Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35761321›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2022

STOP- a training intervention to optimise treatment for smoking cessation in community pharmacies: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Sandra Jumbe, Vichithranie W Madurasinghe, Wai Yee James, Colin Houlihan, Samantha L Jumbe, Tammy Yau, Florian Tomini, Sandra Eldridge, Borislava Mihaylova, Liz Steed and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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

15 authors.

Sandra JumbeCentre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK. s.jumbe@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6624-1689
Vichithranie W MadurasingheNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7L, UK.
Wai Yee JamesWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Colin HoulihanWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Samantha L JumbeWessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, Odstock Rd., Salisbury, SP2 8BJ, UK.
Tammy YauUC Davis Medical Center, 2315 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA.
Florian TominiCentre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Sandra EldridgeAsthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Borislava MihaylovaCentre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Liz SteedAsthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Ratna SohanpalWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Darush AttarNorth Central London CCG (Barnet Borough), Treating Tobacco Dependence National Trainer, Laycock Street, London, N1 1TH, UK.
Stephanie J C TaylorWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Chris GriffithsAsthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
Robert WaltonWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity pharmacies serve people with high levels of tobacco-related illness, but throughput in NHS Stop Smoking Services in pharmacies remains relatively low. We investigated the effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase service uptake and retention.

methodsWe randomised 60 pharmacies in England and Wales to the STOP intervention or usual practice in a pragmatic, parallel-group, controlled trial over 11 months. Smokers were blind to the allocation. The intervention was theory-based consultation skills training for pharmacy staff with environmental prompts (badges, calendars and behavioural cues). The primary outcome was the number of smokers attending an initial consultation and setting a quit date.

resultsThe intervention made no significant difference in setting a quit date, retention or quit rate. A total of 631 adult smokers (service users) enrolled and set a quit date in intervention pharmacies compared to 641 in usual practice pharmacies, a rate ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23) adjusted for site and number of prescriptions. A total of 432 (68%) service users were retained at 4 weeks in intervention and 500 (78%) in usual practice pharmacies (odds ratio 0.80, 0.41 to 1.55). A total of 265 (42%) service users quit smoking at 4 weeks in intervention and 276 (43%) in usual practice pharmacies (0.96, 0.65 to 1.43). The pharmacy staff were positive about the intervention with 90% (56/62) stating that it had improved their skills. Sixty-eight per cent would strongly recommend the training to others although there was no difference in self-efficacy for service delivery between arms. Seventy of 131 (53%) service users did not complete the 6-month follow-up assessment. However, 55/61 (90%) service users who completed follow-up were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. All usual practice arm service users (n = 33) and all but one in the intervention arm (n = 27) would recommend the service to smokers.

conclusionsWe found high levels of retention and acceptable quit rates in the NHS pharmacy stop smoking service. Despite pharmacy staff providing positive feedback on the STOP intervention, it made no difference to service throughput. Thus, other factors may currently limit service capacity to help smokers to quit.

trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN16351033 . Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

PharmaciesSmoking CessationAdultHumansSelf EfficacySmokersSmoking

Identifiers

PMID35761321
PMCPMC9238035

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.