Search

Unlabelled: AIMS, DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: Smoking care provision to in-patients is important in assisting smoking cessation and for management of nicotine withdrawal. Limited studies have reported the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the hospital-wide provision of such care. A quasi-experimental matched-pair trial, involving two intervention and two control hospitals in NSW, Australia, investigated whether a multi-strategic intervention increased hospital-wide smoking care provision., Participants and Measurements: Patient surveys (n = 274-347 per experimental condition), medical notes audits (n = 181-228) and health professional surveys (n = 229-302) were used to collect outcome data at baseline and follow-up., Findings: Significantly greater increases in intervention hospitals compared to control hospitals were found for patient-reported offer of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (intervention 34% versus control 12%), provision of NRT (16% versus 4%) and provision of written resources (11% versus 2%), and for the recording in medical notes of smoking management discussion (13% versus 3%), offer of NRT (24% versus 3%) and provision of NRT (21% versus 5%). Intervention group health professionals reported significantly greater increases in the mean estimate of patients who: had their smoking management discussed (30% versus 17%); were offered or provided with NRT (30% versus 18%); were asked their intention to smoke post-discharge (22% versus 10%); and were provided with discharge NRT (21% versus 4%)., Conclusions: Implementation of a multi-strategic intervention is effective in increasing hospital smoking care delivery, particularly the provision of NRT. Research is required to identify methods to increase further the delivery of this and other forms of smoking care.

Despite optimistic predictions when nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was switched to over-the-counter (OTC) availability, population surveys have failed to demonstrate a positive impact on long-term smoking cessation. This review examined the strength of the evidence from randomised trials and comparison group studies supporting the effectiveness of OTCNRT. Twelve eligible studies were identified: OTCNRT was compared with placebo in four studies and with health professional-delivered NRT in four studies, and four studies involved community-based minimal intervention NRT. These studies were assessed systematically to determine their methodological quality and generalisibility to 'real-world' conditions of NRT use. The review found a number of issues, including provision of free NRT, heavy cigarette intakes (average 25 daily), high levels of personal interactions (7.6 per subject), lack of blindness assessment and failure of most studies to actively follow-up all subjects seriously limit the degree to which studies' results can be applied to non-research OTCNRT users. In addition, several important limitations affecting the meta-analyses of OTCNRT by Hughes et al. were highlighted. The review concluded that the superiority of OTCNRT over unaided smoking cessation has not been demonstrated convincingly. Future directions for research involve more innovative, rigorous controlled trials and prospective cohort studies where nicotine dependence is assessed adequately.

Hospitals are key settings for the provision of smoking cessation care. Limited data are available that describe the prevalence and type of such care delivered routinely in this setting. We reviewed studies conducted in hospitals and published between 1994 and 2005 that reported levels of smoking care delivery. This review describes the proportion of patients receiving, and the proportion of health professionals providing, various smoking cessation care practices. We used both descriptive and meta-analytic methods. According to the meta-analysis, smoking status was assessed in 60% of patients, 42% were advised or counseled to quit, 14% were provided with or advised to use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and 12% received referrals or follow-up. Significantly fewer patients received follow-up or referrals than were assessed for smoking status or received advice or counseling to quit. Some 81% of health professionals reported they assessed smoking status, 70% advised or counseled patients to quit, 13% provided NRT or advised its use, and 39% provided referrals or follow-up. Significantly fewer health professionals advised or prescribed NRT than assessed smoking status or advised or counseled patients to quit. Statistical heterogeneity was indicated for all smoking care practices. Levels of smoking cessation care are less than optimal in hospitals, and the levels of some important care practices are particularly low. Future research should identify effective methods for increasing smoking care provision in this setting. In addition, standardized measures of smoking care should be developed. Hospital organizations should enhance and continue to monitor their delivery of smoking care.

Objective: To explore the information received by NRT users; whether patterns of NRT use are in accordance with recommendations; and to identify the characteristics of those using NRT products., Methods: A cross-sectional, omnibus telephone survey of 1,509 community members was conducted in New South Wales, Australia in 2000. The survey identified 215 current and former smokers who completed additional questions regarding their most recent quit attempt., Results: Of the 215 current and former smokers, 67 (31.2%) had used NRT on their most recent quit attempt. The majority of NRT use (61%) lasted for less than two weeks. More than 40% of NRT users reported receiving no instructions from a doctor or pharmacist on how to use the product. Approximately one-third of NRT use was associated with concomitant smoking, with 10% of NRT use being associated with little or no reduction in reported daily cigarette consumption, Only 41.8% of NRT users reported a doctor had recommended using the product., Conclusions: Despite the small size of the sample, the data suggest a level of inappropriate use of NRT products in the community., Implications: Wider use and effective provision of support and advice to NRT users in the community must be addressed if this product is to achieve its optimal potential in aiding smoking cessation.

Increased access for smokers to pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation suggests that pharmacists have a potential role in influencing how these pharmacotherapies are used in the community. This study aimed to identify the extent and type of advice provided by pharmacists to customers purchasing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or bupropion and to identify pharmacists' perceptions about the desirability and feasibility of providing such advice. A sample of 700 pharmacies was selected at random from the NSW Electronic Yellow Pages and a questionnaire was sent by mail, fax or e-mail to the pharmacist in charge. From 665 eligible pharmacies, 375 pharmacists returned completed questionnaires, giving a response rate of 56.4%. Participants reported providing a mean of 5 minutes of advice to both bupropion and NRT purchasers, with 59.5% reporting the provision of behavioural advice to NRT purchasers. Although over 70% of pharmacists perceived the provision of a brochure about NRT or bupropion as desirable and feasible, brochures were provided to less than one-third of NRT purchasers. Pharmacists report providing a sizeable amount of advice to purchasers of NRT and bupropion. Recommendations for enhancing the role of pharmacists in influencing the use of cessation pharmacotherapies are discussed briefly. [Paul CL, Tzelepis F, Walsh RA, Turner R. Pharmacists on the front line in providing support for nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion purchasers. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007;26:429 - 433] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Comments on the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as part of a smoking cessation program. Public policy with respect to NRT; Justification for deregulating the sale of NRT; Likelihood of quitting of smoking among NRT users against placebo groups.

Responds to J.R. Hughes' rebuttal of the authors' editorial regarding the effectiveness of over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy. Summary of points of agreement between Hughes and the authors; Restatement of the central argument of the editorial; Critique of four studies identified by Hughes in support of his arguments; Points of difference between Hughes' and the authors' arguments.