Evaluating the effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of smoking cessation services: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials

Irwin Nazareth²  Simon Galton³  Steve Parrot⁴  Richard Morris²  Stephen Sutton¹  Hazel Gilbert² 

[1] Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, London, UK;Smokefree Camden (Public Health), NHS Camden, London, UK;Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK

关键词: Risk information;    Personalisation;    Computer-tailoring;    Stop smoking clinics;    Smoking cessation;   

Others  :  1095255
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-195

 received in 2012-06-08, accepted in 2012-10-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although government-funded specialist smoking cessation services in England offer advice and support to smokers motivated to quit, only a small proportion of smokers make use of this service. Evidence suggests that if smokers are proactively and personally invited to use services, use will be higher than with a standard referral made by health professionals. Computer-based systems generating personalised tailored communications also have the potential to engage with a larger proportion of the smoking population. In this study smokers are proactively invited to use the NHS Stop Smoking Service (SSS), with a personal computer-tailored letter and the offer of a no-commitment introductory session designed to give more information about the service. The primary objective is to assess the relative effectiveness on attendance at the NHS SSS, of proactive recruitment by a brief personal letter, tailored to individual characteristics, and invitation to a taster session, over a standard generic letter advertising the service.

Method/design

This randomised controlled trial will recruit smokers from general practice who are motivated to quit and have not recently attended the NHS SSS. Smokers aged 16 years and over, identified from medical records in participating practices, are sent a brief screening questionnaire and cover letter from their GP. Smokers giving consent are randomised to the Control group to receive a standard generic letter advertising the local service, or to the Intervention group to receive a brief personal, tailored letter with risk information and an invitation to attend a ‘Come and Try it’ taster session. The primary outcome, assessed 6 months after the date of randomisation, is the proportion of people attending the NHS SSS for at least one session. Planned recruitment is to secure 4,500 participants, from 18 regions in England served by an NHS SSS.

Discussion

Personal risk information generated by computer, with the addition of taster sessions, could be widely replicated and delivered cost effectively to a large proportion of the smoking population. The results of this trial will inform the potential of this method to increase referrals to specialised smoking cessation services and prompt more quit attempts.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Gilbert et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Robinson S, General BC, Survey H: Smoking and drinking among adults 2008. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2010.
• [2]Department of Health: Choosing Health: Making healthy choices easier. A White Paper on Public Health. London: HMSO; 2005.
• [3]Health and Social Care Information Centre: Statistics on Smoking. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre; 2008.
• [4]McNeill A, Raw M, Whybrow J, Bailey P: A national strategy for smoking cessation treatment in England. Addiction 2005, Suppl 2:1-11.
• [5]Lichtenstein E, Glasgow RE: Smoking cessation: what have we learned over the past decade? J Consult Clin Psychol 1992, 60:518-527.
• [6]Fiore MC, Novotny TE, Pierce JP, Giovino GA, Hatziandreu EJ: Methods used to quit smoking in the United States. Do cessation programs help? JAMA 1990, 263:2760-2765.
• [7]Lichtenstein E, Hollis J: Patient referral to a smoking cessation program: who follows through? J Fam Pract 1992, 34:739-744.
• [8]Owen N: Smokers’ preferences for assistance with cessation. Prev Med 1990, 19:424-431.
• [9]Office of National Statistics Omnibus Survey: Smoking-related Behaviour and Attitudes 2007. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2008. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/smoking2007.pdf webcite]
• [10]Chesterman J, Judge K, Bauld L, Ferguson J: How effective are the English smoking treatment services in reaching disadvantaged smokers? Addiction 2005, Suppl 2:36-45.
• [11]Murray RL, Coleman T, Antoniak M, Dergus A, Britton J, Lewis S: The potential to improve ascertainment and intervention to reduce smoking in Primary Care: a cross sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]West R: Key performance indicators: Smoking and smoking cessation in England: Findings from the Smoking Toolkit Study. 2008. http://www.smokinginengland.info webcite
• [13]Lowey H, Tocque K, Bellis MA, Fullard B: Smoking cessation services are reducing inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57:579-580.
• [14]Bauld L: Reaching smokers: how can we encourage more people to use effective treatment? Addiction 2008, 103:1007-1008.
• [15]Lowry RJ, Hardy S, Jordan C, Wayman G: Using social marketing to increase recruitment of pregnant smokers to smoking cessation service: a success story. Public Health 2004, 118:239-243.
• [16]Paul CL, Wiggers J, Daly JB, Green S, Walsh RA, Knight J, Girgis A: Direct telemarketing of smoking cessation interventions: will smokers take the call? Addiction 2004, 99:907-913.
• [17]Roddy E, Antoniak M, Britton J, Molyneux A, Lewis S: Barriers and motivators to gaining access to smoking cessation services among deprived smokers–a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6:147. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Murray RL, Coleman T, Antoniak M, Stocks J, Fergus A, Britton J, Lewis SA: The effect of proactively identifying smokers and offering smoking cessation support in primary care populations: a cluster-randomized trial. Addiction 2008, 103:998-1006.
• [19]Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Glassman B: One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med 1999, 21:276-283.
• [20]Strecher VJ: Computer-tailored smoking cessation materials: a review and discussion. Patient Educ Couns 1999, 36:107-117.
• [21]Sutton S, Gilbert H: Effectiveness of individually-tailored smoking cessation advice letters as an adjunct to telephone counselling and generic self-help materials: randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2007, 102:994-1000.
• [22]Lancaster T, Stead LF: Self-help interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005.
• [23]Department of Health: Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-2006: Improvement, Expansion and Reform. London: Department of Health; 2002.
• [24]Pound E, Coleman T, Adams C, Bauld L, Ferguson J: Targeting smokers in priority groups: the influence of government targets and policy statements. Addiction 2005, Suppl 2:29-35.
• [25]Pisinger C, Vestbo J, Borch-Johnsen K, Jorgensen T: It is possible to help smokers in early motivational stages to quit. The Inter99 study. Prev Med 2005, 40:278-284.
• [26]Gilbert HM, Sutton SR, Leurent B, Alexis-Garsee C, Morris R, Nazareth I: The characteristics of a population wide sample of smokers recruited proactively for the ESCAPE trial. Public Health 2012, 126:308-316.
• [27]West R, Sohal T: Catastrophic pathways to smoking cessation: findings from national survey. BMJ 2006.
• [28]McEwen A: Standard Treatment Programme. 2nd edition. London: NHS Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training; 2011.
• [29]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
• [30]Group EQ: EuroQol - A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [31]Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, Snow MG: Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies. Psychol Bull 1992, 111:23-41.
• [32]Etter JF, Perneger TV, Ronchi A: Collecting saliva samples by mail. Am J Epidemiol 1998, 147:141-146.
• [33]Gilbert H, Nazareth I, Sutton S, Morris R, Godfrey C: Study protocol: Effectiveness of computer-tailored Smoking Cessation Advice in Primary Care (ESCAPE): a Randomised Trial. Trials 2008, 9:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Gilbert H, Nazareth I, Sutton S: Assessing the feasibility of proactive recruitment of smokers to an intervention in general practice for smoking cessation using computer-tailored feedback reports. Fam Pract 2007, 24:395-400.
• [35]Wood AM, White IR, Hotopf M: Using number of failed contact attempts to adjust for non-ignorable non-response. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 2006, 169:525-542.
• [36]Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG: Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials 2004, 1:368-376.
• [37]White IR: Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators. Stat Methods Med Res 2005, 14:327-347.
• [38]Fenwick E, O’Brien B, Briggs A: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004, 13:405-415.
• [39]Copeland AL, Businelle MS, Stewart DW, Patterson SM, Rash CJ, Carney CE: Identifying barriers to entering smoking cessation treatment among socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2010, 5:164-171.