While the global smoking rate has dropped in the past 30 years (from 41.2% of men in 1980 to 31.1% in 2012 and from 10.6% of women in 1980 to 6.2% in 2012), the number of tobacco smokers has increased due to population growth (Ng et al., 2014). This tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure continue to harm people worldwide. Those harmed are often vulnerable: children, those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), those with existing diseases, etc. As noted by the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly 80% of those who smoke live in a LMIC (World Health Organization, 2017). Furthermore, it is often those who are more socio-economically disadvantaged or less educated in LMICs that are exposed to second-hand smoke at home and work (Nazar, Lee, Arora, & Millett, 2015).

Introduction: The level of smoking cessation support across UK prisons is variable, with most offering pharmacological support, such as nicotine replacement therapy. However, with a complete smoking ban in prisons in England now imminent, additional standardised behavioural support is necessary to help offenders go smoke-free.

Aims: This study used the Behaviour Change Wheel to aim to develop the content of an online smoking cessation intervention for offenders, with consideration of their capability, motivation and opportunity for behaviour change.

Methods: This was an intervention development study. The Behaviour Change Wheel was used to map cognitive, behavioural, physiological and social targets for the intervention, onto appropriate intervention techniques for inclusion in the smoking cessation programme for offenders.

Results: Psychological capability, social opportunity and reflective and automatic motivation were identified through deductive thematic analysis as areas of change required to achieve smoking cessation. A total of 27 behavioural change techniques were chosen for this smoking cessation intervention and were mapped onto the Lifestyle Balance Model which provided the theoretical basis on which the components of the programme are conceptualised. This included strategies around increasing motivation to quit, anticipating smoking triggers, modifying smoking-related thoughts, regulating emotions, managing cravings, replacing smoking and rewarding nicotine abstinence and adopting a healthier lifestyle.

Conclusions: Through the utilisation of the Behaviour Change Wheel, the development process of this digital smoking cessation intervention was achieved. Further research is planned to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of this intervention and to explore how the programme is implemented in practice within prison settings.

Introduction: Telephone quitlines are an easily accessible and effective means for delivering cessation services including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Varenicline (VAR) may show superior quit rates to NRT, but has not been routinely evaluated in the context of quitlines.

Aims: To assess the feasibility of distributing VAR through a quitline, and preliminarily compare cessation rates between participants receiving VAR and NRT.

Methods: Participants were recruited through the New York State Smokers’ Quitline. Those randomised to VAR (n = 200) were instructed to obtain a prescription from their primary care physician (PCP) to be filled by mail through the research pharmacy. Those randomised to NRT (n = 100) were mailed NRT using an existing protocol. Outcome measures were number of submitted prescriptions and dispensed medication kits, and self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at follow-up.

Results: The research pharmacy filled 100% of prescriptions through the quitline. However, only 27% of the VAR Arm submitted a prescription. An intent-to-treat analysis revealed that those receiving NRT were more likely to be abstinent at follow-up than the VAR Arm (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.27–4.60; p < 0.01). The per-protocol analysis, which only included those in the VAR Arm who submitted a prescription, showed no difference in quit rates.

Conclusions: The present protocol resulted in successful delivery of VAR through the quitline, but a sizable proportion of the VAR Arm did not submit a prescription. Self-reported barriers included being unable to obtain a prescription from a PCP. Future studies should explore alternative methods for delivering VAR through quitlines.

Introduction: Higher levels of anxiety and depression have been found to be associated with greater difficulty in stopping smoking. This raises the question as to whether mood disturbance may be associated with exposure to, and use of, quitting support.

Aims: This study examined whether General Practitioner (GP) advice and/or offer of support, or stop-smoking service use differed between smokers reporting or not reporting depression/anxiety.

Methods: Data came from the Smoking Toolkit Study. Participants were 1,162 English adults who reported currently smoking or having stopped within the past 12 months, aged 40+ years, surveyed between April and September 2012. Anxiety/depression was assessed by the mood disturbance item of the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). This was compared to recall of GP quit advice and/or support, and stop-smoking aid use adjusting for age, gender, and social grade.

Results/Findings: Smokers reporting depression/anxiety were more likely to recall being offered advice and support to stop smoking by their GP (OR = 1.50, 95% C.I. = 1.05–2.13). However, there were no significant differences in use of stop-smoking aids during the past year.

Conclusions: Smokers reporting depression/anxiety are more likely to be offered stop-smoking support by their GPs, but this does not appear to translate into stop-smoking aid use, despite high motivation to quit. Given higher nicotine dependence in this group, mental health specific support may need to be offered, and more needs to be done to make this offer of aid attractive.

This study examined the role of social support and behavioural interventions used during the last unsuccessful quit attempt for smokers’ intentions to quit smoking within the next six months, and identified smokers’ attributes associated with the use of social support and behavioural interventions. The analytic sample included 7,195 adult daily smokers who responded to the 2010–2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, conducted in the United States, and indicated having a serious quit attempt in the past 12 months. Smokers who relied on social support from friends and family had higher odds of intending to quit than those who did not (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.22:1.58), and smokers who used interventions had higher odds of intending to quit than those who did not (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.07:1.74). These associations were similar for both sexes, all age groups, and nicotine dependence levels. Both, relying on social support and the use of behavioural interventions were more common among smokers who were female, higher educated, residing in the Western US region, and those who used pharmacological aids for smoking cessation. Social support and behavioural interventions are associated with higher intentions to quit among attempters who relapsed and thus, may aid future smoking cessation.

Introduction: Because of financial pressures, low-income individuals sometimes run out of cellphone service towards the end of the month.

Aims: To determine if the time of month affects ability to reach low-income smokers by telephone.

Methods: We reviewed data from a completed trial in the United States of emergency department (ED)-initiated tobacco dependence treatment for low-income smokers at a busy, academic ED in an urban community. We recorded the date of each one-month follow-up call, and divided each month into four time blocks: Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, and Week 4.

Results: A total of 2,049 phone calls were made to reach 769 participants. Of these calls, 677 (33%) resulted in contact; 88% of all participants were contacted. Using generalised estimating equations with Week 4 as reference, the odds of a successful contact at Weeks 1, 2, and 3 were, respectively, 1.52 (95% CI 1.18, 1.96), 1.30 (95% CI 1.01, 1.66), and 1.37 (95% CI 1.07, 1.76).

Conclusions: Study participants became progressively difficult to reach. This result may reflect low-income smokers’ decreased rates of active telephone service later in the month and suggests a mechanism to improve follow-up rates in future studies of low-income populations.

Background: Although the hospital inpatient setting arguably provides an ideal opportunity to engage patients in smoking cessation interventions, this is done infrequently. We therefore aimed to systematically review the perceived barriers to the implementation of smoking cessation interventions in the hospital inpatient setting.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted specific to hospital-based healthcare workers’ perceived barriers to implementing smoking cessation interventions. Reported barriers were categorised using the capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) framework.

Results: Eighteen studies were selected for inclusion, which consisted of cross-sectional surveys and interviews. The most commonly identified barrier in capability was lack of knowledge (56% of studies); in Opportunity, it was a lack of time (78%); while in Motivation, a lack of perceived patient motivation to quit smoking (44%). Seventeen other barriers were also endorsed, but less frequently.

Conclusion: Healthcare workers report a plethora of barriers to providing smoking cessation interventions in hospital settings, which cover all aspects of the COM-B framework. These impediments need to be addressed in a multidisciplinary approach, at clinical, educational, and administrative levels, to improve intervention provision.

Background: Lung cancer screening and tobacco treatment for patients at high-risk for lung cancer may greatly reduce mortality from smoking, and there is an urgent need to improve smoking cessation therapies for this population.

Aims: The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of two separate, sequential interventions to promote tobacco cessation/reduction compared to standard care in smokers considered high-risk for lung cancer.

Methods: The study will recruit 276 current smokers attending a lung cancer screening clinic or considered high-risk for lung cancer based on age and smoking history across two sites. Patients first will be randomized to either standard tobacco treatment (8 weeks of nicotine patch and five individual counselling sessions) or standard tobacco treatment plus personalized gain-framed messaging. At the 8-week visit, all patients will be re-randomized to receive biomarker feedback or no biomarker feedback. Repeated assessments during treatment will be used to evaluate changes in novel biomarkers: skin carotenoids, lung function, and plasma bilirubin that will be used for biomarker feedback. We hypothesize that personalized gain-framed messages and receiving biomarker feedback related to tobacco cessation/reduction will improve quit rates and prevent relapse compared to standard care. Primary outcomes include 7-day point-prevalence abstinence verified with expired carbon monoxide at 8 weeks and mean cigarettes per day in the past week at 6 months.

Conclusions: Study findings will inform the development of novel interventions for patients at risk for lung cancer to improve smoking cessation rates.