The impact of a brief cessation induction intervention for waterpipe tobacco smoking: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Background Waterpipe (WP) tobacco smoking delivers many of the same harmful toxicants as cigarette smoking and is on the rise in the US. This study evaluated the feasibility and initial efficacy of a brief personalized feedback intervention in affecting changes in WP smoking among current WP smokers. Methods Participants (N=109) were recruited as they entered WP lounges and completed a questionnaire and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing before entering the WP lounge. Participants were cluster-randomized to assessment-only control (AOC) or intervention conditions. The intervention condition received health risk information and personalized feedback on pre- and post-WP session eCO levels. Participants completed a survey at the end of the WP session and at 3-month follow-up. Results Compared to control, the intervention was effective in increasing knowledge of WP-related harms, correcting risk perceptions, increasing importance of quitting WP smoking, and increasing confidence in ability to quit WP smoking at post-WP session (p<.05). Differences were maintained for knowledge of WP-related harms, risk perceptions, and commitment to quitting WP at 3-month follow-up; however, no significant difference (p>.05) was observed in WP smoking (i.e., days smoked and number of WPs smoked) at 3-month follow-up between the intervention (M=3.97 days, SD=9.83; M=6.45 bowls, SD=19.60) and control conditions (M=3.32 days, SD=5.24; M=3.49 bowls, SD=5.10). Conclusions The current research supports the use of personalized feedback as a useful intervention method to increase commitment to quit WP, but suggests more intensive interventions may be necessary to achieve WP cessation.

Using intervention mapping for hookah smoking cessation: a quasi-experimental evaluation

“…Similar to the present findings, another study reported a two-fold rate of cessation in the intervention group compared with the control [ 53 ]. Contrary to the present findings, no statistically significant difference was found in some other investigations between the intervention and control groups regarding the rate of hookah cessation [ 54 , 55 ]. This divergence can be partly due to the type of training intervention, duration of intervention, sample size, and characteristics of the target population.…”

Immune modulation by chronic exposure to waterpipe smoke and immediate-early gene regulation in murine lungs

“…Epidemiological studies have shown that WP smoking is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases,6 cancer (lung, oesophageal, head and neck, and gastric),7–10 metabolic syndrome11 and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 12. An additional health risk that is of particular concern for young adults is nicotine dependence, and similar to any other tobacco product is represented in WP smokers by substance addiction behaviours 13–19. In agreement with the health risks identified to date, analytical examination of the components in WP smoke include a mixture of chemicals with known or suspected disease-causative agents that closely resemble those found in cigarette smoke (CS), and in many cases at higher concentrations 20 21.…”

Varenicline versus placebo for waterpipe smoking cessation: a double‐blind randomized controlled trial

“…Two of the three trials in a recent Cochrane review reported on the effect of individual behavioural support—one found it to be effective . Two other small RCTs—not eligible for inclusion in the above review—did not show any statistically significant effect of behavioural support in waterpipe smokers . We also observed fewer gastrointestinal symptoms in the varenicline arm than the previous trials.…”