Search

Introduction: Use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation improves quit rates, but these treatments are underutilized, particularly among Black smokers. Attitudes toward pharmacotherapy may differ between racial/ethnic minorities and Caucasian smokers. It was hypothesized that Black and non-Hispanic White smokers would differ in their attitudes toward pharmacotherapy and that the association between attitudes toward and actual use of pharmacotherapy would differ by race. Methods: The study consisted of a single, cross-sectional telephone-based survey of current smokers (N = 697), which examined the relationship between race, attitudes toward pharmacotherapy, and pharmacotherapy usage in a representative bi-racial sample (39% Black). Results: Black smokers were significantly less likely to report ever use of pharmacotherapy (23%) than Caucasians (39%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33–0.66). Compared with Caucasians, Blacks had significantly less favorable attitudes toward pharmacotherapy, including disbelief about efficacy (p = .03), addiction concerns (p = .03), harmfulness of pharmacotherapy (p = .008), and need for treatment of any kind to quit smoking (p = .004). In a multiple logistic regression, racial group (Caucasian is referent: OR = 0.55, p = .003), addiction concerns (OR = 0.80, p < .01), and need for treatment of any kind to quit smoking (OR = 1.52, p < .001) were predictive of pharmacotherapy use. Conclusions: These findings replicate and build upon previous research demonstrating underutilization of pharmacotherapy and enduring misconceptions about pharmacotherapy, particularly among Black smokers. Regardless of racial group, misconceptions about pharmacotherapy are related to lower rates of use. Efforts to improve understanding about the efficacy and safety of these products are needed to boost utilization and impact cessation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction:: Favorable views of cigarette use may be a potentiating factor that influences the progression of nicotine dependence among adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Evidence-based cessation methods including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), non-NRT medications, quitlines, and behavioral treatments are underutilized by smokers attempting to quit. Although a number of studies have demonstrated a relationship between state-level tobacco policies (eg, taxation, appropriations) and cessation, whether such state-level factors influence likelihood of using an evidence-based treatment is unclear. Accordingly, the aims of the present study were: (1) to describe evidence-based cessation method utilization by state and (2) to examine the effect of state-level factors on cessation method utilization above and beyond individual-level predictors.Methods: Data were utilized from the 2010-2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS). Participants included 9232 smokers who reported a past-year quit attempt. Data on 11 state-level predictors were collated from national datasets. Analyses were based on: (1) descriptive characterization of quit method usage, (2) logistic regression models to determine state-level factors as predictors of quit method utilization, controlling for individual-level predictors, (3) cluster analyses grouping states with similar state-level factors, and (4) examination of cluster as a predictor of cessation method.Results: Tobacco control appropriations significantly predicted NRT, quitline, and behavioral treatment utilization. Additional state-level factors that demonstrated significant relationships included Medicaid coverage of non-NRT medications and behavioral treatment, tobacco tax rate, smoking prevalence, and percentage of population uninsured. State clustering significantly predicted quit method across all four methods.Conclusions: State-level factors influence the likelihood of residents utilizing evidence-based quit methods. Results are discussed in terms of implications for tobacco policy at the state level.Implications: Results from the present study highlight state tobacco control appropriations as a robust predictor of evidence-based cessation method utilization. Other significant state-level predictors of evidence-based cessation method utilization included Medicaid coverage of non-NRT medications and behavioral treatment, tobacco tax rate, smoking prevalence, and percentage of population uninsured. Moreover, state-level predictors clustered together to significantly predict evidence-based cessation method utilization. Thus, increasing tobacco control appropriations, extending health insurance coverage, maximizing revenue from tobacco taxation and tobacco settlements, and ultimately decreasing smoking prevalence are important targets for individual states to promote utilization of evidence-based cessation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tobacco control policies are effective in promoting quit attempts and increase the likelihood that smokers use evidence-based cessation treatments (e.g., nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), non-NRT medications, behavioral treatment, and/or quitlines). However, what is less clear is how these policies might differentially impact different groups of smokers, perhaps in some cases even widening disparities in the use of evidence-based tobacco dependence treatments. This paper examined how different state-level tobacco control policies impact the use of evidence-based cessation treatments by race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status (SES), age, and smoking history. Participants included 9110 adult smokers reporting a past-year quit attempt within the 2010-2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Lasso regression modeling was used to identify a subset of interactions between tobacco policies and individual smoker characteristics that predicted use of evidence-based cessation treatment. Significant interactions were fitted via participant-weighted generalized linear models to determine effect sizes and relations to each cessation treatment outcome. Results highlighted that various state level tobacco control policies differentially impacted the reported use of both prescription and non-prescription stop smoking medications by race/ethnicity, age, and SES. The relationship between state level tobacco control policies and the use of behavioral treatments and quitlines did not differ by smoker characteristics. In sum, tobacco control policies differentially impact the use of FDA approved stop smoking medications across different race/ethnicity, age, and SES groups. Understanding such effects can help to target interventions to ensure equal access to evidence-based tobacco dependence treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Within the context of busy clinical settings, health‐care providers need practical, evidence‐based options to engage smokers in quitting. Sampling of nicotine replacement therapy [i.e. provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT starter kits)] is a brief, pragmatic strategy to address this need. We aimed to compare the effects of NRT sampling plus standard care (SC), relative to SC alone, provided by primary care providers during routine clinic visits. Design Cluster‐randomized clinical trial. Setting: Twenty‐two primary care clinics in South Carolina, USA. Participants: Adult smokers [n = 1245; 61% female, mean age = 50.7, standard deviation (SD) = 13.5] both motivated and unmotivated to quit, seen during routine clinical visit. Interventions were provider‐delivered SC (n = 652, 12 clinics) cessation advice or SC + a 2‐week supply of both nicotine patch and lozenge, with minimal instructions on use (n = 593; 10 clinics). Measurements The primary outcome was 7‐day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6‐month follow‐up, using intent‐to‐treat. Additional outcomes included NRT use and quit attempts, assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months following baseline. Findings Seven‐day point prevalence abstinence rates were significantly higher in the NRT sampling group throughout follow‐up, including at 6 months [12 versus 8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0–2.4]. NRT sampling increased prevalence of any use of NRT (65 versus 25%, OR = 5.8, 95% CI = 4.3–7.7), with higher prevalence of use at 6 months (25 versus 14%, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5–2.7). NRT sampling increased the rate of quit attempts in the initial month (24 versus 18%, OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0–2.3) but had no significant effect on overall rate of quit attempts (48 versus 45%, OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.8–1.7). Conclusion: Providing smokers with a free 2‐week starter kit of nicotine replacement therapy increased quit attempts, use of stop smoking medications and smoking abstinence compared with standard care in a primary care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Primary care is the most important point of healthcare contact for smokers. Brief physician advice to quit, based on the 5As/AAR model, offers some efficacy but is inconsistently administered and has limited population impact. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling, defined as provision of a brief NRT starter kit, when added to the 5As/AAR, is well-suited to primary care because it is simple, brief, and can be provided to all smokers. This article describes the design and methods of an ongoing comparative effectiveness trial testing standard care vs. standard care + NRT sampling within primary care. Methods Smokers were recruited directly from primary care practices between July 2014 and December 2017 within an established network of South Carolina clinics. Interventions were delivered randomly by clinic personnel, and phone-based follow-ups were centrally coordinated by research staff to track outcomes through six months post-intervention. Primary study aims are to examine the impact of NRT sampling on smoking, inclusive of cessation, quit attempts, and uptake of evidence-based treatment. Results Twenty-two clinics were recruited. Across clinics, patient census ranged from 985 to 10,957 and number of providers ranged from 1 to 63. Average patient age across clinics was 52.9 years and smoking prevalence across ranged from 10.6% to 28.5%. Conclusion Improving the effectiveness and reach of brief interventions within primary care could have a considerable impact on population quit rates. We consider the advantages and disadvantages of key methodological decisions relevant to the design of future primary care-based cessation trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Snus uptake is nominal among US smokers. This longitudinal study examines (1) perceptions of snus among US smokers given free snus for 6 weeks and (2) a method for assessment of an alternative tobacco product at the population level.Methods: Adult smokers (n = 543; 69.2% female; Mage = 49.3 years), uninterested in quitting, received free snus for ad libitum use. Based on their snus use during a 6-week sampling period, participants included: (1) never users (18.4%, n = 100); (2) experimenters; that is, used ≥ once, but not during the last week of sampling (33.1%; n = 180); and (3) persistent users; that is, used ≥ once during the final week, and ≥ once during any other week of the sampling period. (48.4%; n = 263).Results: Following the sampling period, those who became persistent users were more likely than experimenters to report that switching to alternative tobacco products would lower their risk for health problems (66.5% vs. 50.0%; p = .006). Persistent users also reported greater negative affect relief and craving reduction (ps < .001) than experimenters. Finally, persistent users were more likely than experimenters to describe snus in favorable terms with respect to ease of use, satisfaction, and liking (ps < .05).Conclusions: Subjective experiences with snus, rather than nicotine dependence, explained experimentation versus persistent use. Even among smokers who became persistent snus users, snus was perceived as a poor substitute for cigarettes. This study design (randomized, yet naturalistic) could be extended to other novel tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to help understand the role new products may have in the tobacco landscape.Implications: This is the first large scale, US-based naturalistic assessment of smokers' reactions to snus during an extended sampling period. This study is directly in line with FDA goals to better understand predictors of initiation, uptake, and use of other tobacco products such as snus, and serves as model for assessment methods of alternative tobacco products at the population level. Most smokers tried the provided sample of snus (approximately 82%). Subjective experiences with snus, rather than nicotine dependence, explained experimentation versus persistent use. Even among smokers who became persistent snus users, snus was perceived as a poor substitute for cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To refine public health policy amidst a changing landscape of tobacco products in the United States, it is first necessary to describe fully the nature of smokers' alternative product use. Little research addresses smokers' snus use, and most studies are limited by small samples, cross-sectional designs, and crude outcome measurement. This study sample includes 626 adult US smokers who denied intention to quit in the next month and were randomized to receive free snus during a 6-week sampling period, after which no snus was provided. Participants were then followed for one year. Outcome data were collected via phone. Participants (mean age: 48.7years) were predominately female, White non-Hispanic. Eighty-four percent reported trial of snus. Eleven percent reported purchase (i.e., adoption). Current use declined from 47.1% at the end of the sampling period to 6.5% at the end of follow-up. Frequency and quantity of snus use among current users was low. Among snus users, 79.3% said it functioned as an alternative to smoking and 58.4% said it provided a means of coping with smoking restrictions; options not mutually exclusive. In logistic regressions, men were more likely to report trial (odds ratio [OR]=2.33, p<0.01) and adoption (OR=1.84, p<0.05) than women. Baseline expectations about the nature of snus use also predicted snus outcomes (OR=1.28-1.78, p<0.05). Smokers showed willingness to try snus, but product interest waned over time. Snus as currently marketed is unlikely to play a prominent role in US tobacco control efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]