Gender differences in response to an opportunistic brief intervention for obesity in primary care: Data from the BWeL trial

Weight loss programmes appeal mainly to women, prompting calls for gender-specific programmes. In the United Kingdom, general practitioners (GPs) refer nine times as many women as men to community weight loss programmes. GPs endorsement and offering programmes systematically could reduce this imbalance. In this trial, consecutively attending patients in primary care with obesity were invited and 1882 were enrolled and randomized to one of two opportunistic 30-second interventions to support weight loss given by GPs in consultations unrelated to weight. In the support arm, clinicians endorsed and offered referral to a weight loss programme and, in the advice arm, advised that weight loss would improve health. Generalized linear mixed effects models examined whether gender moderated the intervention. Men took effective weight loss action less often in both arms (support: 41.6% vs 60.7%; advice: 12.1% vs 18.3%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27, 0.52, P < .001) but there was no evidence that the relative effect differed by gender (interaction P = .32). In the support arm, men accepted referral and attended referral less often, 69.3% vs 82.4%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.35, 0.66, P < .001 and 30.4% vs 47.6%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.36, 0.63, P < .001, respectively. Nevertheless, the gender balance in attending weight loss programmes closed to 1.6:1. Men and women attended the same number of sessions (9.7 vs 9.1 sessions, P = .16) and there was no evidence weight loss differed by gender (6.05 kg men vs 4.37 kg women, P = .39). Clinician-delivered opportunistic 30-second interventions benefits men and women equally and reduce most of the gender imbalance in attending weight loss programmes

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes

Promoting smoking cessation in Pakistani and Bangladeshi men in the UK: pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of trained community outreach workers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smoking prevalence is high among Pakistani and Bangladeshi men in the UK, but there are few tailored smoking cessation programmes for Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The aim of this study was to pilot a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of Pakistani and Bangladeshi smoking cessation outreach workers with standard care to improve access to and the success of English smoking cessation services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in Birmingham, UK. Geographical lower layer super output areas were used to identify natural communities where more than 10% of the population were of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. 16 agglomerations of super output areas were randomised to normal care controls vs. outreach intervention. The number of people setting quit dates using NHS services, validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks, and stated abstinence at three and six months were assessed. The impact of the intervention on choice and adherence to treatments, attendance at clinic appointments and patient satisfaction were also assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We were able to randomise geographical areas and deliver the outreach worker-based services. More Pakistani and Bangladeshi men made quit attempts with NHS services in intervention areas compared with control areas, rate ratio (RR) 1.32 (95%CI: 1.03-1.69). There was a small increase in the number of 4-week abstinent smokers in intervention areas (RR 1.30, 95%CI: 0.82-2.06). The proportion of service users attending weekly appointments was lower in intervention areas than control areas. No difference was found between intervention and control areas in choice and adherence to treatments or patient satisfaction with the service. The total cost of the intervention was £124,000; an estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of £8,500.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The intervention proved feasible and acceptable. Outreach workers expanded reach of smoking cessation services in diverse locations of relevance to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The outreach worker model has the potential to increase community cessation rates and could prove cost-effective, but needs evaluating definitively in a larger, appropriately powered, randomised controlled trial. These future trials of outreach interventions need to be of sufficient duration to allow embedding of new models of service delivery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN82127540">ISRCTN82127540</a></p

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: a parallel, two-arm, randomised trial

Background Obesity is a common cause of non-communicable disease. Guidelines recommend that physicians screen and offer brief advice to motivate weight loss through referral to behavioural weight loss programmes. However, physicians rarely intervene and no trials have been done on the subject. We did this trial to establish whether physician brief intervention is acceptable and effective for reducing bodyweight in patients with obesity. Methods In this parallel, two-arm, randomised trial, patients who consulted 137 primary care physicians in England were screened for obesity. Individuals could be enrolled if they were aged at least 18 years, had a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m² (or at least 25 kg/m² if of Asian ethnicity), and had a raised body fat percentage. At the end of the consultation, the physician randomly assigned participants (1:1) to one of two 30 s interventions. Randomisation was done via preprepared randomisation cards labelled with a code representing the allocation, which were placed in opaque sealed envelopes and given to physicians to open at the time of treatment assignment. In the active intervention, the physician offered referral to a weight management group (12 sessions of 1 h each, once per week) and, if the referral was accepted, the physician ensured the patient made an appointment and offered follow-up. In the control intervention, the physician advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population, which was assessed blinded to treatment allocation. We also assessed asked patients’ about their feelings on discussing their weight when they have visited their general practitioner for other reasons. Given the nature of the intervention, we did not anticipate any adverse events in the usual sense, so safety outcomes were not assessed. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN26563137. Findings Between June 4, 2013, and Dec 23, 2014, we screened 8403 patients, of whom 2728 (32%) were obese. Of these obese patients, 2256 (83%) agreed to participate and 1882 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the support group and 942 individuals in the advice group. 722 (77%) individuals assigned to the support intervention agreed to attend the weight management group and 379 (40%) of these individuals attended, compared with 82 (9%) participants who were allocated the advice intervention. In the entire study population, mean weight change at 12 months was 2·43 kg with the support intervention and 1·04 kg with the advice intervention, giving an adjusted difference of 1·43 kg (95% CI 0·89–1·97). The reactions of the patients to the general practitioners’ brief interventions did not differ significantly between the study groups in terms of appropriateness (adjusted odds ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75–1·07, p=0·21) or helpfulness (1·05, 0·89–1·26, p=0·54); overall, four ( Interpretation A behaviourally-informed, very brief, physician-delivered opportunistic intervention is acceptable to patients and an effective way to reduce population mean weight.</p

Promoting smoking cessation in Bangladeshi and Pakistani male adults: design of a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of trained community smoking cessation workers

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of smoking is higher among Pakistani and Bangladeshi males than among the general population. Smokers who receive behavioural support and medication quadruple their chances of stopping smoking, but evidence suggests that these populations do not use National Health Service run stop smoking clinics as frequently as would be expected given their high prevalence of smoking. This study aims to tackle some of the main barriers to use of stop smoking services and adherence to treatment programmes by redesigning service delivery to be more acceptable to these adult male populations. The study compares the effectiveness of trained Pakistani and Bangladeshi smoking cessation workers operating in an outreach capacity ('clinic + outreach') with standard care ('clinic only') to improve access to and success of National Health Service smoking cessation services. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial based in Birmingham, UK. Super output areas of Birmingham will be identified in which more than 10% of the population are of Pakistani and/or Bangladeshi origin. From these areas, 'natural geographical communities' will be identified. Sixteen aggregated agglomerations of super output areas will be identified, separating areas from each other using buffer regions in order to reduce potential contamination. These natural communities will be randomised to 'clinic + outreach' (intervention) or 'clinic only' (control) arms. The use of stop smoking services and the numbers of people quitting smoking (defined as prolonged self-reported abstinence at four weeks, three months and six months) will be assessed in each area. In addition, we will assess the impact of the intervention on adherence to smoking cessation treatments and patient satisfaction

Examining the effectiveness of general practitioner and nurse promotion of electronic cigarettes versus standard care for smoking reduction and abstinence in hardcore smokers with smoking-related chronic disease:protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Despite the clear harm associated with smoking tobacco, many people with smoking-related chronic diseases or serious mental illnesses (SMI) are unwilling or unable to stop smoking. In many cases, these smokers have tried and exhausted all methods to stop smoking and yet clinicians are repeatedly mandated to offer them during routine consultations. Providing nicotine through electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may reduce the adverse health consequences associated with tobacco smoking, but these are not currently offered. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of general practitioners (GPs) and nurses delivering a brief advice intervention on e-cigarettes and offering an e-cigarette starter pack and patient support resources compared with standard care in smokers with smoking-related chronic diseases or SMI who are unwilling to stop smoking. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an individually randomised, blinded, two-arm trial. Smokers with a smoking-related chronic condition or SMI with no intention of stopping smoking will be recruited through primary care registers. Eligible participants will be randomised to one of two groups if they decline standard care for stopping smoking: a control group who will receive no additional support beyond standard care; or an intervention group who will receive GP or nurse-led brief advice about e-cigarettes, an e-cigarette starter pack with accompanying practical support booklet, and telephone support from experienced vapers and online video tutorials. The primary outcome measures will be smoking reduction, measured through changes in cigarettes per day and 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 2 months. Secondary outcomes include smoking reduction, 7-day point-prevalence abstinence and prolonged abstinence at 8 months. Other outcomes include patient recruitment and follow-up, patient uptake and use of e-cigarettes, nicotine intake, contamination of randomisation and practitioner adherence to the delivery of the intervention. Qualitative interviews will be conducted in a subsample of practitioners, patients and the vape team to garner their reactions to the programme. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial to investigate whether e-cigarette provision alongside a brief intervention delivered by practitioners leads to reduced smoking and abstinence among smokers with smoking-related chronic diseases or SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN59404712. Registered 28/11/17

Attentional bias retraining in cigarette smokers attempting smoking cessation (ARTS): study protocol for a double bline randomised controlled trial

YesSmokers attend preferentially to cigarettes and other smoking-related cues in the environment, in what is known as an attentional bias. There is evidence that attentional bias may contribute to craving and failure to stop smoking. Attentional retraining procedures have been used in laboratory studies to train smokers to reduce attentional bias, although these procedures have not been applied in smoking cessation programmes. This trial will examine the efficacy of multiple sessions of attentional retraining on attentional bias, craving, and abstinence in smokers attempting cessation. This is a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Adult smokers attending a 7-session weekly stop smoking clinic will be randomised to either a modified visual probe task with attentional retraining or placebo training. Training will start 1 week prior to quit day and be given weekly for 5 sessions. Both groups will receive 21 mg transdermal nicotine patches for 8–12 weeks and withdrawal-orientated behavioural support for 7 sessions. Primary outcome measures are the change in attentional bias reaction time and urge to smoke on the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale at 4 weeks post-quit. Secondary outcome measures include differences in withdrawal, time to first lapse and prolonged abstinence at 4 weeks post-quit, which will be biochemically validated at each clinic visit. Follow-up will take place at 8 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post-quit. This is the first randomised controlled trial of attentional retraining in smokers attempting cessation. This trial could provide proof of principle for a treatment aimed at a fundamental cause of addiction.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF) awarded to RB (DRF-2009-02-15

Experiences of outreach workers in promoting smoking cessation to Bangladeshi and Pakistani men: longitudinal qualitative evaluation

Background\ud Despite having high smoking rates, there have been few tailored cessation programmes for male Bangladeshi and Pakistani smokers in the UK. We report on a qualitative evaluation of a community-based, outreach worker delivered, intervention that aimed to increase uptake of NHS smoking cessation services and tailor services to meet the needs of Bangladeshi and Pakistani men. \ud \ud Methods\ud This was a longitudinal, qualitative study, nested within a phase II cluster randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. We explored the perspectives and experiences of five outreach workers, two stop smoking service managers and a specialist stop smoking advisor. Data were collected through focus group discussions, weekly diaries, observations of management meetings, shadowing of outreach workers, and one-to-one interviews with outreach workers and their managers. Analysis was undertaken using a modified Framework approach. \ud \ud Results\ud Outreach workers promoted cessation services by word of mouth on the streets, in health service premises, in local businesses and at a wide range of community events. They emphasised the reasons for cessation, especially health effects, financial implications, and the impact of smoking on the family. Many smokers agreed to be referred to cessation services, but few attended, this in part being explained by concerns about the relative inflexibility of existing service provision. Although outreach workers successfully expanded service reach, they faced the challenges of perceived lack of awareness of the health risks associated with smoking in older smokers and apathy in younger smokers. These were compounded by perceptions of "lip service" being given to their role by community organisations and tensions both amongst the outreach workers and with the wider management team. \ud \ud Conclusions\ud Outreach workers expanded reach of the service through taking it to diverse locations of relevance to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The optimum method of outreach to retain and treat Bangladeshi and Pakistani smokers effectively in cessation programmes needs further development. \ud \u

Lack of attentional retraining effects in cigarette smokers attempting cessation: a proof of concept double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown that attentional bias for smoking-related cues is associated with increased craving and relapse. Laboratory experiments have shown that manipulating attentional bias may change craving. Interventions to reduce attentional bias could reduce relapse in smokers seeking to quit. We report a clinical trial of attentional retraining in treatment-seeking smokers. METHODS: This was a double-blind randomised controlled trial that took place in UK smoking cessation clinics. Smokers interested in quitting were randomised to five weekly sessions of attentional retraining (N=60) or placebo training (N = 58) using a modified visual probe task from one week prior to quit day. Both groups received 21 mg nicotine patches (from quit day onwards) and behavioural support. Primary outcomes included change in attentional bias reaction times four weeks after quit day on the visual probe task and craving measured weekly using the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale. Secondary outcomes were changes in withdrawal symptoms, time to first lapse and prolonged abstinence. RESULTS: No attentional bias towards smoking cues was found in the sample at baseline (mean difference = 3 ms, 95% CI = -2, 9). Post-training bias was not significantly lower in the retraining group compared with the placebo group (mean difference = -9 ms, 95% CI = -20, 2). There was no difference between groups in change in craving (p = 0.89) and prolonged abstinence at four weeks (risk ratio = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.70, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Taken with one other trial, there appears to be no effect from clinic-based attentional retraining using the visual probe task. Attentional retraining conducted out of clinic may prove more effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Trials ISRCTN 54375405