title: A controlled trial of an expert system and self-help manual intervention based on the stages of change versus standard self-help materials in smoking cessation.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine the population impact and effectiveness of the Pro-Change smoking cessation course based on the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) compared to standard self-help smoking cessation literature.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty-five West Midlands general practices.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomly sampled patients recorded as smokers by their general practitioners received an invitation letter and 2471 current smokers agreed.
  
  
  METHODS
  Responders were randomized to one of four interventions. The control group received standard self-help literature. In the Manual intervention group, participants received the Pro-Change system, a self-help workbook and three questionnaires at 3-monthly intervals, which generated individually tailored feedback. In the Phone intervention group, participants received the Manual intervention plus three telephone calls. In the Nurse intervention group, participants received the Manual intervention plus three visits to the practice nurse.
  
  
  METHODS
  Biochemically confirmed point prevalence of being quit and 6-month sustained abstinence, 12 months after study commencement.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 9.1% of registered current smokers participated, of whom 83.0% were not ready to quit. Less than half of participants returned questionnaires to generate second and third individualized feedback. Telephone calls reached 75% of those scheduled, but few participants visited the nurse. There were small differences between the three Pro-Change arms. The odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) for all Pro-Change arms combined versus the control arm were 1.50 (0.85-2.67) and 1.53 (0.76-3.10), for point prevalence and 6-month abstinence, respectively. This constitutes 2.1% of the TTM group versus 1.4% of the control group achieving confirmed 6-month sustained abstinence.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was no statistically significant benefit of the intervention apparent in this trial and the high relapse of quitters means that any population impact is small.
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. p.n.aveyard@bham.ac.uk
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Aveyard
authors.forename: Carl
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Griffin
authors.forename: Terry
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Lawrence
authors.forename: K K
authors.initials: KK
authors.lastname: Cheng
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000465:Algorithms; D001521:Behavior Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D005194:Family Practice / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D015438:Health Behavior; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010353:Patient Education as Topic / Q000379:methods; D012648:Self Care / Q000379:methods*; D016540:Smoking Cessation / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D000074606:Smoking Prevention; D016896:Treatment Outcome