Faculty of Health, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2023 Mar;27(4):1-277. doi: 10.3310/KLTG1447.
Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear.
The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective.
This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation.
Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention ( = 457) or usual support ( = 458).
The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity.
The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed.
The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236).
There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective.
Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence.
Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence.
This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
身体活动可以帮助那些想要戒烟的吸烟者戒烟,但目前还没有研究支持那些只想减少吸烟量的吸烟者。更广泛地说,这种对吸烟者的动机支持的效果尚不清楚。
确定针对那些不打算立即戒烟的吸烟者,增加身体活动和减少吸烟量的动机支持是否有助于减少吸烟量和增加戒烟率和身体活动量,并确定这种干预是否具有成本效益。
这是一项多中心、两臂、平行组、随机(1:1)对照优势试验,同时进行基于试验和基于模型的经济评估以及过程评估。
来自四个英国城市的卫生和其他社区环境中的参与者接受了干预(n=457)或常规支持(n=458)。
干预包括最多八次面对面或电话行为支持会议,以减少吸烟量和增加身体活动量。
主要结果是一氧化碳验证的 6 个月和 12 个月浮动延长戒烟率(主要结果)、自我报告的每天吸烟量、戒烟尝试次数和 3 个月和 9 个月时的一氧化碳验证戒烟率。此外,还收集了自我报告的(3 个月和 9 个月)和加速度计记录的(3 个月)身体活动数据。还评估了过程项目、干预成本和成本效益。
样本的平均年龄为 49.8 岁,参与者主要来自社会经济贫困地区,且是中度重度吸烟者。干预的实施具有良好的一致性。很少有参与者达到一氧化碳验证的 6 个月延长戒烟率[干预组 9 例(2.0%),对照组 4 例(0.9%);调整后的优势比 2.30(95%置信区间 0.70 至 7.56)]或 12 个月延长戒烟率[干预组 6 例(1.3%),对照组 1 例(0.2%);调整后的优势比 6.33(95%置信区间 0.76 至 53.10)]。在 3 个月时,干预组参与者每天吸烟量少于对照组参与者(21.1 对 26.8 支)。干预组参与者在 3 个月时更有可能减少≥50%的吸烟量[18.9%对 10.5%;调整后的优势比 1.98(95%置信区间 1.35 至 2.90)]和 9 个月[14.4%对 10.0%;调整后的优势比 1.52(95%置信区间 1.01 至 2.29)],并在 3 个月时报告了更多的中等至剧烈的身体活动[调整后的每周平均差异为 81.61 分钟(95%置信区间 28.75 至 134.47 分钟)],但 9 个月时没有。增加身体活动并没有介导干预对吸烟的影响。该干预对大多数吸烟和身体活动信念产生了积极影响,一些干预效果介导了吸烟和身体活动结果的变化。估计干预的平均成本为每人 239.18 英镑,当考虑干预和医疗保健成本时,总体额外成本为 173.50 英镑(95%置信区间-353.82 至 513.77)。一氧化碳验证的 6 个月延长戒烟率的绝对组间差异为 1.1%,这在终生质量调整生命年(0.006)上有了很小的增益,在终生医疗保健成本方面也有了很小的节省(净节省 236 英镑)。
在没有立即戒烟计划的吸烟者中,针对减少吸烟量和增加身体活动量的行为支持并没有导致延长戒烟率的显著增加。该干预措施不具有成本效益。
延长戒烟率远低于预期,这意味着试验的效力不足以确信该干预措施将延长戒烟率提高一倍。
进一步的研究应探索本研究中干预措施的效果,以支持那些想要在戒烟前减少吸烟量的吸烟者,以及/或延长支持延长和戒烟的时间。
该试验由英国国家卫生研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,并将在 ; Vol. 27, No. 4 中全文发表。有关该项目的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站。