Suppr超能文献

简短建议:与突然戒烟相比,中国烟民减少吸烟量有助于戒烟:一项整群随机对照试验。

Brief Advice on Smoking Reduction Versus Abrupt Quitting for Smoking Cessation in Chinese Smokers: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

School of Nursing, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China.

School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

Nicotine Tob Res. 2017 Dec 13;20(1):67-72. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx026.

Abstract

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of brief advice about cut-down-to-quit (CDTQ) with that of brief advice about quit immediately (QI), as delivered by trained volunteers, without the use of pharmacological therapy, to outreach-recruited Chinese smokers in Hong Kong who intend to quit smoking.

METHODS

Smokers (N = 1077) who enrolled in the Quit and Win Contest 2014 and intended to quit or reduce smoking were randomized in participation sessions to CDTQ (n = 559) and QI (n = 518) groups. Subjects in the CDTQ group received brief advice and a card about smoking reduction. Subjects in the QI group received brief advice and a leaflet about quitting smoking. All received a smoking cessation booklet and corresponding CDTQ or QI brief telephone advice at intervals of 1 week, 1 month, or 2 months. The primary outcomes were self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. The secondary outcomes included abstinence rate as validated by biochemical tests, smoking reduction (≥50% reduction from baseline), and quit attempt (QA). The outcome assessors were blinded as to group assignment.

RESULTS

By intention to treat, the QI and CDTQ groups showed similar results as regards (i) self-reported PPA (10.6% [95% CI 8.1%-13.6%] vs. 9.1% [95% CI 6.9%-11.8%]), (ii) validated abstinence rate (5.6% [3.8%-7.9%] vs. 5.4% [3.6%-7.6%]), and (iii) QA rate (59.2% [53.5%-64.8%] vs. 54.1% [48.7%-59.3%]) at 6-month. However, the CDTQ group showed a significantly higher reduction rate than the QI group (20.9% [CI 17.6%-24.5%] vs. 14.5% [11.6%-17.8%]). The overall intervention adherence was suboptimal (45.4%), particularly in the CDTQ group (42.3%). Self-efficacy as regards quitting of smoking was similar between the groups at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief advice on CDTQ and QI had similar short-term PPAs. Longer-term follow-up is needed to understand the latent effect of smoking reduction on abstinence.

IMPLICATIONS

This is the first randomized controlled trial in ethnic Chinese smokers to evaluate the relative efficacy of brief advice on (a) CDTQ and (b) QI as regards quitting. The two interventions showed similar effects as regards PPA. The findings suggested that brief advice on CDTQ may be as effective as brief advice on QI in smokers recruited in community settings.

摘要

目的

比较简短的戒烟建议(CDTQ)与即刻戒烟建议(QI)在无药物治疗情况下对有意愿戒烟的香港华裔吸烟者的疗效,这些吸烟者是通过外展招募的。

方法

参加 2014 年戒烟赢大奖比赛的吸烟者(N=1077),打算戒烟或减少吸烟,他们在参与会议中被随机分配到 CDTQ(n=559)和 QI(n=518)组。CDTQ 组接受简短的戒烟建议和减少吸烟的卡片。QI 组接受简短的戒烟建议和戒烟传单。所有参与者在 1 周、1 个月或 2 个月的时间间隔内收到一本戒烟手册和相应的 CDTQ 或 QI 简短电话建议。主要结果是在 3 个月和 6 个月随访时自我报告的 7 天点流行率戒烟(PPA)。次要结果包括生物化学测试验证的戒烟率、吸烟量减少(与基线相比减少≥50%)和戒烟尝试(QA)。结果评估者对分组情况不知情。

结果

按照意向治疗原则,QI 和 CDTQ 组在以下方面显示出相似的结果:(i)自我报告的 PPA(10.6%[95%置信区间 8.1%-13.6%]与 9.1%[95%置信区间 6.9%-11.8%]),(ii)验证的戒烟率(5.6%[3.8%-7.9%]与 5.4%[3.6%-7.6%])和(iii)6 个月时的 QA 率(59.2%[53.5%-64.8%]与 54.1%[48.7%-59.3%])。然而,CDTQ 组的减少率明显高于 QI 组(20.9%[CI 17.6%-24.5%]与 14.5%[11.6%-17.8%])。整体干预依从性不理想(45.4%),尤其是 CDTQ 组(42.3%)。6 个月时,两组的戒烟自我效能感相似。

结论

简短的 CDTQ 和 QI 戒烟建议在短期内的 PPA 相似。需要进行更长时间的随访,以了解吸烟减少对戒烟的潜在影响。

意义

这是第一项针对华裔吸烟者的随机对照试验,评估了简短戒烟建议(a)CDTQ 和(b)QI 关于戒烟的相对疗效。两种干预措施在 PPA 方面的效果相似。研究结果表明,在社区环境中招募的吸烟者中,简短的 CDTQ 建议可能与简短的 QI 建议同样有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验