MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomised control trial was conducted on smokers in a factory. A total of 163 participants were recruited and randomised into control and intervention groups using a table of random numbers. The intervention group received a ten-minute brief physician counselling session to quit smoking. Stages of smoking behaviour were measured in both groups using a translated and validated questionnaire at baseline, one month and three months post intervention.
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in smoking behaviour at one-month post intervention (p=0.024, intention to treat analysis; OR=2.525; CI=1.109-5.747). This was not significant at three-month post intervention (p=0.946, intention to treat analysis; OR=1.026; 95% CI=0.486-2.168).
CONCLUSIONS: A session of brief physician counselling was effective in improving smokers' behaviour at workplace, but the effect was not sustained.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted among employees from 2 different public universities in Malaysia. Interventions include at least 2 sessions of behavioural therapy combined with free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 8 weeks. Participants were followed up for 6 months. Independent variables assessed were on sociodemographic and environmental tobacco smoke. Their quit status were determined at 1 week, 3 months and 6 months.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty- five smokers volunteered to participate. Among the participants, 15% and 13% sustained quit at 3 months and 6 months respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that at 6 months, attending all 3 behavioural sessions predicted success. None of the environmental tobacco exposure variables were predictive of sustained cessation.
CONCLUSION: Individual predictors of success in intra-workplace smoking cessation programmes do not differ from the conventional clinic-based smoking cessation. Furthermore, environmental tobacco exposure in low intensity smoke-free workplaces has limited influence on smokers who succeeded in maintaining 6 months quitting.
METHODS: Relative mortality and mortality rate advancement periods (RAPs) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models for the population-based prospective cohort studies from Europe and the U.S. (CHANCES [Consortium on Health and Ageing: Network of Cohorts in Europe and the U.S.]), and subsequently pooled by individual participant meta-analysis. Statistical analyses were performed from June 2013 to March 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 489,056 participants aged ≥60 years at baseline from 22 population-based cohort studies were included. Overall, 99,298 deaths were recorded. Current smokers had 2-fold and former smokers had 1.3-fold increased mortality compared with never smokers. These increases in mortality translated to RAPs of 6.4 (95% CI=4.8, 7.9) and 2.4 (95% CI=1.5, 3.4) years, respectively. A clear positive dose-response relationship was observed between number of currently smoked cigarettes and mortality. For former smokers, excess mortality and RAPs decreased with time since cessation, with RAPs of 3.9 (95% CI=3.0, 4.7), 2.7 (95% CI=1.8, 3.6), and 0.7 (95% CI=0.2, 1.1) for those who had quit <10, 10 to 19, and ≥20 years ago, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Smoking remains as a strong risk factor for premature mortality in older individuals and cessation remains beneficial even at advanced ages. Efforts to support smoking abstinence at all ages should be a public health priority.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from July to October 2016. All the 140 doctors in 12 public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur were invited to participate in this study. However, only 122 doctors (females, 82.8%) completed the self-administered questionnaire that assessed their demography, clinical experience, SCI practice and its barriers, self-efficacy in delivering and knowledge on smoking and SCI.
RESULTS: Only 42.6% of the doctors had good SCI practice. Almost all doctors assessed the smoking status of their patients (98.4%) and advised them to quit (98.4%). However, lesser proportions of the doctors followed up the practice of patients (50.0%), taught smokers on various methods of quit smoking (46.70%) and discussed about the barriers and resources to quit prior to the quit date (27.9%). Less than one-fourth of the doctors were confident in providing SCI. Although 69.7% had previous training in SCI, many felt they had inadequate knowledge (56.6%) and skills (47.5%). Only 11.5% of doctors thought their previous training was enough. Having higher level of knowledge on smoking and SCI was significantly associated with good SCI practice [adjusted Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Intervals): 1.21 (1.02, 1.43), p=0.026].
CONCLUSION: The SCI practiced by the primary care doctors in this study was sub-standard, particularly in assisting smokers to quit and arranging follow up. Low self-efficacy in providing SCI was also common. These inadequacies may be due to poor knowledge and skills, which needs to be improved through effective clinical training.