Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:36:23.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Support for Smoking Cessation: Importance of the Smoker's Choice for Better Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2021

Anne-Laurence Le Faou ,
Ingrid Allagbé ,
Guillaume Airagnes ,
Monique Baha  and
Frédéric Limosin
Anne-Laurence Le Faou*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Addictology, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Paris, France Inserm UMRS 1123, Université de Paris, Paris, France
Ingrid Allagbé
Affiliation:
Inserm UMRS 1123, Université de Paris, Paris, France
Guillaume Airagnes
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Addictology, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Paris, France Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Aging and Chronic Diseases, Villejuif, France
Monique Baha
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Addictology, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Paris, France
Frédéric Limosin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Addictology, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Paris, France Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France Inserm, U894, Centre Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, Paris, France
*
*Corresponding author: Anne-Laurence Le Faou, Responsable du centre ambulatoire d'addictologie, HEGP, APHP, 20 rue LEBLANC, 75015 Paris, France. Email: anne-laurence.lefaou@aphp.fr
Get access

Abstract

Smoking cessation method effectiveness is discussed among socially disadvantaged smokers. Our aim was to measure real-life effectiveness of the choice of a multi-component group intervention in comparison with individual usual care. We report an observational study (N = 100). Disadvantaged smokers were screened with a validated tool. We designed a multi-component structured behavioural group intervention, delivered in weekly group sessions during 6 weeks. Usual care consisted of individual visits. Both groups received free nicotine replacement therapy. We observed 33 smokers participating in the group intervention, while 67 received usual care. Abstinence at 6 weeks was 24.2% (n = 8) in the group intervention versus 11.9% (n = 8) in usual care (p = .115). Also, 36.4% (n = 12) of group intervention patients had reduced their cigarette consumption versus 16.4% (n = 11) in usual care (p = .026). In addition, 6.1% (n = 2) dropped out of group versus 31.3% (n = 21) in usual care (p = .005). Finally, 6 months after their first visit, 15.2% (n = 5) of group intervention patients and 4.5% (n = 3) in usual care were abstinent (p = .111). Group intervention choice versus usual care might facilitate smoking abstinence, reduction, and follow-up adherence.

Keywords

smoking cessationgroup interventionnicotine replacement therapydisadvantaged smokersreal-life effectiveness
Type
Standard Paper
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 208 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Australian Association for Cognitive and Behaviour Therapy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aertgeerts, B, Buntinx, F and Kester, A (2004). The value of the CAGE in screening for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence in general clinical populations: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 30–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baha, M and Le Faou, AL (2014). Gradual versus abrupt quitting among French treatment-seeking smokers. Preventive Medicine, 63, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauld, L, Judge, K and Platt, S (2007). Assessing the impact of smoking cessation services on reducing health inequalities in England: Observational study. Tobacco Control, 16, 400–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonevski, B, Twyman, L, Paul, C, D'Este, C, West, R, Siahpush, M, Oldmeadow, C and and Palazzi, K (2018). Smoking cessation intervention delivered by social service organisations for a diverse population of Australian disadvantaged smokers: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Preventive Medicine, 112, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, T, Platt, S and Amos, A (2014a). Equity impact of European individual-level smoking cessation interventions to reduce smoking in adults: A systematic review. European Journal of Public Health, 24, 551–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T, Platt, S and Amos, A (2014b). Equity impact of population-level interventions and policies to reduce smoking in adults: A systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 138, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, ER, Dombrowski, SU, McCleary, N and Johnston, M (2014). Are interventions for low-income groups effective in changing healthy eating, physical activity and smoking behaviours? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 4, e006046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S and Wills, TA (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Covey, LS, Bomback, A and Yan, GWY (2006). History of depression and smoking cessation: A rejoinder. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 8, 315–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorner, TE, Tröstl, A, Womastek, I and Groman, E (2011). Predictors of short-term success in smoking cessation in relation to attendance at a smoking cessation program. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 13, 1068–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guignard, R, Nguyen-Thanh, V, Delmer, O, Lenormand, M-C, Blanchoz, J-M and Arwidson, P (2018). Interventions pour l'arrêt du tabac chez les fumeurs de faible niveau socio-économique: Synthèse de la littérature. Santé Publique, 30, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, C, Jetten, J, Cruwys, T, Dingle, G and Haslam, SA (2018). The new psychology of health: Unlocking the social cure. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haute Autorité de Santé. (2014). Arrêt de la consommation de tabac: Du dépistage individuel au maintien de l'abstinence en premier recours. Fr: Haute Autorité de Santé. Consulté à l'adresse. Retrieved from: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-01/recommandations_-_arret_de_la_consommation_de_tabac.pdf.Google Scholar
Heatherton, TF, Kozlowski, LT, Frecker, RC and Fagerström, KO (1991). The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction, 86, 1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiscock, R, Judge, K and Bauld, L (2011). Social inequalities in quitting smoking: What factors mediate the relationship between socioeconomic position and smoking cessation? Journal of Public Health, 33, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiscock, R, Murray, S, Brose, LS, McEwen, A, Bee, JL, Dobbie, F and Bauld, L (2013). Behavioural therapy for smoking cessation: The effectiveness of different intervention types for disadvantaged and affluent smokers. Addictive Behaviors, 38, 2787–2796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, JR (2000). Reduced smoking: An introduction and review of the evidence. Addiction, 95, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N, Prebble, A, Rose, CS and Holborn, H (2002). Perceptions of smoking cessation products and services among low income smokers (health development agency). London: Consulté à l'adresse. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.538.4408&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar
Judge, K, Bauld, L, Chesterman, J and Ferguson, J (2005). The English smoking treatment services: Short-term outcomes. Addiction, 100, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotz, D and West, R (2009). Explaining the social gradient in smoking cessation: It's not in the trying, but in the succeeding. Tobacco Control, 18, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laaksonen, M, Rahkonen, O, Martikainen, P and Lahelma, E (2005). Socioeconomic position and self-rated health: The contribution of childhood socioeconomic circumstances, adult socioeconomic status, and material resources. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1403–1409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Faou, A-L, Baha, M, Rodon, N, Lagrue, G and Ménard, J (2009). Trends in the profile of smokers registered in a national database from 2001 to 2006: Changes in smoking habits. Public Health, 123, 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwen, A, West, R and McRobbie, H (2006). Effectiveness of specialist group treatment for smoking cessation vs. One-to-one treatment in primary care. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1650–1660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merson, F, Perriot, J, Underner, M, Peiffer, G and Fieulaine, N (2014). Smoking cessation and social deprivation. Revue Des Maladies Respiratoires, 31, 916–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michie, S, Richardson, M, Johnston, M, Abraham, C, Francis, J, Hardeman, W, Eccles, MP, Cane, J and Wood, CE (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mykletun, A, Stordal, E and Dahl, AA (2001). Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale: Factor structure, item analyses and internal consistency in a large population. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 179, 540–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nahon, S, Lahmek, P, Macaigne, G, Faurel, J-P, Sass, C, Howaizi, M, Fleury, A, Baju, A, Locher, C, Barjonet, G, Saillant, GG, Moulin, J-J and Poupardin, C (2009). Socioeconomic deprivation does not influence the severity of Crohn's disease: Results of a prospective multicenter study. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 15, 594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochsner, S, Luszczynska, A, Stadler, G, Knoll, N, Hornung, R and Scholz, U (2014). The interplay of received social support and self-regulatory factors in smoking cessation. Psychology & Health, 29, 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olssøn, I, Mykletun, A and Dahl, AA (2005). The hospital anxiety and depression rating scale: A cross-sectional study of psychometrics and case finding abilities in general practice. BMC Psychiatry, 5, 46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Over, EAB, Feenstra, TL, Hoogenveen, RT, Droomers, M, Uiters, E and van Gelder, BM (2014). Tobacco control policies specified according to socioeconomic status: Health disparities and cost-effectiveness. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16, 725–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasquereau, A, Andler, R, Arwidson, P, Guignard, R and Nguyen Thanh, V (2020). Consommation de tabac parmi les adultes: Bilan de cinq années de programme national contre le tabagisme, 2014-2019. Bulletin Epidémiologique Hebdomadaire, 14, 274–284.Google Scholar
Peretti-Watel, P and Constance, J (2009). ‘It's all we got left’. Why poor smokers are less sensitive to cigarette price increases. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 608–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñeiro, B, López-Durán, A, del Río, EF, Martínez, Ú, Brandon, TH and Becoña, E (2016). Motivation to quit as a predictor of smoking cessation and abstinence maintenance among treated Spanish smokers. Addictive Behaviors, 53, 40–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, JL, Hammond, D, Boudreau, C, Fong, GT and Siahpush, M (2010). Socioeconomic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four western countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, S20–S33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roddy, E, Antoniak, M, Britton, J, Molyneux, A and Lewis, S (2006). Barriers and motivators to gaining access to smoking cessation services amongst deprived smokers — A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rueger, H, Weishaar, H, Ochsmann, EB, Letzel, S and Muenster, E (2013). Factors associated with self-assessed increase in tobacco consumption among over-indebted individuals in Germany: A cross-sectional study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 8, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, CE, Hill, SE and Amos, A (2020). Impact of specialist and primary care stop smoking support on socio-economic inequalities in cessation in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and national equity initial review completed 22 January 2019; final version accepted 19 July 2019 analysis. Addiction, 115, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stead, LF and Lancaster, T (2005). Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. In The Cochrane Collaboration (Éd.), Cochrane database of systematic reviews (p. CD001007.pub2). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Consulté septembre 3, 2019, à l'adresse. Retrieved from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub2.Google Scholar
Stead, LF, Carroll, AJ and Lancaster, T (2017). Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Consulté juin 10, 2020, à l'adresse. Retrieved from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub3/abstract.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Twyman, L, Bonevski, B, Paul, C and Bryant, J (2014). Perceived barriers to smoking cessation in selected vulnerable groups: A systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature. BMJ Open, 4. Consulté juin 9, 2020, à l'adresse. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275698/.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westmaas, JL, Bontemps-Jones, J and Bauer, JE (2010). Social support in smoking cessation: Reconciling theory and evidence. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, 695–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed