DESIGN: Use of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project surveys of smokers, using the 2007 survey wave (or later, where necessary).
SETTINGS: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay and United States.
PARTICIPANTS: Samples of smokers from 15 countries.
MEASUREMENTS: Self-report on use of cessation aids and on visits to health professionals and provision of cessation advice during the visits.
FINDINGS: Prevalence of quit attempts in the last year varied from less than 20% to more than 50% across countries. Similarly, smokers varied greatly in reporting visiting health professionals in the last year (<20% to over 70%), and among those who did, provision of advice to quit also varied greatly. There was also marked variability in the levels and types of help reported. Use of medication was generally more common than use of behavioural support, except where medications are not readily available.
CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation across countries in rates of attempts to stop smoking and use of assistance with higher overall use of medication than behavioural support. There is also wide variation in the provision of brief advice to stop by health professionals.
METHODS: Data among former and current adult smokers aged 18 and older came from contemporaneous Global Adult Tobacco Surveys (2008-2011) and the International Tobacco Control Surveys (2009-2013) conducted in eight LMICs (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand and Uruguay). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of successful quitting in the past year by SES indicators (household income/wealth, education, employment status, and rural-urban residence) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression controlling for socio-demographics and average tobacco product prices. A random effects meta-analysis was used to combine the estimates of AORs pooled across countries and two concurrent surveys for each country.
RESULTS: Estimated quit rates among smokers (both daily and occasional) varied widely across countries. Meta-analysis of pooled AORs across countries and data sources indicated that there was no clear evidence of an association between SES indicators and successful quitting. The only exception was employed smokers, who were less likely to quit than their non-employed counterparts, which included students, homemakers, retirees, and the unemployed (pooled AOR≈0.8, p<0.10).
CONCLUSION: Lack of clear evidence of the impact of lower SES on adult cessation behaviour in LMICs suggests that lower-SES smokers are not less successful in their attempts to quit than their higher-SES counterparts. Specifically, lack of employment, which is indicative of younger age and lower nicotine dependence for students, or lower personal disposable income and lower affordability for the unemployed and the retirees, may be associated with quitting. Raising taxes and prices of tobacco products that lowers affordability of tobacco products might be a key strategy for inducing cessation behaviour among current smokers and reducing overall tobacco consumption. Because low-SES smokers are more sensitive to price increases, tobacco taxation policy can induce disproportionately larger decreases in tobacco consumption among them and help reduce socio-economic disparities in smoking and consequent health outcomes.
METHODS: We observed 70 SUs and 148 DUs for 52 weeks and tested their exhaled carbon monoxide and saliva cotinine to confirm their complete nicotine cessation status through cotinine in saliva. Safety issues were to be identified through self-report. Smoking cessation, CCs reduction of ≥ 50%, and relapsed to CCs smoking and safety issues were also documented.
RESULTS: The nicotine cessation rate was higher in SUs then DUs (15.9% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.048; 95% CI (2.328-0.902). A similar result for smoking cessation (34.8% SUs vs. 17.1% DUs; P = 0.005; 95% CI: 2.031-0.787), whereas CCs ≥ 50% reduction was 23.3% DUs vs 21.7% SUs (P = 0.863; 95% CI :1.020-0.964). Relapse to CC smoking was 47.3% in DUs versus 30.4% in SUs (P = 0.026; 95% CI: 1.555-0.757). The adverse effects reported were coughing and breathing problems, whereas craving smoking was documented as a major withdrawal symptom. Smoking-related diseases were also identified, five in DUs and two in SUs, during the one-year study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Study showed SUs achieved higher complete nicotine and smoking cessation rates as compared to DUs. However, the rates of reduced CC use were not different between both the groups. No serious adverse effects related to the sole use of ECs were detected. However, the safety of the sole use of ECs in absolute terms needs to be further validated in different populations.