Little is known about the relative, additive, and interactive effects of different population-based treatments for smoking cessation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the main and interactive effects of five different smoking interventions. Using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST), 1,034 smokers who entered a Web site for smokers (smokefree.gov) were randomly assigned to the "on" and "off" conditions of five smoking cessation interventions: the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Web site (www.smokefree.gov vs a "lite" Web site), telephone quitline counseling (vs none), a smoking cessation brochure (vs a lite brochure), motivational e-mail messages (vs none), and mini-lozenge nicotine replacement therapy (NRT vs none). Analyses showed that the NCI Web site and NRT both increased abstinence; however, the former increased abstinence significantly only when it was not used with the e-mail messaging intervention (messaging decreased Web site use). The other interventions showed little evidence of effectiveness. There was evidence that mailed nicotine mini-lozenges and the NCI Web site (www.smokefree.gov) provide benefit as population-based smoking interventions.

Introduction The availability of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has profoundly changed the tobacco product landscape. In the United States, almost 6 million adults use both combustible and e-cigarettes (ie, dual users). The goal of this study was to understand how smokers and dual users differ in terms of demographics, cigarette dependence, and exposure to carcinogens. Methods An observational cohort (smokers, n = 166, ≥5 cigarettes/day for 6 months and no e-cigarette use in 3 months; dual users, n = 256, smoked daily for 3 months and used e-cigarettes at least once/week for the past 3 months) completed baseline assessments of demographics, tobacco use, and dependence. They also provided breath samples for carbon monoxide (CO) assay and urine samples for cotinine, 3-hydroxycotinine, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) assays. Results Compared to smokers, dual users (mean e-cigarette use = 5.5 days/week [SD = 1.9]) were significantly younger and more likely to be white, have more education, report a history of psychiatric co-morbidity, and smoke fewer cigarettes per day. There were no differences in CO, cotinine, or 3-hydroxycotinine levels; however, dual users had significantly lower levels of NNAL than did smokers. Most smokers and dual users had no plans to quit smoking within the next year; 91% of dual users planned to continue using e-cigarettes for at least the next year. Conclusions In this community sample, dual users are supplementing their smoking with e-cigarette use. Dual users, versus smokers, smoked fewer cigarettes per day and delayed their first cigarette of the day, but did not differ in quitting intentions. Implications This comparison of a community sample of established dual users and exclusive smokers addresses key questions of dependence and health risks of dual use in real-world settings. Dual users were more likely to be white, younger, have more than a high school education and have a psychiatric history. Dual users also smoked significantly fewer cigarettes and had lower levels of NNAL (a carcinogen), but they did not differ from exclusive smokers in CO or cotinine levels, suggesting that they supplemented their nicotine intake via e-cigarettes.

Combination NRT for 2 or 6 weeks increased 6-month abstinence rates by 10% and 13%, respectively, over rates produced by 2 weeks of nicotine patch when offered with quitline counseling. A 10% improvement would potentially yield an additional 50,000 quitters annually, assuming 500,000 callers to U.S. quitlines per year.

Introduction Low income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence amongst Medicaid recipients who smoke. Study Design 2-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking. Setting/Participants Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (WTQL; n=980). Intervention Participants were offered five quitline cessation calls and were encouraged to obtain cessation medication (covered by Medicaid). Only Incentive condition participants received compensation for taking counseling calls ($30 per call) and for biochemically-verified abstinence at the 6-month visit ($40). All participants received additional payment for completing a baseline assessment and a 6-month smoking test. Main Outcome Measures 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6-months post study entry and cost/quit. Results Incentive condition participants had significantly higher biochemically determined 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence rates 6 months after study induction than did Controls (21.6% vs. 13.8%, respectively: p<.0001). A positive treatment effect of incentives was present across other abstinence indices, but the size of effects and levels of abstinence varied considerably across indices. Incentive condition participants were also significantly more likely than non-incentivized Control participants to accept WTQL treatment calls and their acceptance of calls mediated their attainment of higher abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up. The cost/quit/participant averaged $4,268.26 for the Control participants and $3,601.37 for the Incentive participants. Conclusions This study shows that fairly moderate levels of incentive payments for treatment engagement and abstinence (a total possible payment of = $190) increased very low income smokers’ engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment.

Moderate incentive payments for smoking treatment engagement (a mean of ≈$214 paid) increased low-income pregnant smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record