population for smoking habits, the degree of dependence on nicotine, and the motivation to quit smoking. Patients willing to stop were randomised to a group that underwent a single office spirometry, or to a control group. The GPs were asked to support the attempts with the minimal intervention strategy. Success rates were compared after 6, 12 and 24 months.
                On a population of 5590 patients, 1206 smokers were identified (22%). To the vulnerable group, identified following the Prochaska and Di Clemente scheme, the proposal was made to change smoking behaviour. Two hundred and twenty-one patients undertook an attempt of smoking cessation. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or bupropion was prescribed in 51% of the attempts. Sixty-four sustained quitters were counted after 6 months (29%), 43 after 1 year (19%) and 33 after 2 years (15%). We found a small but statistically non-significant difference in success rate in favour of the group that underwent office spirometry.
                GPs can motivate almost 20% of their smoking population to quit smoking. The success rate with the minimal intervention strategy was 19% after 1 year and 15% after 2 years. We found no arguments in favour of confronting smokers with their lung function as a tool for enhancing smoking cessation. Screening of peripheral atherosclerosis is increasingly used, but few trials have examined its clinical impact. We aimed to assess whether carotid plaque screening helps smokers to improve their health behaviors and cardiovascular risk factors.
                We randomly assigned 536 smokers aged 40 to 70 years to carotid plaque ultrasonographic screening (US group) vs no screening (control group) in addition to individual counseling and nicotine replacement therapy for all participants. Smokers with at least 1 plaque received pictures of their plaques with a 7-minute structured explanation. The outcomes included biochemically validated smoking cessation at 12 months (primary outcome) and changes in cardiovascular risk factor levels and Framingham risk score.
                At baseline, participants (mean age, 51.1 years; 45.0% women) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day with a median duration of 32 years. The US group had a high prevalence of carotid plaques (57.9%). At 12 months, smoking cessation rates were high, but did not differ between the US and control groups (24.9% vs 22.1%; P = .45). In the US group, cessation rates did not differ according to the presence or absence of plaques. Control of cardiovascular risk factors (ie, blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A(1c) levels in diabetic patients) and mean absolute risk change in Framingham risk score did not differ between the groups. The mean absolute risk change in Framingham risk score was +0.6 in the US group vs +0.3 in the control group (P = .56).
                In smokers, carotid plaque screening performed in addition to thorough smoking cessation counseling is not associated with increased rates of smoking cessation or control of cardiovascular risk factors. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00548665. It is well-known that smoking causes many diseases including cancers. Informing smokers of their genotypes associated with the vulnerability to the harms of smoking may be effective measures for smoking cessation. The present study examined the effects of genotype notification of an oncogene (L-myc) genotype to smokers on their behavior to quit smoking.
                Subjects were 562 employees of a bank who answered to be a smoker for a questionnaire used at annual health checkup at workplace from July to December 2002. Those enrolled on August, October, and December were allocated into the genotype notification group (intervention group), and the rest into the controls. Among 286 smokers allocated into the intervention group, 257 participants (89.9%) agreed to genotype testing. One year after the enrollment, a follow-up questionnaire survey was conducted for all smokers including controls.
                Those who stated to have quitted smoking were 22 (8.0%) among the 276 controls and 15 (5.8%) among the 257 genotype notified participants, providing that the odds ratio (OR) of cessation for the intervention was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.28). No psychological problems associated with genotype notification were observed.
                The present study did not show positive effects of genotype notification on smoking cessation rate. To elevate the cessation rate, methods to explain and notify genotypes should be improved. Of 6052 adult patients who consulted their doctors in six Oxfordshire general practices between October 1980 and February 1981, 2110 (35%) were smokers. The smokers were allocated to one of four study groups--a control (non-intervention) group; a group that received verbal and written antismoking advice from the general practitioner; a group that received this advice and also a demonstration of exhaled carbon monoxide; and a group that received the advice plus the offer of further help from a health visitor. After one year 72% of smokers replied to a postal follow up questionnaire: 11% of the control group claimed to have stopped smoking compared with 15% in the group that received advice alone, 17% in the exhaled carbon monoxide group, and 13% in the health visitor group. Validation of these findings by assays of urinary concentrations of cotinine showed that between 24% and 40% of subjects may have misreported their smoking habits, but there was no indication that the rate of misreporting was higher in the intervention groups than in the control group. Giving advice routinely against smoking has a useful effect, and showing an immediate, personal, and potentially harmful consequence of smoking using a CO-oximeter may improve this, particularly in lower socioeconomic groups. To evaluate the impact of telling patients their estimated spirometric lung age as an incentive to quit smoking.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Five general practices in Hertfordshire, England.
                561 current smokers aged over 35.
                All participants were offered spirometric assessment of lung function. Participants in intervention group received their results in terms of "lung age" (the age of the average healthy individual who would perform similar to them on spirometry). Those in the control group received a raw figure for forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1). Both groups were advised to quit and offered referral to local NHS smoking cessation services.
                The primary outcome measure was verified cessation of smoking by salivary cotinine testing 12 months after recruitment. Secondary outcomes were reported changes in daily consumption of cigarettes and identification of new diagnoses of chronic obstructive lung disease.
                Follow-up was 89%. Independently verified quit rates at 12 months in the intervention and control groups, respectively, were 13.6% and 6.4% (difference 7.2%, P=0.005, 95% confidence interval 2.2% to 12.1%; number needed to treat 14). People with worse spirometric lung age were no more likely to have quit than those with normal lung age in either group. Cost per successful quitter was estimated at 280 pounds sterling (366 euros, $556). A new diagnosis of obstructive lung disease was made in 17% in the intervention group and 14% in the control group; a total of 16% (89/561) of participants.
                Telling smokers their lung age significantly improves the likelihood of them quitting smoking, but the mechanism by which this intervention achieves its effect is unclear.
                National Research Register N0096173751. Few studies have rigorously evaluated whether providing biologically based health-risk feedback is more effective than standard interventions in increasing smokers' motivation to quit and their long-term abstinence.
                An RCT was conducted from 2005 to 2008. Data were analyzed in 2008.
                Smokers (N=536) were recruited from the community, regardless of their interest in quitting smoking.
                Smokers either received brief ( approximately 20 minutes), personally tailored counseling sessions based on their lung functioning, carbon monoxide (CO) exposure, and smoking-related health conditions, or they received generic smoking-risk information and personalized counseling about their diet, BMI, and physical activity. All were advised to quit smoking and were offered access to a free phone-counseling program.
                Treatment utilization and abstinence at 6 and 12 months post-intervention.
                Participants who received the experimental treatment demonstrated no greater motivation to quit, use of treatment services, or abstinence compared to controls at either follow-up assessment. In fact, controls reported greater motivation to quit at 12 months (M 3.42 vs 3.20, p=0.03), greater use of pharmacotherapy at 6 months (37.8% vs 28.0%, p=0.02), and greater 30-day point prevalent abstinence at 6 months, after controlling for relevant covariates (10.8% vs 6.4%, adjusted p=0.04).
                The present study found no support for adding a personalized health-risk assessment emphasizing lung health and CO exposure to generic cessation advice and counseling for community-based smokers not otherwise seeking treatment.
                NCT00169260. Practice nurses are playing an increasingly prominent role in preventive care, including the provision of anti-smoking advice during routine health checks. A randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of anti-smoking advice provided by nurses in helping smokers to stop smoking. A total of 14,830 patients aged 16-65 years from 11 general practices completed a brief questionnaire on general health, including smoking status, at surgery attendance. The doctor identified 4330 smokers and randomly allocated 4210 to control or intervention groups. The doctor asked those in the intervention group to make an appointment with the practice nurse for a health check. The attendance rate at the health check was 26%. Smokers were sent follow-up questionnaires at one month and one year, and those who did not respond to two reminders were assumed to have continued to smoke. There was no significant difference in reported cessation between the intervention and control groups at one month or one year. However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients who reported giving up within one month and who had not lapsed by one year--0.9% in controls and 3.6% in the intervention group (P less than 0.01). Nevertheless, the effect of the nurse intervention itself may be small as the sustained cessation rate in attenders was only 42.4% higher than in non-attenders. The deception rate in reporting cessation, as measured by urinary cotinine, was of the order of 25%. Smokers are often advised to quit in a discussion of future health risks. The authors tested whether adding information about personal effects of smoking would motivate hospital outpatients to stop smoking more than advice about potential hazards would. Ninety smokers in a general screening clinic were randomized to receive education alone or education plus an additional motivational intervention that contained immediate feedback about the smoker's exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) values, spirometry results, and pulmonary symptoms. A self-report of smoking status was obtained one, four, and 12 months after the intervention. In addition, at 12 months, exhaled CO measurements were made. Smokers who received the additional motivational intervention were more than twice as likely to report quitting some time during the 12-month follow-up (40% vs. 16%, p = 0.015). At 12 months, 33% of the intervention group and 10% of the control group smokers tested had achieved CO-validated cessation (p = 0.03). Counting all patients not contacted as continuing to smoke, the percentages were 20% vs. 7% (p = 0.06). These practical feedback methods to motivate cessation deserve testing in other settings. To evaluate whether feedback of genetic information regarding an L-myc polymorphism, identified as impacting on tobacco-related cancer risk, has an influence on smoking cessation, an intervention study was conducted.
                We recruited smokers from first-visit outpatients at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital. Six hundred and seventeen participated and were allocated into two groups: the biomarker feedback group (BF) and the follow-up smoking status group (FS). The subjects were asked for their smoking status at enrolment and at 3- and 9-month follow-ups. BF subjects were notified about their L-myc genotype.
                The smoking cessation rate at 9-month follow-up was essentially the same for both BF and FS cases, at 18.8% and 17.0%, respectively (P = 0.798). However, a difference in the rate was evident with non-cancer subjects (12.7% and 8.4%, respectively, P = 0.237), especially in females (15.0% and 4.2%, respectively, P = 0.024). The non-cancer subjects informed of their genotype were more likely to quit smoking than the FS patients; particularly in those having a risky genotype, this was significant (odds ratio: 2.87, P = 0.003). Again it was most prominent in females.
                Feedback regarding an L-myc polymorphism did not impact on smoking cessation overall but appeared to benefit smokers without cancer. In addition, gender could affect the response to the feedback. This study evaluated the long-term impact of genetic susceptibility biomarker feedback on smoking behavior change and symptoms of depression in 426 male and female smokers. Smokers were randomized to one of three smoking-cessation interventions: minimal contact quit-smoking counseling (QSC), QSC + exposure biomarker feedback (EBF), and QSC + EBF + biomarker feedback about genetic susceptibility to lung cancer (SBF). The logistic regression model for quit attempt revealed a significant main effect for treatment such that participants in the SBF group were more than two times more likely to make a quit attempt than participants in the QSC group. There was not a significant difference between EBF and QSC participants. The results also revealed a significant effect for baseline stage of change. Those smokers in the preparation stage at baseline were more than three times more likely to make a quit attempt over the 12 months following treatment. The models for 30-day cessation and follow-up smoking rate revealed no significant main or interacting effects for treatment. A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for time, indicating that an initial increase in depression in the genetic susceptibility group was not maintained over time. Genetic susceptibility feedback has the intended effects on motivation to quit, but it may need to be delivered within a more intensive smoking-cessation treatment for the heightened motivation to translate into smoking cessation. To determine the effect of adding biomarker feedback (expired air carbon monoxide) to standard quit advice on cognitive antecedents of behavior change and smoking cessation and to identify potential effect moderators and mediators.
                Smokers (N = 160) were randomized to a control (quit advice plus leaflet) or an intervention condition (as control group plus carbon-monoxide level feedback). Cognitive measures were assessed immediately after the intervention and behavioral measures at 6 months' follow-up.
                Primary outcome measures were threat and efficacy appraisal, fear arousal, and intention to stop smoking. Secondary outcome measures were quit attempts within the last 6 months and 7-day point prevalence abstinence.
                Threat appraisal was significantly enhanced in the intervention compared with the control group, t(158) = 2.29, p = .023, as was intention to stop smoking in the next month, t(151) = 2.9, p = .004. However, this effect on intention to stop smoking was short-lived. Groups did not differ in terms of quit attempts or abstinence at follow-up, but the intervention increased the likelihood of cessation in smokers with higher self-efficacy, χ2(1) = 5.82, p = .016.
                Carbon-monoxide level feedback enhances the effect of brief quit advice on cognitive antecedents of behavior change and smoking cessation rates but further research is required to confirm the longevity of this effect and its applicability to smokers with low self-efficacy.
                (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.