Evaluating three self-help smoking cessation interventions for post-secondary smokers : a randomized controlled trial on six Ontario campuses

Objective. Smoking prevalence is highest among the young adult cohort. Postsecondary students are no exception. Although many students intend to quit smoking, no research has established what methods best promote reductions in, or complete abstinence from smoking. This randomized controlled trial examined the effectiveness of three self-help smoking cessation interventions. Method. On six post-secondary campuses, 483 smokers who voluntarily accessed Leave The Pack Behind (a tobacco control initiative) were randomly assigned to one of three smoking cessation interventions: One Step At A Time (a 2-booklet, *gold standard' program for adults); Smoke|Quit (a newly-developed 2-booklet program for young adult students); and usual care (a 'Quit Kit' containing a booklet on stress management, information about pharmacological quitting aides and novelty items). All participants also received one proactive telephone support call from a peer counsellor. During the study, 85 participants withdrew. The final sample of 216 students who completed baseline questionnaires and 12-week follow-up telephone interviews was representative of the initial sample in terms of demographic characteristics, and smokingquitting- related variables. Results. Whether participants quit smoking depended upon treatment condition, ^(2, N=2\6) = 6.34, p = .04, with Smoke|Quit producing more successfijl quitters (18.4%) than One Step At A Time (4.5%) or the Quit Kit (1 1.4%). On average, participants had quit 53.46 days, with no significant difference across treatments. Selfefficacy also increased. Use of the intervention or other quitting aides was not associated with treatment condition. Among the 191 participants who did not quit smoking, treatment condition did not influence outcomes. Overall, 46.2% had made a quit attempt. Significant decreases in weekly tobacco consumption and increases in self-efficacy to resist smoking were observed from baseline to follow-up. Conclusion. Post-secondary institutions represent a potentially final opportunity for age-targeted interventions. Self-help resources tailored to students' social and contextual characteristics will have considerable more impact than stage-only tailored interventions. Both reduction and abstinence outcomes should be emphasized to positively support students to stop smoking.

Six-month outcomes of a multi-campus smoking cessation contest

Background: Up to 40% of North American post-secondary students smoke at least occasionally, and most want to quit. Given students' preferences for free, easy-to-access, self-directed, convenient cessation methods, a motivational, incentive-based cessation contest may be an effective way to assist students to quit. The current study describes 3- and 6-month outcomes experienced by post-secondary student smokers who entered the 'Let's Make A Deal!' contest. Methodology: Contestants from five university campuses who chose to quit completely ('Quit For Good') or reduce their tobacco consumption by 50% ('Keep The Count') were invited to participate in a study of the contest. Three and six months after registration, participants were contacted by phone to assess their smoking and quitting behaviours. Qualitative and quantitative measures were collected, including weekly tobacco consumption, efficacy to resist temptations to smoke, use of quitting aids, and strategies to cope with withdrawal. Quitting was assessed using 7-day point prevalence and continuous abstinence. Results: Seventy-four (64.9%) of the 114 participants recruited for the study completed the follow-ups. Over 31 % of participants who entered Quit For Good and 23.5% of participants who entered Keep The Count were identified as quitters at the 6-month follow-up. Among the quitters, 45.5% experienced sustained abstinence from smoking for the 6-month duration of the study. Keep The Count contestants reduced their tobacco consumption by 57.2% at 3-month follow-up and sustained some of this reduction through to the 6-month follow-up. Qualitative data provides insights into how quitters coped with withdrawal and what hampered continuing smokers' efforts to quit. Significance: A motivational, incentive-based contest for post-secondary students can facilitate both smoking cessation and harm reduction. The contest environment, incentives, resources, and "buddies" provide positive structural and social supports to help smokers overcome potential barriers to quitting, successfully stop smoking, and manage potential triggers to relapse. The contest cessation rates are higher than the typical 5-7% associated with unassisted quitting.

Socio-demographic factors, smoking, symptoms, morbidities and pulmonary function and quality of life in individuals with a heavy smoking history

Objective: To determine which socio-demographic, exposure, morbidity and symptom variables are associated with health-related quality of life among former and current heavy smokers. Methods: Cross sectional data from 2537 participants were studied. All participants were at ≥2% risk of developing lung cancer within 6 years. Linear and logistic regression models utilizing a multivariable fractional polynomial selection process identified variables associated with health-related quality of life, measured by the EQ-5D. Results: Upstream and downstream associations between smoking cessation and higher health-related quality of life were evident. Significant upstream associations, such as education level and current working status and were explained by the addition of morbidities and symptoms to regression models. Having arthritis, decreased forced expiratory volume in one second, fatigue, poor appetite or dyspnea were most highly and commonly associated with decreased HRQoL. Discussion: Upstream factors such as educational attainment, employment status and smoking cessation should be targeted to prevent decreased health-related quality of life. Practitioners should focus treatment on downstream factors, especially symptoms, to improve health-related quality of life.

A qualitative case study of the processes of peer education in a young adult tobacco control initiative, Leave the Pack Behind

Peer education involves peers offering credible and reliable information about sensitive life issues through the means of an informal peer group setting (Topping & Ehly, 1998). The purpose of this instrumental case study was to examine the processes of peer education through the exploration of two teams within a young adult tobacco control initiative, Leave the Pack Behind (LTPB). This qualitative case study examined two peer education teams over an eight-month period. Interviews, focus groups and observations were conducted with 12 participants across two peer education teams. Findings show the complexities of the processes of peer education including a connection between the stages of change and the changing role of the peer educator across stages of the empowerment process. Peer education teams and factors in the macro environment were also found to impact the process of peer education. This study provides a new definition for the process of peer education: peer education is a fluid process of knowledge exchange in which peer educators adopt different styles of facilitation as people move through stages of empowerment and change. This study contributes to the academic hterature upon the processes of peer education by providing a definition, a model and an overall understanding through an ecological and empowerment framework. The findings from this study suggest peer educators can be further trained to: use specific peer educational approaches that fit with student smoker's stage of change; better understand their position as a peer educator on the LTPB team; understand the reciprocal relationship between the macro environment and the peer education teams having an effect on one another.

Decision analysis of the effectiveness of lung cancer screening using autofluorescence bronchoscopy and computed tomography

Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death in the developed world. Most cancers are associated with tobacco smoking. A primary hope for reducing lung cancer has been prevention of smoking and successful smoking cessation programs. To date, these programs have not been as successful as anticipated. Objective: The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether lung cancer screening combining low dose computed tomography with autofluorescence bronchoscopy (combined CT & AFB) is superior to CT or AFB screening alone in improving lung cancer specific survival. In addition, the extent of improvement and ideal conditions for combined CT & AFB screening were evaluated. Methods: We applied decision analysis and Monte Carlo simulation modeling using TreeAge Software to evaluate our study aims. Histology- and stage specific probabilities of lung cancer 5-year survival proportions were taken from Surveillance and Epidemiologic End Results (SEER) Registry data. Screeningassociated data was taken from the US NCI Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and US NCI Lung Screening Study (LSS), other relevant published data and expert opinion. Results: Decision Analysis - Combined CT and AFB was the best approach at Improving 5-year survival (Overall Expected Survival (OES) in the entire screened population was 0.9863) and in lung cancer patients only (Lung Cancer Specific Expected Survival (LOSES) was 0.3256). Combined screening was slightly better than CT screening alone (OES = 0.9859; LCSES = 0.2966), and substantially better than AFB screening alone (OES = 0.9842; LCSES = 0.2124), which was considerably better than no screening (OES = 0.9829; LCSES = 0.1445). Monte Carlo simulation modeling revealed that expected survival in the screened population and lung cancer patients is highest when screened using CT and combined CT and AFB. CT alone and combined screening was substantially better than AFB screening alone or no screening. For LCSES, combined CT and AFB screening is significantly better than CT alone (0.3126 vs. 0.2938, p< 0.0001). Conclusions: Overall, these analyses suggest that combined CT and AFB is slightly better than CT alone at improving lung cancer survival, and both approaches are substantially better than AFB screening alone or no screening.