Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Opportunistic Non-Governmental Organisation Delivery of a Virtual Stop Smoking Service in England during the COVID-19 Lockdown.

Smoking cessation services have rapidly transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes include pivoting from face-to-face to telephone and video call support, remote provision of stop smoking aids and more flexible appointments. This study reports an evaluation of a charity-led smoking cessation service rapidly conceived and launched in this context. The pilot service accepted self-referrals in Yorkshire, England from 20 May 2020 to 5 June 2020. A dedicated smoking cessation practitioner provided 12 weeks of weekly behavioural support over telephone or video call. NRT and/or medication and/or e-cigarettes were posted to the participant bi-weekly for up to 12 weeks. Written and telephone evaluation questionnaires were administered post-programme. Of 79 participants, 57 (72.2%) self-reported a 4-week quit and 51 (64.6%) self-reported a 12-week quit. Those concurrently using e-cigarettes and NRT had an 84.1% 12-week quit rate. The majority of participants chose to use e-cigarettes and NRT in combination (55.7%). 39 participants completed an evaluation form, with at least 90% recording they were "very satisfied" with each service component. 27 participants completed a telephone interview, reporting a relationship with practitioners, as well as convenience, and organisational reputation as service strengths. Virtual services can be set up quickly and effectively in response to demand. Quit rates were highest for those concurrently using e-cigarettes and NRT. Service users value flexibility and convenience of remote support and posting of quit aids.

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme.

INTRODUCTION: Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this 'teachable moment' is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study will measure the effectiveness of an SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose CT scan performed as part of YLST. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see an SC practitioner at baseline and receive SC support over 4 weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised SC support package, including CT scan images, or continued standard best practice. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019-December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated SC after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4 weeks and 12 months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow-up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN63825779, NCT03750110.

Enhanced smoking cessation support for newly abstinent smokers discharged from hospital (the Hospital to Home trial): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (NICE PH48) recommends that pharmacotherapy combined with behavioural support be provided for all smokers admitted to hospital; however, relapse to smoking after discharge remains common. This study aimed to assess the effect of adding home support for newly abstinent smokers to conventional NICE-recommended support in smokers discharged from hospital. DESIGN: Individually randomized parallel group trial. SETTING: One UK acute hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 404 smokers aged > 18 admitted to acute medical wards between June 2016 and July 2017 were randomized in equal numbers to each treatment group. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATORS: The intervention provided 12 weeks of at-home cessation support, which included help in maintaining a smoke-free home, help in accessing and using medication, further behavioural support and personalized feedback on home air quality. The comparator was NICE PH48 care as usual. MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking validated by an exhaled carbon monoxide level < 6 parts per million 4 weeks after discharge from hospital. FINDINGS: In an intention-to-treat analysis at the 4-week primary end-point, 38 participants (18.8%) in the usual care group and 43 (21.3%) in the intervention group reported continuous abstinence from smoking (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval = 0.72 to 1.90, Bayes factor = 0.33). There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes, including self-reported cessation at 3 months, having a smoke-free home or number of cigarettes smoked per day in those who did not quit. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of a home visit and continued support to prevent relapse to smoking after hospital discharge did not appear to increase subsequent abstinence rate above usual care in accordance with UK guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.

Cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to reduce children's exposure to second-hand smoke in the home.

BACKGROUND: Second-hand smoke (SHS) causes numerous health problems in children such as asthma, respiratory tract infections and sudden infant death syndrome. The home is the main source of exposure to SHS for children, particularly for young children. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention designed to reduce SHS exposure of children whose primary caregiver feels unable or unwilling to quit smoking. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out alongside an open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial in deprived communities in Nottingham, England. A complex intervention combining behavioural support, nicotine replacement therapy and personalised feedback on home air quality was compared with usual care. A total number of 205 households were recruited, where the main caregivers were aged 18 and over, with a child aged under five years living in their household reporting smoking inside their home. Analyses for this study were undertaken from the National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. All costs were estimated in UK pounds (£) at 2013/14 prices. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of change in air quality in the home, measured as average 16-24 h levels of particulate matter of < 2.5 µm diameter (PM2.5), between baseline and 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included incremental cost per quitter, quit attempts and cigarette consumption in the home. A non-parametric bootstrap re-sampling technique was employed to explore uncertainty around the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: The complex intervention achieved reduced PM2.5 by 21.6 µg/m3 (95% CI: 5.4 to 37.9), with an incremental cost of £283 (95% CI: £254-£313), relative to usual care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £131 (bootstrapped 95% CI: £72-£467) per additional 10µg/m3 reduction in PM2.5, or £71 (bootstrapped 95% CI: -£57-£309) per additional quitter. CONCLUSIONS: This trial targeted a socio-economically disadvantaged population that has been neglected within the literature. The complex intervention was more costly but more effective in reducing PM2.5 compared with the usual care. It offers huge potential to reduce children's' tobacco-related harm by reducing exposure to SHS in the home. The intervention is considered cost-effective if the decision maker is willing to pay £131 per additional 10µg/m3 of PM2.5 reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Smoke Free Homes trial was registered with isrctn.com on 29 January 2013 with the identifier ISRCTN81701383 .

A randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce children's exposure to secondhand smoke in the home.

OBJECTIVES: Exposing children to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) causes significant harm and occurs predominantly through smoking by caregivers in the family home. We report a trial of a complex intervention designed to reduce secondhand smoke exposure of children whose primary caregiver feels unable or unwilling to quit smoking. DESIGN: An open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Deprived communities in Nottingham City and County, England PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers resident in Nottingham City and County in England who were at least 18 years old, the main caregiver of a child aged under 5 years living in their household, and reported that they were smoking tobacco inside their home. INTERVENTIONS: We compared a complex intervention combining personalised feedback on home air quality, behavioural support and nicotine replacement therapy for temporary abstinence with usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was change in air quality in the home, measured as average 16-24 hours levels of particulate matter of < 2.5 µm diameter (PM2.5), between baseline and 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in maximum PM2.5, proportion of time PM2.5 exceeded WHO recommended levels of maximum exposure of 25 µg/mg3, child salivary cotinine, caregivers' cigarette consumption, nicotine dependence, determination to stop smoking, quit attempts and quitting altogether during the intervention. RESULTS: Arithmetic mean PM2.5 decreased significantly more (by 35.2 %; 95% CI 12.7% to 51.9 %) in intervention than in usual care households, as did the proportion of time PM2.5 exceeded 25 µg/mg3, child salivary cotinine concentrations, caregivers' cigarette consumption in the home, nicotine dependence, determination to quit and likelihood of having made a quit attempt. CONCLUSIONS: By reducing exposure to SHS in the homes of children who live with smokers unable or unwilling to quit, this intervention offers huge potential to reduce children's' tobacco-related harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81701383.This trial was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR): RP-PG-0608-10020.