Search

Aim: To compare effects of three post‐relapse interventions on smoking abstinence. Design: Sequential three‐phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). Setting: Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics. Participants: A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment. Interventions: In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini‐lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post‐randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post‐randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini‐lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months. Measurements The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7‐day point‐prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects. Findings Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14‐month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14‐month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.8−5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5–6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7–8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0–12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001. Conclusions: Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post‐relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re‐engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To understand dual users' cigarette and e‐cigarette use patterns, including the contexts in which they vape versus smoke and to understand how environmental and internal contexts and smoking patterns differ between dual users and exclusive smokers. Design Longitudinal observational trial. Setting: Research center in Wisconsin, USA. Participants: Adult dual users (n = 162) and adults who exclusively smoked (n = 143), with no plans to quit smoking or vaping in the next 30 days. Measurements Participants carried smartphones for 2 weeks at baseline to record each use event for the two products and report on the context of their product use. The percentage of mornings where participants vaped first versus smoked were used to compute e‐cigarette dependence. Findings Hierarchical linear regression models with random slopes and intercepts examined the within‐ and between‐subject effects of context on the likelihood of vaping (versus smoking); significant fixed effects were tested for moderation by e‐cigarette dependence. Dual users reported significantly more puffs/cigarette [mean = 13.1, standard deviation (SD) = 10.2] than puffs/vape event (mean = 11.7, SD = 11.5; P = 0.01). E‐cigarette dependence moderated the influence of social cues (t‐ratio = 2.4, P = 0.02) and smoking restrictions (t‐ratio = 3.1, P = 0.003) on the likelihood of vaping versus smoking [odds ratio (OR) = 2.30, P = 0.02]. Context was more related to which product was used in those of low versus higher e‐cigarette dependence. Reports of strong cravings to smoke and positive expectancies for cigarettes were associated with a reduced likelihood of vaping, whereas strong cravings to vape and positive vaping expectancies were related to increased likelihood of vaping. Conclusions: Among dual users of cigarettes and e‐cigarettes with no motivation to quit, vaping appears to be related to internal cues and more highly linked with social contexts and smoking restrictions (i.e. under stronger external stimulus control) among those with low to moderate e‐cigarette dependence compared with high e‐cigarette dependence. These findings illustrate the importance of contextual factors in tobacco product use among dual users with the influence of context being reduced at high levels of e‐cigarette dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]