Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 08:47
Display Headline
Gradual vs abrupt smoking cessation: Each has its place
 

In the article by Smith et al, “ ‘Cold turkey’ works best for smoking cessation” (J Fam Pract. 2017;66:174-176), the authors highlighted a study by Lindson-Hawley et al showing that abrupt cessation was associated with higher quit rates than gradual cessation.1

While I agree with Smith et al’s assessment of abrupt cessation for patients in the preparation and action stages of change as created by DiClemente and Prochaska,2 most clinical patients are in the pre-contemplative and contemplative stages of change. A bias of the study was that all recruited participants were willing to quit within 2 weeks.

A systematic review by the same authors (Lindson-Hawley et al) compared gradual reduction of smoking with abrupt cessation and found comparable quit rates.3 Smith et al commented that the reason for this conclusion was limitations in the studies, including differences in patient populations, outcome definitions, and types of interventions.

Because a large subset of clinical patients are in the pre-contemplative and contemplative stages of change, I believe gradual cessation remains an important technique to use while patients transition their beliefs.

Jeff Ebel, DO
Toledo, Ohio

 

 

 

Author’s response:

I appreciate Dr. Ebel’s input and perspective. My co-authors and I acknowledge that the previous systematic review noted comparable quit rates, but there were significant limitations to the studies, which Dr. Ebel noted. The highlight from the 2016 randomized, controlled trial by Lindson-Hawley et al is that patients are more likely to quit from abrupt cessation, even if they initially prefer gradual cessation. As Dr. Ebel notes (and we highlighted in the PURL), our role as family physicians is to inform patients of the data, but support them in whatever method of cessation they choose.

Dustin K. Smith, DO
Jacksonville, Fla.

References

1. Lindson-Hawley N, Banting M, West R, et al. Gradual versus abrupt smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:585-592.

2. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO. Self-change and therapy change of smoking behavior: a comparison of processes of change in cessation and maintenance. Addict Behav. 1982;7:133-142.

3. Lindson-Hawley N, Aveyard P, Hughes JR. Reduction versus abrupt cessation in smokers who want to quit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008033.

Article PDF
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 66(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
419
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
 

In the article by Smith et al, “ ‘Cold turkey’ works best for smoking cessation” (J Fam Pract. 2017;66:174-176), the authors highlighted a study by Lindson-Hawley et al showing that abrupt cessation was associated with higher quit rates than gradual cessation.1

While I agree with Smith et al’s assessment of abrupt cessation for patients in the preparation and action stages of change as created by DiClemente and Prochaska,2 most clinical patients are in the pre-contemplative and contemplative stages of change. A bias of the study was that all recruited participants were willing to quit within 2 weeks.

A systematic review by the same authors (Lindson-Hawley et al) compared gradual reduction of smoking with abrupt cessation and found comparable quit rates.3 Smith et al commented that the reason for this conclusion was limitations in the studies, including differences in patient populations, outcome definitions, and types of interventions.

Because a large subset of clinical patients are in the pre-contemplative and contemplative stages of change, I believe gradual cessation remains an important technique to use while patients transition their beliefs.

Jeff Ebel, DO
Toledo, Ohio

 

 

 

Author’s response:

I appreciate Dr. Ebel’s input and perspective. My co-authors and I acknowledge that the previous systematic review noted comparable quit rates, but there were significant limitations to the studies, which Dr. Ebel noted. The highlight from the 2016 randomized, controlled trial by Lindson-Hawley et al is that patients are more likely to quit from abrupt cessation, even if they initially prefer gradual cessation. As Dr. Ebel notes (and we highlighted in the PURL), our role as family physicians is to inform patients of the data, but support them in whatever method of cessation they choose.

Dustin K. Smith, DO
Jacksonville, Fla.

 

In the article by Smith et al, “ ‘Cold turkey’ works best for smoking cessation” (J Fam Pract. 2017;66:174-176), the authors highlighted a study by Lindson-Hawley et al showing that abrupt cessation was associated with higher quit rates than gradual cessation.1

While I agree with Smith et al’s assessment of abrupt cessation for patients in the preparation and action stages of change as created by DiClemente and Prochaska,2 most clinical patients are in the pre-contemplative and contemplative stages of change. A bias of the study was that all recruited participants were willing to quit within 2 weeks.

A systematic review by the same authors (Lindson-Hawley et al) compared gradual reduction of smoking with abrupt cessation and found comparable quit rates.3 Smith et al commented that the reason for this conclusion was limitations in the studies, including differences in patient populations, outcome definitions, and types of interventions.

Because a large subset of clinical patients are in the pre-contemplative and contemplative stages of change, I believe gradual cessation remains an important technique to use while patients transition their beliefs.

Jeff Ebel, DO
Toledo, Ohio

 

 

 

Author’s response:

I appreciate Dr. Ebel’s input and perspective. My co-authors and I acknowledge that the previous systematic review noted comparable quit rates, but there were significant limitations to the studies, which Dr. Ebel noted. The highlight from the 2016 randomized, controlled trial by Lindson-Hawley et al is that patients are more likely to quit from abrupt cessation, even if they initially prefer gradual cessation. As Dr. Ebel notes (and we highlighted in the PURL), our role as family physicians is to inform patients of the data, but support them in whatever method of cessation they choose.

Dustin K. Smith, DO
Jacksonville, Fla.

References

1. Lindson-Hawley N, Banting M, West R, et al. Gradual versus abrupt smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:585-592.

2. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO. Self-change and therapy change of smoking behavior: a comparison of processes of change in cessation and maintenance. Addict Behav. 1982;7:133-142.

3. Lindson-Hawley N, Aveyard P, Hughes JR. Reduction versus abrupt cessation in smokers who want to quit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008033.

References

1. Lindson-Hawley N, Banting M, West R, et al. Gradual versus abrupt smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:585-592.

2. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO. Self-change and therapy change of smoking behavior: a comparison of processes of change in cessation and maintenance. Addict Behav. 1982;7:133-142.

3. Lindson-Hawley N, Aveyard P, Hughes JR. Reduction versus abrupt cessation in smokers who want to quit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008033.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 66(7)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 66(7)
Page Number
419
Page Number
419
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Gradual vs abrupt smoking cessation: Each has its place
Display Headline
Gradual vs abrupt smoking cessation: Each has its place
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
PubMed ID
28700765
Disqus Comments
Default
Article PDF Media