Objectives: This review aimed to identify free, high-quality, smoking cessation mobile applications (apps) that adhere to Australian smoking cessation treatment guidelines. Methods:A systematic search of smoking cessation apps was conducted using Google. The technical quality of relevant apps was rated using the Mobile Application Rating Scale. The content of apps identified as high quality was assessed for adherence to smoking cessation treatment guidelines.Results: 112 relevant apps were identified. The majority were of poor technical quality and only six 'high-quality' apps were identified. These apps adhered to Australian treatment guidelines in part. The efficacy of two apps had been previously evaluated. Conclusions:In lieu of more substantial research in this area, it is suggested that the highquality apps identified in this review may be more likely than other available apps to encourage smoking cessation. Implications for public health:Smoking cessation apps have the potential to address many barriers that prevent smoking cessation support being provided; however few high-quality smoking cessation apps are currently available in Australia, very few have been evaluated and the app market is extremely volatile. More research to evaluate smoking cessation apps, and sustained funding for evidence-based apps, is needed.

Participation in health risk behaviours among this sample was high. The setting of tertiary education and workplace training represents an opportunity for early intervention into risky health behaviours among young people. SO WHAT?: This study is the first to provide information on the prevalence of health risk behaviours and preferences for types of health promoting programs among students of an Australian community college. The results show that young adults regularly participate in multiple health risk behaviours, such as smoking, drinking, poor nutrition, physical activity and lack of sun protection.

Television advertisements, packaging regulations and health warning labels (HWLs) are designed to communicate anti-smoking messages to large number of smokers. However, only a few studies have examined how high smoking prevalence groups respond to these warnings. This study explored how socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers engage with health risk and cessation benefit messages. Six focus groups were conducted over September 2012-April 2013 with adult clients of welfare organizations in regional New South Wales, Australia who were current smokers (n = 51). Participants discussed HWLs, plain packaging and anti-smoking television advertisements. Discussions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Highly emotive warnings delivering messages of negative health effects were most likely to capture the attention of the study participants; however, these warning messages did not prompt quit attempts and participants were sceptical about the effectiveness of cessation programmes such as telephone quitlines. Active avoidance of health warning messages was common, and many expressed false and self-exempting beliefs towards the harms of tobacco. Careful consideration of message content and medium is required to communicate the anti-smoking message to disadvantaged smokers who consider themselves desensitized to warnings. Health communication strategies should continue to address false beliefs about smoking and educate on cessation services that are currently underutilized.

Client and staff perceptions and attitudes about the treatment of tobacco, particularly those relating telephone support and nicotine replacement therapy, provided information, which will inform the design of smoking cessation programs for addiction treatment populations. [Wilson AJ, Bonevski B., Dunlop A., Shakeshaft A, Tzelepis F., Walsberger S., Farrell M., Kelly PJ, Guillaumier A. 'The lesser of two evils': A qualitative study of staff and client experiences and beliefs about addressing tobacco in addiction treatment settings. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015].

Despite substantial modelling research assessing the impact of cigarette taxes on smoking rates across income groups, few studies have examined the broader financial effects and unintended consequences on very low-income smokers. This study explored how socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers in a high-income country manage smoking costs on limited budgets. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 smokers recruited from a welfare organization in NSW, Australia. Participants discussed perceived impact of tobacco costs on their essential household expenditure, smoking behaviour and quit cognitions. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Instances of smoking-induced deprivation and financial stress, such as going without meals, substituting food choices and paying bills late in order to purchase cigarettes were reported as routine experiences. Price-minimization strategies and sharing tobacco resources within social networks helped to maintain smoking. Participants reported tobacco price increases were good for preventing uptake, and that larger price rises and subsidized cessation aids were needed to help them quit. Socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers engage in behaviours that exacerbate deprivation to maintain smoking, despite the consequences. These data do not suggest a need to avoid tobacco taxation, rather a need to consider how better to assist socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers who struggle to quit.

ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in improving cessation rates and smoking related behaviour in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).DesignA systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.MethodsWe searched the following data sources: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to February 2016. A search of reference lists of included studies and Google Scholar (first 200 citations published online between 2000 and February 2016) was also undertaken. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). 2 study authors independently screened and extracted data with disagreements resolved via consensus.ResultsOf the 5167 studies identified, 3 were eligible and included in the review. Trial designs of included studies were 2 randomised controlled trials and 1 non-randomised controlled trial. 2 studies received a weak methodological rating and 1 received a moderate methodological rating. The trials examine the impact of the following interventions: (1) nurse delivered cognitive–behaviour therapy (CBT) via telephone and accompanied by a workbook, combined with pharmacotherapy; (2) nurse and physician brief advice to quit and information booklets combined with pharmacotherapy; and (3) surgeon delivered enhanced advice to quit smoking augmented by booster sessions. Only the trial of the nurse delivered CBT and pharmacotherapy reported significant increases in smoking cessation rates. 1 study measured quit attempts and the other assessed consumption of cigarettes per day and readiness to change. There was no significant improvement in quit attempts or cigarettes smoked per day among patients in the intervention groups, relative to control.ConclusionsThere are very few studies evaluating the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions that report results specific to the HNC population. The 3 trials identified reported equivocal findings. Extended CBT counselling coupled with pharmacotherapy may be effective.Trial registration numberCRD42016016421.

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) awareness, trial of e-cigarettes in the past 12 months,

Introduction The QuitNic pilot trial aimed to test the feasibility of providing a nicotine vaping product (NVP) compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers upon discharge from a smoke-free residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service. Methods QuitNic was a pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial. At discharge from residential withdrawal, 100 clients received telephone Quitline behavioural support and either 12-weeks supply of NRT, or an NVP. Treatment adherence and acceptability, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), frequency of cravings, and severity of withdrawal symptoms, were assessed at 6-weeks and 12-weeks. Results are reported for complete cases and for abstinence outcomes, Penalized Imputation results are reported where missing is assumed smoking. Results Retention was 63% at 6-weeks and 50% at 12-weeks. At 12-weeks, 68% of the NRT group reported using combination NRT while 96% of the NVP group used the device. Acceptability ratings for the products were high in both groups. At 12-weeks, 14% of the NVP group and 18% of the NRT group reported not smoking at all in the last 7 days. Mean CPD among continued smokers decreased significantly between baseline to 12-weeks in both groups; from 19.91 to 4.72 for the NVP group (p<0.001) and from 20.88 to 5.52 in the NRT group (p<0.001). Cravings and withdrawal symptoms significantly decreased for both groups. Conclusion Clients completing residential withdrawal readily engaged with smoking cessation post-treatment when given the opportunity. Further research is required to identify the most effective treatments post-withdrawal for this population at elevated risk of tobacco-related harm. IMPLICATIONS This pilot study showed that smoking cessation support involving options for nicotine replacement and Quitline-delivered cognitive behavioural counselling is attractive to people after they have been discharged from SUD treatment. Both nicotine vaping products and nicotine replacement therapies were highly acceptable and used by participants who reported reductions in cravings for cigarettes and perceptions of withdrawal symptoms and reductions in number of cigarettes smoked. Some participants self-reported abstinence from cigarettes - around one in five reported having quit smoking cigarettes at 12-weeks post-discharge. The results have significant public health implications for providing quit support following discharge from SUD treatment.