The influence of offering free transdermal nicotine patches on quit rates in a local health department's smoking cessation program

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1763-1778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Alberg ◽  
Ruth Stashefsky Margalit ◽  
Alyce Burke ◽  
Kimberly A. Rasch ◽  
Nell Stewart ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonnie Handschin ◽  
Brian Hitsman ◽  
Sonja Blazekovic ◽  
Anna Veluz-Wilkins ◽  
E. Paul Wileyto ◽  
...  

Introduction: Adherence to transdermal nicotine patches, one of the most popular and effective treatments for nicotine dependence, remains very low and is a strong predictor of cessation rates.Aims: This study examined individual factors related to adherence as well as differences over time between adherent (>85% of daily patch use) and non-adherent participants (<85% of daily patch use).Methods: We analysed data from 440 participants who received 8 weeks of 21 mg transdermal nicotine and four behavioural counselling sessions within an effectiveness trial that examined the effects of long-term treatment. Multiple logistical regression assessed baseline variables associated with patch adherence and generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used to evaluate changes in craving and withdrawal, depressive and anxiety symptoms, substitute and complementary reinforcers, and side effects between participants who were or were not adherent.Results: Adherence to patch use was strongly associated with smoking cessation at week 8 (p < 0.05). In a logistic regression model, being female, living with a child or children, and higher self-reported anxiety symptoms were predictive of lower patch adherence (p < 0.05). In the GEE analysis, adherence was significantly associated with a greater reduction in craving, a greater engagement in substitute reinforcers, and a greater decrease in complementary reinforcers over time (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Difficulties adhering to transdermal nicotine patches may be related to psychiatric comorbidity, difficulty managing nicotine craving, and challenges with engaging in substitute reinforcers and reducing exposure to complementary reinforcers. These constructs may serve as targets for interventions designed to increase treatment adherence.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047527


2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn J Vial ◽  
Terry E Jones ◽  
Richard E Ruffin ◽  
Andrew L Gilbert

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 226 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Davidson ◽  
R.G. Boldt ◽  
A.V. Louie

Background Because continued cigarette smoking after a cancer diagnosis is associated with detrimental outcomes, supporting cancer patients with smoking cessation is imperative. We evaluated the effect of the Smoking Cessation Program at the London Regional Cancer Program (lrcp) over a 2-year period.Methods The Smoking Cessation Program at the lrcp began in March 2014. New patients are screened for tobacco use. Tobacco users are counselled about the benefits of cessation and are offered referral to the program. If a patient accepts, a smoking cessation champion offers additional counselling. Follow-up is provided by interactive voice response (ivr) telephone system. Accrual data were collected monthly from January 2015 to December 2016 and were evaluated.Results During 2015–2016, 10,341 patients were screened for tobacco use, and 18% identified themselves as current or recent tobacco users. In 2015, 84% of tobacco users were offered referral, but only 13% accepted, and 3% enrolled in ivr follow-up. At the lrcp in 2016, 77% of tobacco users were offered referral to the program, but only 9% of smokers accepted, and only 2% enrolled in ivr follow-up.Conclusions The Smoking Cessation Program at the lrcp has had modest success, because multiple factors influence a patient’s success with cessation. Limitations of the program include challenges in referral and counselling, limited access to nicotine replacement therapy (nrt), and minimal follow-up. To mitigate some of those challenges, a pilot project was launched in January 2017 in which patients receive free nrt and referral to the local health unit.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonnie Handschin ◽  
Brian Hitsman ◽  
Sonja Blazekovic ◽  
Anna Veluz-Wilkins ◽  
E. Paul Wileyto ◽  
...  

The above published article by Handschin et al. contains an error in the spelling of an author's name.Brain Hitsman, should read: Brian HitsmanThis error has now been rectified in the online version of this article.


2007 ◽  
Vol 64 (23) ◽  
pp. 2471-2476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Kwon Myung ◽  
Keun-Young Yoo ◽  
Seung Won Oh ◽  
Seong Hi Park ◽  
Hong Gwan Seo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document