Search

Introduction: Tobacco is still one of the single most important risk factors among the lifestyle habits that cause morbidity and mortality in humans. Furthermore, tobacco has a heavy social gradient, as the consequences are even worse among disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. To reduce tobacco-related inequity in health, those most in need should be offered the most effective tobacco cessation intervention. The aim of this study is to facilitate and improve the evaluation of already implemented national tobacco cessation efforts, focusing on 10 disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of tobacco users., Methods and Analysis: This is a prospective cohort study. Data will be collected by established tobacco cessation counsellors in Sweden. The study includes adult tobacco or e-cigarette users, including disadvantaged and vulnerable patients, receiving in-person interventions for tobacco or e-cigarette cessation (smoking, snus and/or e-cigarettes). Patient inclusion was initiated in April 2020. For data analyses patients will be sorted into vulnerable groups based on risk factors and compared with tobacco users without the risk factor in question.The primary outcome is continuous successful quitting after 6 months, measured by self-reporting. Secondary outcomes include abstinence at the end of the treatment programme, which could be from minutes over days to weeks, 14-day point prevalence after 6 months, and patient satisfaction with the intervention. Effectiveness of successful quitting will be examined by comparing vulnerable with non-vulnerable patients using a mixed-effect logistic regression model adjusting for potential prognostic factors and known confounders., Ethics and Dissemination: The project will follow the guidelines from the Swedish Data Protection Authority and have been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority before patient inclusion (Dnr: 2019-02221). Only patients providing written informed consent will be included. Both positive and negative results will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Information will be provided through media available to the public, politicians, healthcare providers and planners as these are all important stakeholders., Trial Registration Number: NCT04819152., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HG: Doctors Against Tobacco (unpaid NGO chair). AP: Nurses against Tobacco (unpaid NGO vice chair); NGO Tobaksfakta-independent think tank (paid general secretary). SW: Received in total £4650 from Pfizer AB, and £490 from Sanofi, for lectures and education about smoking cessation. ML: Received in total £3500 from Phizer AB, £3500 from ASTRA Zenega AB, £1500 from MSD, and £1000 from Boehringer Ingelheim AB, all for lectures, speech, or education about smoking cessation and/or smoking and COVID-19., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Compared to the general population, patients with alcohol and drug addiction have an increased risk of additional hazardous lifestyles and suffer from more chronic diseases, adding to their already significantly higher morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of the Very Integrated Program (VIP) on treatment and health outcomes for patients diagnosed with alcohol and drug addiction., Methods: Parallel randomized clinical trial with intervention as add-on to addiction care as usual. A total of 322 patients aged 18 years or older were identified, and the study requirements were fulfilled by 219 patients, 7 of whom participated in a pilot. The intervention was a 6-week intensive, tailored, educational program that included motivational interviewing, a smoking cessation program, dietary and physical activity counseling, and patient education. The main outcome measures were substance-free days, time to relapse, and treatment adherence assessed after 6 weeks and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were lifestyle factors, symptoms of comorbidity, and quality of life. Missing data were imputed conservatively by using data closest to the follow-up date and baseline values in patients with no follow-up., Results: The 212 patients (intervention, n = 113; control, n = 99) were randomized, and 202 had complete data for primary outcomes. After 6 weeks, there were no significant differences between the groups regarding primary or secondary outcomes. At the 12-month follow-up, the patients in the control group had significantly more total substance-free days (139 days; ranging 0 to 365 vs. 265; 0 to 366, p = 0.021)-specifically among the patients with drug addiction-and higher physical and mental quality of life (45 vs. 58, p = 0.049 and 54 vs. 66, p = 0.037), but not in the per-protocol analysis (60 vs. 46, p = 0.52 and 70 vs. 66, p = 0.74). The sensitivity analyses did not support significant differences between the groups., Conclusion: Overall, adding VIP intervention did not improve outcome of the alcohol or drug addiction care or the lifestyle compared to the addiction care alone. This patient group is still in need of effective programs, and new intervention research is required to develop that., (© 2020 The Authors. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Meeting adherence is an important element of compliance in treatment programmes. It is influenced by several factors one being self-efficacy. We aimed to investigate the association between self-efficacy and meeting adherence and other factors of importance for adherence among patients with alcohol and drug addiction who were undergoing an intensive lifestyle intervention. The intervention consisted of a 6-week Very Integrated Programme. High meeting adherence was defined as >75% participation. The association between self-efficacy and meeting adherence were analysed. The qualitative analyses identified themes important for the patients and were performed as text condensation. High self-efficacy was associated with high meeting adherence (ρ = 0.24, p = 0.03). In the multivariate analyses two variables were significant: avoid complications (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29-0.90) and self-efficacy (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.00-1.63). Reflections on lifestyle change resulted in the themes of Health and Wellbeing, Personal Economy, Acceptance of Change, and Emotions Related to Lifestyle Change. A higher level of self-efficacy was positively associated with meeting adherence. Patients score high on avoiding complications but then adherence to the intervention drops. There was no difference in the reflections on lifestyle change between the group with high adherence and the group with low adherence.

Background: Tobacco smoking is a major health and economic concern and is also known to have a significant negative effect on surgical outcomes. The benefits of a smoking cessation intervention prior to elective orthopaedic surgery have been evaluated previously. Our aim was to assess whether a smoking cessation program, initiated during the acute hospitalization period and carried out for six weeks, could reduce the number of complications following emergency surgical treatment of fractures., Methods: In a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial, 105 smokers with a fracture of the lower or upper extremity that needed acute surgical treatment were randomized to an intervention group (n = 50) or a control group (n = 55). The intervention group was offered a standardized smoking cessation program for six weeks, and all patients were followed at two to three weeks, four weeks, and six to twelve weeks., Results: The proportion of patients with at least one postoperative complication was significantly larger in the control group than it was in the intervention group (38% and 20%, respectively; p = 0.048). The development of two or more postoperative complications was also more common among the controls (p = 0.039). The rates of superficial wound infection, the most frequently recorded complication in both groups, were 20% and 8%, but this difference was not significant. A secondary analysis showed that the odds of having a complication were 2.51 times (95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 6.9 times) higher in the control group than in the intervention group, but this difference was not significant., Conclusions: Our results indicate that a smoking cessation intervention program during the first six weeks after acute fracture surgery decreases the risk of postoperative complications.

Objective: To determine whether an intervention with smoking cessation starting 4 weeks before general and orthopedic surgery would reduce the frequency of postoperative complications., Summary Background Data: Complications are a major concern after elective surgery and smokers have an increased risk. There is insufficient evidence concerning how the duration of preoperative smoking intervention affects postoperative complications., Methods: A randomized controlled trial, conducted between February 2004 and December 2006 at 4 university-affiliated hospitals in the Stockholm region, Sweden. The outcome assessment was blinded. The follow-up period for the primary outcome was 30 days. Eligibility criteria were active daily smokers, aged 18 to 79 years. Of the 238 patients assessed, 76 refused participating, and 117 men and women undergoing surgery for primary hernia repair, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or a hip or knee prosthesis were enrolled., Intervention: Smoking cessation therapy with individual counseling and nicotine substitution started 4 weeks before surgery and continued 4 weeks postoperatively. The control group received standard care. The main outcome measure was frequency of any postoperative complication., Results: An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the overall complication rate in the control group was 41%, and in the intervention group, it was 21% (P = 0.03). Relative risk reduction for the primary outcome of any postoperative complication was 49% and number needed to treat was 5 (95% CI, 3-40). An analysis per protocol showed that abstainers had fewer complications (15%) than those who continued to smoke or only reduced smoking (35%), although this difference was not statistically significant., Conclusion: Perioperative smoking cessation seems to be an effective tool to reduce postoperative complications even if it is introduced as late as 4 weeks before surgery.

Tobacco smokers suffer from postoperative complications after surgery more often than non-smokers. This has been proven in both general, orthopaedic and plastic surgery. In recent years, preoperative smoking cessation has been evaluated in several studies. It has been shown that smoking cessation four to eight weeks prior to surgery significantly reduces wound healing complications. There are still some unanswered questions concerning the necessary length of preoperative smoking cessation to affect the complication rate. There is also lacking evidence on smoking cessation in emergency surgery, and the cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention programme. Therefore, further studies on preoperative smoking cessation are needed. Three randomised multi-center trials in greater Stockholm are planned to further elucidate these questions.

Introduction: Patients addicted to alcohol or drug often have additional unhealthy lifestyles, adding to the high mortality and morbidity in this patient group. Therefore, it is important to consider lifestyle interventions as part of the usual addiction treatment. Objective: The aim was to identify predictors of successful changes in lifestyle risk factors among patients in treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial using a 6-week intensive integrated lifestyle intervention: The very integrated program (VIP). Patients were recruited in Addiction Centres Malmö and Psychiatry Skåne, Sweden. The primary outcome was successful changes in lifestyle, measured as quitting tobacco, exercising 30 min per day, and not being over- or underweight after 6 weeks and 12 months. Results: A total of 212 patients were included in the RCT, and 128 were included in this secondary analysis: 108 at 6 weeks and 89 at 12 months of follow-up. A total of 69 patients were respondents at both follow-ups. The follow-up rates were 51 and 42%, respectively. More education, having at least 2 lifestyle risk factors and having a high quality of life were predictors of a successful change in lifestyle after 6 weeks. After 12 months, the predictors for a successful outcome were having 3 or more risk factors, while an education level up to 3 years was a negative predictor. Conclusions: Having several unhealthy lifestyles in addition to alcohol and drug addiction was a significant predictor of successful lifestyle changes in the short- and long term after the VIP for lifestyle interventions. Likewise, education was significant. The results should be considered in future development and research among this vulnerable group of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]