ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2025
Real-World Effectiveness of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Sampling in Chinese Women of a Sex-Specific Smoking Cessation Program in Hong Kong, China.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling has been shown effective in increasing smoking abstinence by trials, but the real-world effectiveness in women is unknown. We examined the effectiveness of 1-week NRT sampling combined with counseling on smoking abstinence in Chinese women. AIMS AND
methodsA prospective study was conducted on 545 Chinese women (mean age: 37.7 years) receiving nurse-delivered smoking cessation counseling from the Women Quit program in Hong Kong from 2006 to 2023. 1-week free NRT sampling was offered to all participants. Participants were categorized based on NRT usage at 1 month: non-users (n = 255), users of < 1 week (n = 112), and 1-week users (n = 178). The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence of abstinence (PPA) at 6 months.
resultsCompared with non-users receiving counseling alone, 1-week users had higher 7-day PPA at 3- (aRR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.20) and 6-month (aRR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.29 to 2.25), higher 60-day (aRR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.33) and 150-day continuous abstinence (aRR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.20), and higher smoking reduction rates at 3- (aRR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.27 to 2.17) and 6-month (aRR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.02) follow-ups. Users of < 1 week had similar smoking abstinence and reduction rates compared with non-users (all p > .05). Higher 7-day PPA at 6 months of 1-week users was observed in lower versus higher education and income (both p for interaction < 0.05).
conclusionsThe evidence presented suggests the real-world effectiveness of 1-week NRT sampling combined with counseling for increasing smoking abstinence and reduction rates in women. This implies that encouraging sampling of NRT will improve smoking cessation outcomes, particularly for women of low socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS: We found that using 1-week NRT sampling combined with counseling was associated with higher smoking abstinence and reduction rates compared with counseling alone in women receiving a quitline service. We also found that women with socioeconomic disadvantages and older age benefited more from the use of 1-week NRT sampling. These findings highlight the importance of offering and promoting the use of 1-week NRT sampling as part of smoking cessation programs for women, particularly those with lower socioeconomic status, potentially to narrow cessation disparities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.