Nicotine Replacement Therapy Without Counselling Less Effective: Presented at SRNT
Unregistered User
If this is not your name, click here.
Contact Us | Order Now | Journals | Bookstore | Register a colleague
 
  SEARCH  
News
Bookstore
Medline
The Web
Meetings & Congresses
Complete Doctor's Guide
 


 EXPLORE :
 news  All News
 webcasts All Webcasts
 All cases All Cases
 Meetings All Meetings & Congresses
 Medical All Medical Resources

top





New drugs / indications

English Dictionary

Medical Dictionary

Thesaurus



Warning | Privacy | Awards



 Favourite Journals 

Click here to choose your favourite journals


 Favourite Sites 

Click here to choose your favourite sites


 Languages 



  




Nicotine Replacement Therapy Without Counselling Less Effective: Presented at SRNT

By Liz Meszaros

BALTIMORE, Md -- February 28, 2010 -- Using nicotine replacement products (NRP) without professional counselling to accompany therapy may not be as effective as NRP plus counselling for patients who wish to quit smoking, according to a study published here on February 26 at the 2010 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Annual Meeting.

“From a public health perspective, nicotine replacement therapy without professional counselling may, in fact, be counterproductive or less cost-effective than tobacco control policies such as taxation, smoke-free policies and designations, and product and packaging regulations,” said Hillel Alpert, ScM, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Dr. Alpert and colleagues culled results from a longitudinal random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted in 2001, 2003, and 2005 in adults living in Massachusetts. In all, 787 individuals were included at baseline.

At first follow-up, 321 individuals reported that they had quit smoking in the past 2 years.

Outcome measures were relapse at first and second follow-up interviews, and the main predictor variable was self-reported NRP use for at least 6 weeks in the quit attempt with or without professional counselling. Length of abstinence, heavy dependence, age, gender, education, and race were all controlled for with analyses.

Self-reported NRP use did not affect the likelihood of relapse between baseline and first follow-up with or without counselling by a professional (P = .995 and P = .446, respectively).

The likelihood of relapse was lower in individuals who reported abstinence of 6 months or more at baseline (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.60). Likelihood of relapse was higher in patients who had a heavy dependence (OR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.11-3.58).

Relapse between the first and second follow-up interviews was more likely in patients who used NRP without professional counselling (OR = 7.78; 95% CI, 1.24-48.6). Relapse was not affected by NRP use with professional counselling (P = .425).

[Presentation title: Smoking Relapse and Use of Nicotine Replacement Products. Abstract POS3-19]

E-mail this page
to a friend or colleague!
To print,
use this version




Any question regarding a medical diagnosis, treatment, referral, drug availability or pricing should be directed to either a licensed physician or to the product's manufacturer.

If you have any technical questions or other concerns about this site, feel free to contact us at webmaster@docguide.com.

All contents Copyright (c) 1995- Doctor's Guide Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.


Employment opportunities | Partnering opportunities