Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28097016›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2017

Smoking treatment optimisation in pharmacies (STOP): a cluster randomised pilot trial of a training intervention.

V W Madurasinghe, Ratna Sohanpal, Wai James, Liz Steed, Sandra Eldridge, Sjc Taylor, C Griffiths, Robert Walton

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

V W MadurasingheCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK ; Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit (PCTU), Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Ratna SohanpalCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Wai JamesCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Liz SteedCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Sandra EldridgeCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Sjc TaylorCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
C GriffithsCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Robert WaltonCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK ; Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit (PCTU), Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK.
Barts Health NHS Trust · GBDepartment of Public Health · US

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0609-10181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUK government policy aims to strengthen the role of community pharmacies in health promotion. Thus, we conducted feasibility studies for an intervention to enhance delivery of the NHS Smoking Cessation Service.

methodsThe overall aims were to assess acceptability and feasibility of conducting the intervention in community pharmacies and piloting this with a cluster randomised trial. Specific objectives were (1) to estimate likely participation rates of pharmacies and stop smoking advisors, (2) to establish the potential impact of the training intervention on throughput and retention of smokers in smoking services, (3) to establish potential impact on smoking cessation outcomes, (4) to optimise logistics for conducting a cluster randomised trial in the next phase of the research programme and (5) to consider the feasibility of collecting pharmacy and service user data. In this cluster randomised parallel group pilot trial, 12 community pharmacies in East London were allocated to intervention or usual practice using simple randomisation (allocation ratio 2:1). Data were analysed descriptively.

resultsTwelve of 54 (22.2%, 95% CI 12.0% to 35.6%) pharmacies and 20 of 23 (87.0%, 95% CI 66.4% to 97.2%) advisors invited, agreed to participate. Over 5 months, 302 smokers in intervention pharmacies (mean per pharmacy 43.1, 95% CI: -4.3 to 90.5) and 319 in usual practice pharmacies (mean per pharmacy 79.8, 95% CI: 19.0 to 140.5) joined the service. 51 of 621 smokers (6.3% in intervention vs 10.0% in usual practice) consented to provide additional data on smoking cessation. 17 of 19 smokers that consented were retained at 4 weeks in intervention arm (89.5%, 95% CI: 66.9% to 98.7%) and 24 of 32 in usual practice (75.0%, 95% CI: 56.6% to 88.5%). 10 of 19 in the intervention arm (52.6%, 95% CI: 28.9% to 75.6%) stopped smoking compared to 7 of 32 in usual practice arm (21.9%, 95% CI: 9.3% to 40.0%). The pilot was useful in providing insights on how best to conduct the definitive trial and shortcomings of our present logistical arrangements, including feasibility of collecting pharmacy and service user data.

conclusionsRecruitment rates show that the main trial is feasible, and the results suggest that the intervention may improve retention and quit rates in smoking cessation services. We gained insights on how best to conduct the definitive trial which will proceed as planned.

Indexed as

Cluster randomisedCommunity pharmaciesPilot trialRCTSmoking cessationTraining intervention

Identifiers

PMID28097016
PMCPMC5225568
OpenAlexW2571091025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.