Introduction

There are now more former cigarette smokers than current smokers in the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 2014). For more than a decade, national surveillance data on smoking cessation have revealed a similar pattern, with modest improvement—two-thirds of adult cigarette smokers indicate a desire to quit, and just over half try to quit each year; however, less than 10% of smokers who try to quit succeed in quitting for 6 months or longer (Babb et al. 2017). A large body of evidence highlights the efficacy of multiple treatments that can double or triple the rate of success in quitting smoking (Fiore et al. 2008; Prochaska and Benowitz 2016). This chapter reviews both evidence-based and emerging potential treatments for smoking cessation.

Current evidence-based treatment approaches to smoking cessation include several behavioral treatments—such as individual, group, and telephone counseling—and seven pharmacotherapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These treatments have been shown to be effective when delivered across a wide variety of settings, via several platforms, and to a diversity of populations—including groups that have been disproportionately impacted by tobacco use, such as low-income populations, and populations with other comorbid medical conditions, including behavioral health conditions (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] 2015). Evidence indicates that the combined use of both behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapies produces the largest cessation effects (Fiore et al. 2008; Stead and Lancaster 2012a; Stead et al. 2015), but the evidence also indicates that several of these treatments are effective when used alone (Fiore et al. 2008; Cahill et al. 2013; USPSTF 2015; Lancaster and Stead 2017).

The cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation has been documented extensively (Jha et al. 2015) (see Chapter 5. The Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Overall Morbidity and Economic Costs). For example, Maciosek and colleagues (2017a,^b) assessed the potential impact of 28 evidence-based clinical preventive services in terms of their cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden (measured by quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] saved). The assessment, which included clinical preventive services for a variety of different risk factors, found that two of the three highest ranking preventive services were related to tobacco, including (a) tobacco use screening and a brief counseling intervention to encourage cessation among adults and (b) counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among youth.

Data indicate that despite the availability of evidence-based treatments to achieve smoking cessation, less than one-third of adult cigarette smokers who attempt to quit use any type of cessation counseling and/or FDA-approved cessation medication (Babb et al. 2017). Furthermore, undertreatment is common among smokers who use cessation treatments; rates of relapse are high (above 50%) (García-Rodríguez et al. 2013); and most smokers attempt to quit without using treatment (i.e., they try to quit unassisted or “cold turkey”), with success rates of approximately 7–8% (Fiore and Jaen 2008; Prochaska and Benowitz 2016; Babb et al. 2017; Caraballo et al. 2017). Unaided quitting likely remains common for a number of reasons, including the frequent lack of health insurance among tobacco users (nearly 30% of adult cigarette smokers are uninsured [Jamal et al. 2018]); inadequate public and private insurance coverage of cessation treatments (DiGiulio et al. 2018); inadequate and cumbersome reimbursement for cessation treatments offered by clinicians and hospitals (Fiore et al. 2008); inadequate promotion of cessation treatments to smokers and healthcare providers, which can contribute to low use of these treatments (Fiore et al. 2008); the widespread perception that quitting cold turkey is at least as effective as quitting with the help of counseling and/or medication (Fiore et al. 2008); underfunding of state tobacco quitlines and other cessation services (USDHHS 2014; Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 2018); and inadequate integration of tobacco use screening and cessation interventions into routine clinical care (Babb et al. 2017). In addition, because of a lack of specialized training about nicotine dependence and treatment, many clinicians report being hesitant to engage patients in conversations about cessation because they feel they lack the requisite knowledge to do so effectively (Zapka et al. 1999; Simoyan et al. 2002; Blumenthal 2007).

In the past, the tobacco industry has spread the misconceptions that smoking is a personal choice or simply a bad habit, that quitting is a matter of willpower, and that addiction to nicotine is akin to being addicted to caffeine (Henningfield et al. 2006). These messages have contributed to most smokers trying to quit through sheer determination instead of combining a strong motivation to quit with the use of evidence-based cessation treatments. The reality is that nicotine is addictive, and smoking is not merely a habit (USDHHS 1988). Although habitual components of smoking reinforce use, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, like heroin and cocaine (USDHHS 1988, 2014), and nicotine addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition. Although a majority of smokers in the United States who quit successfully do so without assistance, smokers who use medication and/or behavioral support as part of a quit attempt substantially increase their chances of quitting (Fiore et al. 2008). The conceptualization of nicotine dependence as a chronic, relapsing condition is not new (Fiore et al. 2008), but it has led to reframing the delivery of smoking cessation treatment as “chronic disease management,” which in turn has given rise to more systematic approaches to delivering nicotine dependence treatment in healthcare settings (Steinberg et al. 2008; Foulds et al. 2010).

Literature Review Methods

This chapter reviews the evidence base for current and potential emerging treatments for smoking cessation, adding to research from the U.S. Public Health Service’s Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update (hereafter referred to as the Clinical Practice Guideline) (Fiore et al. 2008). It also explores approaches to increase the impact of smoking cessation treatments through improved efficacy and increased reach. The impact of a smoking cessation intervention is a function of effectiveness (i.e., success as measured in sustained quit rates of, for example, greater than 6 months) multiplied by reach (i.e., the proportion of the population of smokers engaged in treatment). Importantly, interventions that increase reach (i.e., those that are more broadly available and accessible to people, have greater appeal, and are therefore more widely used) may sacrifice efficacy or intensity, while interventions that are more intensive and more effective may have limited reach (Glasgow et al. 2011; Zhu et al. 2012). Given the reality of funding constraints, most states, healthcare systems, and other stake-holders do not have the option of maximizing both the effectiveness and reach of cessation treatments; in practice, they have to balance these approaches.

For this chapter, 38 Cochrane reviews were examined in early 2017. Additional literature searches of English-language articles in PubMed were used to identify new literature published since the original Cochrane reviews. Searches were primarily restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of smoking cessation interventions using the terms smoking cessation and randomized controlled trial. In areas where RCTs were not available, the chapter discusses the available science and identifies areas that lacked depth of evidence from RCTs. Consistent with previous Surgeon General’s reports on tobacco, the content in this report was revised throughout the review process to include studies and information not available at the time the chapters were initially drafted, most notably for topics in which the available science is rapidly emerging (e.g., electronic cigarettes [e-cigarettes]) (King et al. 2018a).

Data reviewed in this chapter are overwhelmingly drawn from studies of adult cigarette smoking cessation, as opposed to cessation of other forms of tobacco products (e.g., cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco, hookah, and e-cigarettes). The paucity of research on cessation treatments for noncigarette tobacco products does not allow for a separate and comprehensive scientific evaluation of such treatments.

This chapter is divided into seven sections: behavioral and psychological treatments, pharmacologic treatments, teachable moments, considerations for subpopulations, emerging intervention approaches, summary of the evidence, and conclusions.

Behavioral and Psychological Treatments

Notable discoveries in the behavioral and social sciences have broadened and deepened understanding of psychosocial influences on the nature and treatment of nicotine dependence, which has given rise to new approaches to behavioral treatment. It has become clear that, as acute nicotine withdrawal dissipates as the length of the quit attempt increases, several factors—including intermittent negative emotional states, repeated urges to smoke, diminished motivation, and decreased self-efficacy about quitting—can persist throughout the cessation process and undermine quitting (Liu et al. 2013; Ussher et al. 2013). Furthermore, encountering environments and situations previously associated with smoking, such as going to establishments that serve alcohol or interacting with friends who smoke, has been shown to increase risk of relapse (Conklin et al. 2013). Intensive behavioral cessation treatment models for smokers with mental health conditions and substance use disorders that have been adapted to address these factors have been shown to improve quit rates (Das and Prochaska 2017).

Behavioral and psychological strategies that have been shown to be effective in treating tobacco use and nicotine dependence include behavioral therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Sykes and Marks 2001; Fiore et al. 2008; Perkins et al. 2008), motivational interviewing (Lindson-Hawley et al. 2015), acceptance and commitment therapy (Bricker et al. 2013), and contingency management or incentive-based interventions (which have been found to be effective while incentives are in place) (Cahill et al. 2015). These strategies can be individual- or group-based and can vary in intensity (from brief to more intensive) and in the mode of delivery (e.g., delivery by a clinician, counselor, telephone, or computer). Most research on behavioral treatments has considered packages of multiple treatment elements instead of comparing one element with another (e.g., studies of treatment optimization), making a review of each treatment approach challenging (Piper et al. 2016). In general, the data show a robust dose-response curve, with more intensive behavioral and psychological treatments (e.g., higher amounts of contact time, more sessions) yielding greater odds of sustained cessation (Fiore et al. 2008; USPSTF 2015).

Intervention Delivery Modalities

Research demonstrates that behavioral therapy approaches for smoking cessation can be delivered effectively through face-to-face counseling (individually or in groups) and brief clinical interventions (Fiore et al. 2008); and technology-mediated approaches, including telephone-based tobacco quitlines, mHealth, short message service (SMS) texts, web-based interventions, and smart-phone applications; and, under certain circumstances, tailored self-help materials (The Community Guide 2011b, ^2012b; Whittaker et al. 2012; Stead et al. 2013b, ²⁰¹⁷; Lancaster and Stead 2017).

Self-Help Materials

In general, self-help materials for smoking cessation that are not tailored to a particular person or group have limited effectiveness when they are not coupled with in-person or technology-based interventions (Fiore et al. 2008). In a review of behavioral counseling interventions for tobacco cessation among adults, Patnode and colleagues (2015) did not find evidence of increased cessation in a comparison between nontailored self-help materials and no self-help materials. However, tailored self-help materials that are based on specific characteristics or concerns of smokers have been shown to be effective (Fiore et al. 2008; Patnode et al. 2013). Additionally, a Cochrane Review found some efficacy for tailored self-help materials in print, audio, and video forms compared with non-tailored materials, but the absolute size of the effect was small (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18–1.37), and the review did not examine Internet-based materials (Hartmann-Boyce et al. 2014). Still, an effect size of 1.28 can be consequential given how inexpensive tailored self-help materials are relative to cessation medications or multisession counseling. The Cochrane Review also concluded that, although tailored self-help materials may offer some benefit, smokers trying to quit should also seek out more intensive cessation treatments.

Face-to-Face Counseling

Face-to-face counseling—whether delivered in traditional healthcare settings, behavioral healthcare settings, or community settings—has traditionally been the gold standard for behavioral treatment of nicotine dependence, and its effectiveness is well-established in the scientific literature (Fiore et al. 2008). Noting substantial variability in the specific content of counseling delivered and in the skills of those delivering the counseling, the Clinical Practice Guideline concluded that individual in-person counseling achieved an average abstinence rate for cigarette smoking of 16.8%, compared with 10.8% for the control conditions (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4–2.0) (Fiore et al. 2008). In contrast, in-person group counseling achieved a 13.9% abstinence rate (OR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1–1.6).

In a Cochrane Review, Lancaster and Stead (2017) assessed the effectiveness of intensive counseling delivered by a cessation counselor on a one-on-one basis. All 49 RCTs they reviewed, which included approximately 19,000 participants combined, contained a face-to-face intervention component; however, some trials also included the use of other behavioral intervention modalities. The review concluded that individual counseling was more effective than minimal contact (brief advice, usual care, or self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not systematically offered to any participants (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40–1.77). Additionally, there was moderate evidence of a benefit for (a) the addition of intensive counseling (vs. usual care) when cessation pharmacotherapy was offered to all participants (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01–1.51) and (b) more intensive counseling compared with brief counseling (with or without the addition of cessation pharmacotherapy) (RR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09–1.53).

Brief Clinician-Delivered Advice

Clinical and other healthcare settings are a natural channel for delivering brief cessation interventions because at least 70% of tobacco users visit a physician each year (Fiore et al. 2008), almost one-third visit a dentist (Fiore et al. 2008; Carson et al. 2012), and millions see a specialist or are hospitalized (National Center for Health Statistics 2018). Encounters with clinicians represent a key opportunity to engage smokers in cessation treatments because clinical visits can provide teachable moments for patients who are experiencing or at risk for tobacco-related diseases (Fiore et al. 2008). Clinicians can take advantage of this opportunity and enhance the impact of their advice to quit by delivering this advice in a personalized manner that places it in the context of the patient’s specific diagnosis and health history (Fiore et al. 2008). Furthermore, smokers respect and trust physicians and expect them to address their tobacco use (Quinn et al. 2005) and are more satisfied with healthcare providers when the providers discuss cessation with them (Bernstein and Boudreaux 2010; Winpenny et al. 2017; Holla et al. 2018).

Evidence increasingly suggests that healthcare providers other than physicians can also be effective in advising smokers to quit. For example, in a Cochrane Review of 11 studies, Rice and colleagues (2017) found moderate evidence that behavioral support provided by nurses can motivate and sustain smoking cessation. In another Cochrane Review of 14 studies totaling more than 10,500 participants, Carr and Ebbert (2012) found evidence suggesting that behavioral interventions conducted by oral health professionals (e.g., dentists and dental hygienists) as part of an oral examination in a dental office or other community setting could increase cessation rates in cigarette smokers and users of smokeless tobacco (pooled OR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.44–2.03). Research is also emerging about the role that pharmacists and community pharmacies can play in helping to promote tobacco cessation (Augustine et al. 2016; Greenhalgh et al. 2016).

Based on the strong evidence base for brief tobacco cessation interventions, USPSTF (2015) recommends, as a “Grade A” recommendation, that clinicians deliver such interventions to all adult smokers. Even brief (<3 minutes) advice from a physician improves cessation rates (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.42–1.94) (Stead et al. 2013a) and is highly cost-effective (Maciosek et al. 2017a).

As a framework, the 5 A’s method is considered the gold standard for delivering a brief tobacco cessation intervention. The 5 A’s method consists of the following steps:

1. Ask all patients about tobacco use;
2. Advise tobacco users to quit (e.g., “quitting is the best thing you can do for your health”);
3. Assess the patient’s willingness to make a quit attempt (e.g., “have you thought about quitting or are you interested in trying?”);
4. Assist in the quit attempt with medications, counseling, and referrals to behavioral treatment programs; and
5. Arrange follow-up (Table 6.1) (Fiore et al. 2008, p. 39).

Table 6.1

The 5 A’s model for treating tobacco use and dependence.

Implementation of the 5 A’s by physicians is effective in increasing tobacco cessation and quit attempts among patients and in increasing engagement among patients in other empirically validated cessation treatments (Quinn et al. 2009). Compared with patients who received only one or none of the 5 A’s, delivering all of the 5 A’s increased patients’ receipt of counseling (OR = 11.2; 95% CI, 7.1–17.5), use of FDA-approved cessation medications (OR = 6.2; 95% CI, 4.3–9.0), and combined use of counseling and medication (OR = 14.6; 95% CI, 9.3–23.0) (Kruger et al. 2016).

In practice, however, despite the robust evidence for the effectiveness of brief tobacco interventions, many clinicians do not consistently address tobacco use and nicotine dependence. For example, in nationally representative data from 2000 to 2015, Babb and colleagues (2017) found that 57% of smokers who had seen a health professional in the past year reported receiving advice to quit. In an earlier study, King and colleagues (2013) found that patient reports of their physicians providing each of the 5 A’s typically decreased as the steps progressed, with “Asking” about tobacco use (87.9%) being more prevalent than “Assisting” with a quit attempt (78.2% of those who wanted to quit) and the prevalence of “Assisting” being far more prevalent than “Arranging for follow-up” (17.5% overall). Thus, in practice, clinicians are rarely performing all five actions in the 5 A’s approach. One way to address this problem is by delegating some of the steps of the 5 A’s (e.g., Ask, Assist, Arrange) in whole or in part to other members of the healthcare team (e.g., nurses, physician assistants, roomers, etc.) (Fiore et al. 2008). This approach lessens the burden on physicians and emphasizes the importance of quitting to patients (Fiore et al. 2008).

A diagnosis of a tobacco-related disease has been associated with an increase in quit attempts, use of cessation resources (Patel et al. 2009; Schauer et al. 2014b; Gallaway et al. 2019), and cessation and can provide a teachable moment for patients, especially because quitting can often improve a patient’s prognosis or symptoms. Studies indicate that healthcare providers may be leveraging this opportunity. For example, in a study of patient-reported receipt of the 5 A’s in a nationally representative population of past-year cigarette smokers with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Schauer and colleagues (2016c) found that patients with COPD were more likely than those without COPD to receive each step in the 5 A’s approach: Ask = 95.4% vs. 85.8%; Advise = 87.5% vs. 59.4%; Assess = 63.8% vs. 37.9%; Assist = 58.6% vs. 34.0%; and Arrange = 14.9% vs. 5.2%.

Barriers that can prevent clinicians from consistently conducting brief cessation interventions include time constraints; a lack of knowledge, training, and confidence; inadequate clinical and/or institutional support; a lack of adequate reimbursement for delivering tobacco treatment; and inadequate or confusing insurance cessation coverage (Fiore et al. 2008; Sheffer et al. 2012). Concerns about the lack of adequate training to effectively deliver cessation interventions are also reported by other healthcare providers, such as nurses, psychologists, and social workers (Steinberg et al. 2006a,^b; Applegate et al. 2008; Sheffer et al. 2012).

Alternative Approaches to the 5 A’s

Research supports the value of alternative treatment approaches that do not deliver all steps of the 5 A’s approach in the clinical setting. One such alternative that is widely used is the Ask-Advise-Refer (AAR) approach, which involves a provider in a clinical setting Asking about tobacco use; Advising patients to quit; and Referring interested patients to another cessation resource, such as a quitline (see Chapter 7), to complete the remaining “Assess,” “Assist,” and “Arrange” steps (Schroeder 2005; Gordon et al. 2010). Gordon and colleagues (2010) compared the use of the 5 A’s with the use of the AAR approach in 68 dental clinics. At 12 months, participants receiving either the 5 A’s or the AAR were more likely to report tobacco cessation than those who received only usual care. Additionally, there was no significant difference (using a threshold of p <0.05) in rates of 9-month prolonged cessation between participants receiving the 5 A’s method and the AAR approach (3% vs. 2%, p <.10 for 9 months of prolonged abstinence) (Gordon et al. 2010).

Limited research supports a third approach, Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC). Compared with AAR, AAC provides a more active and direct connection to an outside cessation resource (Vidrine et al. 2013a,^b). One example of providing such a direct connection is referring smokers to tobacco quitlines via an electronic referral or “eReferral” that securely transfers patient registration information from electronic health records to the quitlines (Boyle et al. 2011, ²⁰¹⁴; Sheffer et al. 2012; Adsit et al. 2014; Tindle et al. 2016) (see Chapter 7 for more details on electronic health records and eReferrals). Some research suggests that AAC may be more effective than AAR in reaching smokers and engaging them in treatment. Specifically, in a pair-matched, two-treatment-arm, group-randomized study conducted in 10 family practice clinics in one metropolitan area, 7.8% of all identified smokers enrolled in treatment in the AAC arm compared with just 0.6% who enrolled in the AAR arm (OR = 11.6; 95% CI, 5.5–24.3) (Vidrine et al. 2013a).

Finally, because many smokers are ambivalent about quitting or have transient motivation to quit, a fourth hypothetical version of the 5 A’s might build on such approaches as the 5 R’s (Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition) (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2012), which is used for smokers who are not yet ready to quit and focuses on providing interventions and supports to all smokers, even those who are initially assessed as not ready to quit. This approach is appealing from a theoretical standpoint because of the lack of clear evidence demonstrating that a very brief assessment of readiness to quit is sufficient to withhold an offer of more robust cessation support to these individuals. One potential downside of this approach could be that providing support to smokers who are not ready to quit could turn out to be time-consuming and inefficient. To date, randomized trials have not assessed this approach.

As tobacco cessation interventions are increasingly integrated into inpatient care and into care in other settings, such as pharmacies and behavioral health treatment facilities, updates to the 5 A’s model may emerge that more explicitly coordinate and distribute cessation interventions across an integrated care team and across different clinical environments.

Intensive Face-To-Face Counseling

Intensive in-person behavioral treatment, which is sometimes combined with pharmacologic interventions, typically consists of multiple face-to-face counseling sessions that last long periods of time (e.g., ≥10 minutes) by clinicians who have been trained in specialized smoking cessation interventions (Fiore et al. 2008). Although intensive interventions are intended primarily for moderately to heavily addicted smokers, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions are not limited to heavy or highly dependent smokers (Fiore et al. 2008; USPSTF 2015). A range of intensive treatment programs are available at the individual and group levels in some communities, worksites, and healthcare systems (Institute of Medicine 2007). However, availability varies widely from community to community, and geographic location and temporal availability are major barriers to utilization. In practice, such intensive cessation approaches are generally the exception rather than the rule in the United States. Compared with the United States, some countries have invested more heavily to ensure that most smokers have access to intensive face-to-face counseling. For example, in addition to making brief cessation interventions delivered by primary care physicians and some pharmacists widely available, the United Kingdom has established Stop Smoking Services, which mainly target highly addicted smokers and are staffed by counselors who are trained in behavioral approaches to smoking cessation (Dobbie et al. 2015; Public Health England 2017). Both intensive individual and group cessation treatments have been shown to be effective when delivered outside of healthcare clinics, particularly in workplace settings. For example, Cahill and Lancaster (2014) reported on rates of tobacco cessation in eight trials in workplace settings that involved intensive group treatments (N = 1,309) and individual treatments (N = 3,516). Relative to controls, the OR for successful quitting among those in the intensive group treatments (OR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.05–2.80) was generally comparable in magnitude to that for those receiving individual treatments (OR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.51–2.54), suggesting that well-designed group counseling can be effective in workplace settings.

Although a strong evidence base exists for in-person behavioral approaches to treating tobacco use and nicotine dependence, few U.S. smokers use face-to-face individual and group counseling when trying to quit, possibly because of a lack of investment in these approaches and practical barriers to use (e.g., time, transportation, schedule, etc.) (Dobbie et al. 2015; Public Health England 2017). For example, in a U.S. study, Babb and colleagues (2017) found that in 2015 31.2% of U.S. adult cigarette smokers reported using cessation counseling and/or medication when trying to quit, 6.8% reported using counseling, 29.0% reported using medication, and 4.7% reported using both counseling and medication. In terms of specific types of counseling, 4.1% of smokers reported using a telephone quitline; 2.8% one-on-one counseling; and 2.4% a stop-smoking clinic, class, or support group (Babb et al. 2017).

Technology-Mediated Delivery Approaches

Evidence supports the effectiveness of certain non-face-to-face delivery approaches for tobacco cessation, including telephone-based quitlines (The Community Guide 2012a) and mHealth-based interventions (The Community Guide 2011b). These approaches have characteristics that can remove or reduce time, transportation, and child care issues that may hinder face-to-face service delivery, thereby potentially leading to more widespread use. The following section reviews technology-mediated tobacco cessation intervention delivery approaches, including quitlines, SMS texting, web-based interventions, and smartphone applications. Telehealth approaches, which are discussed later in the “Emerging Behavioral Treatments” section of this chapter, are another emerging technology that can be used to deliver tobacco cessation interventions.

Tobacco Quitlines

Staffed by trained counselors or coaches, tobacco quitlines typically deliver a variety of services, including individual counseling, practical information on how to quit, referrals to other cessation or health-related resources, mailed self-help materials, information on FDA-approved cessation medications, and, in some cases, provision of limited quantities of free or discounted cessation medications (Keller et al. 2010; Anderson 2016). Publicly funded quit-lines are available at no cost to U.S. residents in every state, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico (North American Quitline Consortium n.d.b). However, specific services vary across states, largely as a result of funding constraints that vary across states and jurisdictions and over time (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2014; Anderson 2016). In addition to publicly funded state quitlines, some public and private health insurance plans and employers also offer quitline services (CDC 2014).

Since the 1990s, a large body of clinical literature has consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of tobacco quitlines (Zhu et al. 1996; Fiore et al. 2008). Although research on single- and multi-call quitline protocols has demonstrated that both are effective, better outcomes have been reported for multi-call approaches. Better outcomes have also been documented for proactive quitline services, which make multiple outbound calls to engage the tobacco user in ongoing treatment, compared with reactive quitline services, which simply respond to incoming calls from tobacco users. For example, in a meta-analysis of 49 studies that compared proactive quitlines with reactive quitlines, The Community Guide (2012b) estimated that proactive quitlines yielded a median 3.1-percentage-point increase (0.5–3.3 percentage points, 12 studies) in quitting and a 4.2 percentage-point increase when promoted through mass-reach health communication interventions.

Similarly, in a Cochrane Review of 77 trials that assessed counseling provided through quitlines, Stead and colleagues (2013b) concluded that multiple sessions of proactive telephone counseling significantly boosted rates of smoking cessation (nine studies; >24,000 participants; RR for cessation at longest follow-up = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26–1.50). There was some evidence of a dose-response effect—that is, more completed quitline counseling calls yielded higher rates of cessation. Even reactive calls to quitlines were effective in increasing cessation (51 studies, >30,000 participants, RR for cessation = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.20–1.36).

A toll-free national portal (1-800-QUIT-NOW) operated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) links callers to their state quitline based on their area code. An electronic telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) is also available to serve persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. From 2010 to 2015, state quitlines received an estimated 1.1–1.3 million calls annually and provided cessation counseling and/or cessation medications to an estimated 342,000–475,000 tobacco users each year (CDC, National Quitline Warehouse Database, unpublished data).

NCI also operates 1-855-DÉJELO-YA (1-855-335-3569), a national portal that routes Spanish-speaking callers to Spanish-language services available through their state quitlines. From February 2013 (the portal’s inception) through December 2018, 1-855-DÉJELO-YA received more than 40,000 calls (CDC, NCI, unpublished data).

In addition, the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California–San Diego operates a nationwide Asian Smokers’ Quitline, which offers direct counseling services in Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese (Asian Smokers’ Quitline n.d.). Nearly 5,800 callers from 48 states enrolled in the Asian Quitline between 2012 and 2014; 31% spoke Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin), 38% spoke Korean, and 31% spoke Vietnamese (Kuiper et al. 2015). Nearly all eligible callers to the Asian Quitline (99%) received nicotine patches. Approximately 85% of smokers who called the Asian Quitline enrolled in counseling, completing an average of four sessions (Kuiper et al. 2015).

Quitline counseling is readily accessible because it is free, convenient, and confidential, and it removes or reduces barriers related to time, transportation, child care, and other factors (World Health Organization [WHO] 2011). As a result, quitline counseling has the potential for broad reach. Quitline counseling has also been found to be effective with an array of subpopulations (Baezconde-Garbanati et al. 2011). Tobacco users can be connected with a quitline in several ways: by calling directly; by having a healthcare provider’s office fax, send an online referral, or submit an eReferral through the patient’s electronic health record; by sending an e-mail; or by enrolling online. Most state quitlines provide at least one counseling session to any adult tobacco user who calls, and many state quitlines provide a multi-call program that includes both reactive and proactive calls. Some state quitlines prioritize multi-call services for subpopulations with a higher prevalence of tobacco use and/or limited access to other tobacco cessation services (e.g., persons who lack health insurance or are unemployed) (Anderson 2016). A study of quitline eReferrals in Wisconsin randomized 23 primary care clinics from two healthcare systems to one of two methods for referring adult patients who smoked to the Wisconsin quitline: a paper-based, fax-to-quit referral process or an eReferral process (Fiore et al. 2019). The eReferral process involved sending referrals to the quitline from patients’ electronic health records and receiving outcome reports from the quitline back into the electronic health records. The fax referral process transmitted the same information in both directions via fax. A total of 14,636 smokers were seen in the two systems. Compared with clinics that were randomized to the fax referral process, clinics that were randomized to the eReferral process generated quit-line referral rates that were 3- to 4-times higher and also generated higher rates of connecting patients with quit-lines (i.e., having patients accept a quitline call and at least begin the process of registering for quitline services). The eReferral method generated especially high rates of referrals among Medicaid recipients. The study, which was the first randomized study of this topic, concluded that eReferrals provide an effective means of referring patients who smoke to quitline services.

A major innovation in quitline services that occurred over the past decade was the integration of NRT and, in some cases, other FDA-approved cessation medications into state quitline services, along with counseling. A series of randomized and quasi-randomized trials (Cummings et al. 2006; Hollis et al. 2007; Tinkelman et al. 2007) demonstrated that quitlines can feasibly and safely provide NRT to callers, either directly via mail order or by pharmacy voucher. This involved having quitlines screen callers for the medical appropriateness of NRT use, educate callers on how to properly use the NRT, and continue to provide callers with behavioral counseling. Making cessation medication available to callers and promoting its availability results in more smokers calling quitlines and has the potential to increase quit rates among callers by providing them with the optimal combination of cessation counseling plus medications (An et al. 2006). Even 2-week NRT “starter kits” have demonstrable benefits, including increased call volume to quitlines, higher quit rates, and increased caller satisfaction with the quitline (Bush et al. 2008; Deprey et al. 2009; Kerr et al. 2018). Distributing NRT through quit-lines can be cost-effective (Fellows et al. 2007; Cummings et al. 2011). For example, Fellows and colleagues (2007) estimated that the total cost per quit was $2,688 lower for callers who received free NRT ($1,050) compared with persons who called the Oregon quitline before it began offering the nicotine patch to callers ($3,738).

The reach of state quitlines varies across states, over time, and by demographic factors, such as race/ethnicity (North American Quitline Consortium n.d.a). Despite reaching thousands of smokers each year in most states, state quitlines reach an average of 1% of smokers annually (CDC 2014). Data suggest that even among smokers who tried to quit in the previous year and were aware of quit-lines, quitline reach was around 8% (Schauer et al. 2014a). This limited awareness and reach, along with the variation in quitline services and eligibility for these services across states and over time, are largely the result of limited state funding for operating and promoting quitlines (e.g., state quitline expenditures) (CDC 2004; Schauer et al. 2014a). States have developed the capacity to carefully titrate their activities to promote quitlines and the level of quitline services they provide to match available funding. Some states have been able to temporarily attain higher levels of reach, in some cases higher than 6%, during periods when they can fund quitlines at higher levels, often while also conducting specific policy and promotional efforts that drive increased calls to the quitline (Woods and Haskins 2007; Mann et al. 2018).

Call volume to quitlines is highly sensitive to promotional activities (Anderson 2016). For example, Tips From Former Smokers (Tips), a national tobacco education campaign conducted annually by CDC for varying periods of time from 2012 to 2019, includes a message on the majority of its television ads directing smokers to call 1-800-QUIT-NOW for free help quitting. From 2012 to 2018, this campaign generated more than 1.3 million additional calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW (Nathan Mann, RTI International, personal communication, May 6, 2019). Call volume to 1-800-QUIT-NOW consistently increases when the campaign airs and decreases when it goes off the air (Zhang et al. 2016; McAfee et al. 2017; Murphy-Hoefer et al. 2018).

In part, to maintain or improve their reach, state quitlines increasingly offer ancillary cessation services, such as Internet interventions, e-mail, chat, texting, and the dispensing of NRT both alone and in combination with counseling (Anderson 2016; Keller et al. 2016). This shift in quitline practice stems in part from the recognition that many younger adults prefer to access cessation assistance through these alternative channels rather than over the telephone (Dreher et al. 2015). For example, to increase both reach and quitting behavior, Minnesota implemented a model for state quitline services in 2014 that expanded tobacco users’ options for accessing cessation services, allowing tobacco users to enroll via telephone or online and to choose one or more cessation services from a menu of options that includes quitline counseling, a medication starter kit, text messaging, an e-mail program, and a quit guide (Keller et al. 2016). Between March 2014 and February 2015, 15,861 unique tobacco users registered for cessation services in the state—a 169% increase over calendar year 2013. More than four in five (83.7%) of the participants made a quit attempt, and the 30-day point-prevalence abstinence rate (among responders) was 26.1% for the overall program (regardless of services used); 29.6% for quitline services; and 25.5% for individual non-quitline services. Thus, the reach of quitlines can be expanded, and new populations can be engaged in cessation services when quitlines (a) broaden their cessation service offerings beyond traditional telephone-based quitline services and (b) allow tobacco users to choose the service that best meets their needs and suits their preferences (Keller et al. 2016).

Mobile Health Intervention Strategies

Desktop or laptop computer-based interactive program modalities for delivering smoking cessation support have been developed and tested (USPSTF 2015), first via programs operated from a CD-ROM or hard drive, later via Internet downloads, and more recently from “the cloud” (Strecher et al. 2005; Haskins et al. 2017). The current state of science and technology also allows the leveraging of mobile phone and tablet applications (e.g., mHealth interventions) to deliver treatment for nicotine dependence (Whittaker et al. 2016). mHealth strategies can be broadly defined as the use of technology to remotely monitor, track, respond to, and/or deliver an intervention for health-related events. mHealth treatment platforms have expanded greatly during the past 20 years and especially in the past decade, with the development of electronic and mHealth technologies. These platforms include applications offered by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and academic institutions and by federal agencies involving standardized text messages that enhance motivation to quit smoking or inform persons about quitting strategies, some of which offer real-time, live peer or professional advising or counseling (Smokefree.gov n.d.). Preliminary evaluations suggest that these applications benefit users (Cole-Lewis et al. 2016; Squiers et al. 2016, ²⁰¹⁷; Taber et al. 2016) and that the cost of delivery is low.

Uptake of mobile technologies has been seen across almost all segments of the U.S. population (Pew Research Center 2017b). In 2016, cell phone ownership and usage were widespread: 95% of American adults owned a cell phone; 77% had a smartphone; and ownership levels were generally similar across all categories of race/ethnicity, age, education level, income level, and rural versus urban status (Pew Research Center 2017b). Texting is common among cell phone users, and many smartphone users report using their phones for texting, accessing the Internet, watching videos, and using apps (applications). Importantly, despite the widespread adoption of mobile technology, some populations—including some low-income and rural individuals and veterans—do not have equal access to mobile technology (Koutroumpisa and Leiponenb 2016; Markham et al. 2016).

Despite some remaining gaps in the availability and coverage of mobile technology, these technologies offer considerable potential to serve as platforms for delivering smoking cessation interventions. In 2011, the Community Preventive Services Task Force recommended mobile phone-based interventions, specifically automated texting programs, for tobacco cessation on the basis of sufficient evidence of their effectiveness in increasing tobacco use cessation among persons interested in quitting (The Community Guide 2011b).

Potential advantages of mHealth interventions include greater reach to some disproportionately impacted populations (Markham et al. 2016; Anguiano et al. 2017) and reduced costs because mHealth interventions can be less costly to provide than other behavioral interventions. In terms of reach, the Smokefree.gov initiative—a large federal mHealth behavioral intervention program that focuses primarily on smokers—reaches 5–6.5 million persons each year, including more than 3.6 million visitors to the Smokefree.gov website in 2018 (Yvonne Prutzman, NCI, personal communication, January 23, 2019). In addition, mHealth interventions may improve engagement through increased access to intervention services, decreased barriers to participation (e.g., by removing barriers related to scheduling, transportation, or child care), seamless integration of users’ interactions with treatment into their daily lives, and the ability to personalize treatment based on passively (e.g., GPS [global positioning system] location) or actively (e.g., self-report of craving) gathered information (Atienza and Patrick 2011; Nilsen et al. 2012; Free et al. 2013; Borrelli et al. 2015; Marzano et al. 2015).

The potential benefits from mHealth interventions are tempered by several challenges, including (1) inconsistent access to cell phones among low-income populations (despite the increasing adoption of cell phones, low-income populations may still struggle to maintain cell phone contracts, have regular access to minutes, and have data plans that allow for repeated use of interventions), (2) different types of devices (e.g., cell phone vs. smartphone), (3) possible sharing of devices among multiple users, (4) differences in fee structures and costs for using cell phones, (5) the challenges of delivering content to populations with low literacy, and (6) lack of broadband coverage (Atienza and Patrick 2011; Katz et al. 2012; Free et al. 2013; Marzano et al. 2015; McClure et al. 2016; Federal Communications Commission n.d.).

At this time, optimal methods are not in place to fully assess the expanding array of available mHealth cessation interventions. Future research should address the components of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) impact model (addressed later in this chapter) to determine the effectiveness of mobile cessation interventions under ideal conditions and their impact when used in real-world settings (Stearns et al. 2014). Research should include both process measures, such as engagement and reengagement, and measures of the interventions’ impact on quit attempts and successful quitting. In addition, assessing the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mHealth cessation interventions relative to other modalities, such as in-person and quitline interventions, will be important. Because of the rapid cycle of technological development, the use of adaptive and iterative research methods in assessing development and performing evaluations may be necessary. Although opportunities are available for conducting large cohort studies at a relatively low cost, the potential for selection bias and other types of bias in such studies underscores a need for RCTs in clinical settings.

Short Message Service Texting Interventions. Interventions based on SMS texting—which involve sending automated, one-way messages—offer a low-cost, convenient method of delivering smoking cessation interventions. Text messaging is a basic feature of almost all cell phones, making the delivery of cessation interventions via SMS texts an accessible and promising mHealth platform. A series of three studies from New Zealand and the United Kingdom provided the initial evidence supporting the use of this platform for delivering smoking cessation interventions (Rodgers et al. 2005; Free et al. 2009, 2011). Notably, a large-scale RCT in the United Kingdom that compared smokers receiving a text-based intervention with controls who received SMS texts related to the importance of trial participation, found a significant difference in biochemically verified abstinence at 6-month follow-up: 9.2% of smokers in the texting intervention achieved abstinence versus 4.3% of smokers in the control group (RR = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.74–2.63) (Free et al. 2011). A subsequent meta-analysis of a limited number of text-based cessation interventions found that, compared with control conditions, such interventions improved the 7-day point-prevalence of abstinence (OR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22–1.55) and continuous abstinence (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19–2.24) (Scott-Sheldon et al. 2016).

Although the findings from studies of cessation texting interventions are generally encouraging, a review of these interventions found that, while smoking cessation outcomes measured at less than 6 months were better than those for controls, outcomes measured at 6 months or longer often failed to show differences between treatment and control groups (Scott-Sheldon et al. 2016). In addition, the review found that the studies’ findings were mixed and the analyses were based on a small number of RCTs. One reason for these mixed findings may be the substantial variation in key features of the interventions, including frequency of messages per day and per week; length of programs; use of unidirectional versus bidirectional messages; and, to a lesser extent, message content. Another reason may be variation in study design, such as the endpoint used for measuring abstinence (Free et al. 2013; Kong et al. 2014; Scott-Sheldon et al. 2016). This variability has presented a challenge when interpreting findings from specific studies. Nevertheless, the overall evidence supports the efficacy of text-based smoking cessation treatment programs. However, to inform the optimization of treatment, more research is needed to better understand the contributions of various treatment elements.

Web-Based Interventions. Web-based cessation interventions (i.e., cessation interventions delivered via the Internet) have the potential to achieve broad reach, as 88% of American adults report regularly accessing the Internet, including a majority of low-income Americans and members of various racial/ethnic groups (Pew Research Center 2017a). However, evidence on the effectiveness of web-based smoking cessation interventions is mixed. Such interventions date back to the early 2000s, with studies exploring several approaches for delivering treatment and examining user behavior (Etter 2005; Stoddard et al. 2005; Strecher et al. 2005; Cobb and Graham 2006). Initial research findings were inconsistent, and several reports found that websites frequently failed to deliver recommended elements of behavioral treatment for smoking cessation (Bock et al. 2004, ²⁰⁰⁸; Fiore et al. 2008).

In its 2011 review, the Community Preventive Services Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions in increasing tobacco cessation (The Community Guide 2011a). Later, a study on web-based tobacco cessation interventions by Civljak and colleagues (2013) concluded that some Internet-based interventions, particularly interventions that are interactive and tailored to individuals, can assist in achieving longer term smoking cessation. However, trials that compared Internet interventions with usual care or self-help did not show consistent effects. As web-based interventions have grown more sophisticated, incorporating better website design and improved functionality, the efficacy of such interventions for smoking cessation has improved significantly (Graham et al. 2016). A meta-analysis of web-based cessation interventions found that, although sites with largely static content did not perform significantly better than printed materials in increasing abstinence (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63–1.10), sites that incorporated interactive elements significantly increased abstinence (RR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.25–3.52) (Graham et al. 2016). Comparisons of web-based cessation interventions with face-to-face counseling and quit-line counseling suggest that these different modalities have the potential to produce similar cessation outcomes (Graham et al. 2016; McCrabb et al. 2019).

In a meta-analysis, McCrabb and colleagues (2019) assessed the effectiveness of 45 RCTs of adult-focused Internet cessation programs, as well as the number and type of behavior change techniques employed in the intervention (Michie et al. 2013), to determine how behavior change techniques impact program effectiveness. The study found short-term effectiveness for all measured cessation outcomes (e.g., prolonged abstinence and 30-day point-prevalence abstinence) (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12–1.50) and for long-term outcomes (OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06–1.35). Interventions used more behavior change techniques than comparison groups (6.6 vs. 3.1, p <.0002). Interventions that included goals and planning, social support, natural consequences, comparison of outcomes, reward and threat, or regulation were significantly associated with increased intervention effectiveness in the short and long terms, when compared with study arms that did not include the domain(s).

The fact that web technologies and web-based cessation interventions continue to evolve, along with the potential reach and customizability of web-based technologies, suggests that future interventions could further improve on current ones. For example, advances in web technologies could improve user experience, enhance content management, better incorporate interactive elements, and better integrate various types of media (e.g., videos and audio). The increasing penetration of smart-phones and the broad availability of free Wi-Fi may also allow for access to the web in many nontraditional settings. In response to this changing landscape, many web-sites are using adaptive design (i.e., changing the format to match the type of device used) and are optimized for use on mobile devices (i.e., are designed to offer easy navigation and high-quality user experience when accessed via such devices). Such sites have the potential to achieve broad population-level reach and widespread engagement with target audiences. Taken as a whole, the available evidence suggests that web interventions with interactive components can increase abstinence to tobacco. As with text-based cessation programs, more research is needed to better understand the specific components that can further enhance the effectiveness of web-based interventions for smoking cessation.

Smartphone Applications. Although most mobile phone interventions have traditionally relied on text messaging platforms (Whittaker et al. 2016), the increasing use of smartphones offers a platform to combine elements of texting and the web to create more interactive and visual interventions (Abroms et al. 2011). In their 2013 review of smartphone apps for smoking cessation, Abroms and colleagues (2013) identified 252 such apps for Apple’s iOS and 148 apps for Google’s Android operating systems. The review then analyzed nearly 100 of the most popular cessation apps and their adherence to an index criteria based on the Clinical Practice Guideline (Fiore et al. 2008). The average score suggested that overall levels of the apps’ adherence to evidence-based cessation approaches were low (Abroms et al. 2011). However, smartphone apps for smoking cessation continue to evolve, both as standalone interventions and in combination with other approaches to cessation interventions. For example, in 2017 FDA granted marketing authorization for a carbon monoxide breath sensor system that can be paired with a smart-phone via Bluetooth technology to measure carbon mon-oxide in exhaled breath and show smokers in real time how their cigarette smoking is impacting their levels of carbon monoxide (FDAnews 2017). The Smokefree.gov initiative now includes two free smoking cessation apps: QuitGuide, which helps smokers understand their smoking patterns and build skills to quit, and quitSTART, which gives smokers tailored tips and motivation to quit. These federally funded apps provide opportunities to learn more about the components that make a smoking cessation smart-phone application effective. In particular, more research is needed to assess the efficacy of smartphone applications that combine texting and web-based features.

As reviewed, a variety of technology-mediated approaches exist to deliver behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, and these interventions stand to further increase the reach of cessation interventions. However, technologies are evolving, as are the ways in which people interact with and use technology. Therefore, ongoing research is warranted to ensure that technology-based approaches to cessation remain relevant and meet current user preferences. The elements that make a particular technology effective for cessation may shift as technologies evolve. For example, preferences for texting may shift as that technology becomes integrated into smart-phone applications and user interfaces.

In summary, a variety of behavioral and counseling approaches are available through various delivery modalities to motivate and aid successful smoking cessation. However, most smokers still try to quit on their own without using behavioral or counseling interventions. Therefore, innovative, technology-based delivery modalities have the potential to help increase the reach and use of these interventions, but more research is needed to better understand the impact that different delivery modalities have on motivating and sustaining cessation in different subpopulations.

Pharmacologic Treatments

Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that leads to addiction (USDHHS 1988). Epidemiologic and laboratory evidence indicates that nicotine delivered in tobacco products is substantially more addictive than nicotine delivered through current medications (USDHHS 2010). In addition to behavioral and environmental components, constituents other than nicotine in tobacco products and product delivery methods play critical supporting roles in promoting nicotine addiction. A major conclusion from the 2010 Surgeon General’s report is, “Sustained use and long-term exposures to tobacco smoke are due to the powerfully addicting effects of tobacco products, which are mediated by diverse actions of nicotine and perhaps other compounds, at multiple types of nicotinic receptors in the brain” (USDHHS 2010, p. 9). The general rationale for having smokers use smoking cessation medications as part of a quit attempt is to reduce physical symptoms resulting from nicotine withdrawal, thus allowing smokers to focus on the behavioral and psychological aspects of quitting smoking (Prochaska and Benowitz 2016). Cessation medications also have the additional benefit of eliminating or greatly reducing the immediate reinforcing effects of nicotine absorbed from tobacco smoke by desensitizing the nicotinic receptors (Prochaska and Benowitz 2016). Although not FDA-approved for smoking cessation, the prescription medications clonidine hydrochloride and nortriptyline hydrochloride are recommended as second-line agents in the U.S. Public Health Service’s Clinical Practice Guideline (Fiore et al. 2008). Lack of an FDA-approved indication for smoking cessation, as well as some side effects, currently preclude these medications from being classified as first-line agents; therefore, they are not reviewed in this report.

To date, seven FDA-approved, first-line medications have been found to be safe and effective for treating nicotine dependence—although there are some contraindications for use (e.g., recent myocardial infarction for most NRT formulations, seizure disorder for bupropion), as well as insufficient evidence of effectiveness and, in some cases, safety in certain populations (e.g., pregnant women, light smokers, adolescents, and smokeless tobacco users) (Fiore et al. 2008). The seven medications include five nicotine-based medications (the nicotine patch, gum, lozenge, nasal spray, and oral inhaler) and two non-nicotine oral medications, bupropion and varenicline. Table 6.2 offers in-depth information on these seven medications. The nicotine patch, gum, and lozenges are available over the counter; however, a prescription may still be required for insurance coverage of over-the-counter products. The nicotine nasal spray and oral inhaler, bupropion, and varenicline are available by prescription only (FDA 2017). The use of FDA-approved cessation medications generally doubles quit rates relative to placebo, but results vary somewhat across products (ORs range from 1.82 for bupropion and 1.84 for NRTs to 2.88 for varenicline) (Cahill et al. 2013). Certain combinations of NRTs have been shown to further increase quit rates, including using the transdermal patch with any of the other forms of NRT (nicotine gum, lozenges, nasal spray, or inhalers).

Table 6.2

Pharmacologic product guide: FDA-approved medications for smoking cessation.

The seven cessation medications vary in their mechanisms of action and modes of delivery. Each of the seven FDA-approved, first-line cessation medications is described below. In addition to a review of these medications and combination pharmacotherapy, this section also reviews evidence around longer term and pre-quit use of NRT.

Modified and Alternative Tobacco Products

Very-Low-Nicotine-Content Cigarettes

Experimental very-low-nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes (also see Chapter 7) are engineered to have reduced content of nicotine in the tobacco used in the cigarette compared with conventionally manufactured cigarettes. The smoke of VLNC cigarettes delivers lower levels of nicotine compared with cigarettes that were marketed by the tobacco industry in the past as “light” or “ultra-light,” which did not have lower levels of nicotine in the tobacco itself (Benowitz and Henningfield 2013). Instead, light and ultra-light cigarettes relied on design features, such as ventilation holes in the filter, to allow these products to be rated as low nicotine (and low tar) when subjected to machine smoking employing a standardized method. However, through compensatory behaviors, such as blocking ventilation holes with lips and/or fingers, drawing larger puffs, and inhaling more deeply, smokers were able to obtain levels of nicotine (and tar) that were as high as those delivered by conventional (regular strength) cigarettes (Benowitz and Henningfield 1994). Scientists have suggested that reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to approximately 0.5 mg per cigarette (compared with 10–15 mg per cigarette in most currently marketed cigarettes) would render cigarettes nonaddictive. This would potentially prevent adolescents from developing nicotine addiction and make it easier for adult smokers to quit, because cigarettes would be less reinforcing (Benowitz and Henningfield 1994).

Several clinical trials have compared the effects of experimental VLNC cigarettes and conventional cigarettes on smoking and cessation behaviors. These trials suggest that VLNC cigarettes may reduce smoking, reduce nicotine dependence, increase cessation rates, and reduce exposure to toxicants (Benowitz et al. 2007, ²⁰¹²; Donny et al. 2007, ^{2014, 2015}; Donny and Jones 2009; Hatsukami et al. 2010, ^{2013, 2018}; Dermody et al. 2018). For example, Donny and colleagues (2015) and Fiore and Baker (2015) conducted a large, multisite clinical trial that randomized 840 daily smokers to their own cigarettes or to one of six variants of study-specific cigarettes with levels of nicotine ranging from 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco to 15.8 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco (levels typical of commercial brands). At 6 weeks, persons assigned to cigarettes with the lowest level of nicotine content smoked fewer cigarettes per day and reported less dependence and craving than those who smoked regular strength cigarettes (i.e., 15.8 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco). In a randomized, parallel arm, semi-blind study in which 165 smokers were randomly assigned to either 0.3 mg nicotine yield cigarettes, 0.5 mg nicotine yield cigarettes, or 4 mg nicotine lozenges, Hatsukami and colleagues (2010) found that use of 0.5 mg nicotine yield cigarettes was associated with reduced carcinogen exposure and reduced nicotine dependence and product withdrawal scores, and led to a similar rate of cessation to the nicotine lozenge.

More recently, Hatsukami and colleagues (2018) published findings from another large, multisite clinical trial that assessed the effects of immediate versus gradual reductions in the levels of nicotine content in cigarettes. The authors randomized 1,250 smokers who were not interested in quitting into three groups: those who (a) continued to smoke conventional cigarettes containing 15.5 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco; (b) smoked cigarettes in which the level of nicotine content was gradually reduced over 6 months from 15.5 mg to 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco; or (c) switched immediately from conventional cigarettes to cigarettes with 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco and continued to smoke those cigarettes for 6 months. The study found that smokers who switched immediately to cigarettes with low levels of nicotine tended to show greater benefits than smokers in the other two conditions. For instance, compared with gradual reduction of nicotine, immediate reduction yielded significantly lower levels of biomarkers of exposure to toxic smoke constituents, a greater reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day, a greater reduction in nicotine dependence, and more days entirely free of cigarettes. Those in the immediate reduction group had significantly lower levels of breath carbon monoxide compared with those in the gradual reduction group (difference = 4.1 parts per million; 95% CI, −4.89 to −3.23; P <.0055) and with those in the control group (difference = 3.4 parts per million; 95% CI, −4.40 to −2.36; P <.0055). Significantly lower levels in the immediate versus gradual and control groups were also observed for acrolein (difference = 17% and 19%, respectively) and phenanthrene tetraol (difference = 12% and 14%, respectively). However, for carbon monoxide, acrolein, and phenanthrene tetraol, there were no significant differences between the gradual reduction and control groups. Lower dependence scores (scale ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores associated with greater dependence) were observed in (a) the immediate reduction group versus the gradual reduction group (mean = 4.27 [low dependence] vs. 5.13 [moderate dependence]; adjusted mean difference = −0.99 [95% CI, −1.27 to −0.71]; p <.00057) and (b) the immediate reduction group versus the control group (mean = 4.27 [low dependence] vs. 5.48 [moderate dependence]; adjusted mean difference = −1.44 [95% CI, −1.75 to −1.12]; p <.00057). No differences were found in the gradual reduction group versus the control group (mean = 5.13 [moderate dependence] vs. 5.48 [moderate dependence]; adjusted mean difference = −0.45 [95% CI, −0.76 to −0.13]; p = .006) (Hatsukami et al. 2018).

However, a study with longer term follow-up reported that reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes over 12 months did not result in sustained reductions in nicotine intake or increases in smoking cessation over the subsequent 12 months (Benowitz et al. 2015). Experimental cigarettes were likely less acceptable because conventional cigarettes were readily available to the participants in the study. The lack of effect of nicotine intake on smoking cessation may be the result of compensatory behaviors, including consumption of regular-nicotine-content cigarettes. Compensatory smoking (i.e., altering smoking behaviors to continue to obtain enough nicotine to satisfy addiction) has been posited as a possible countervailing effect of setting a nicotine product standard (Gottlieb and Zeller 2017). However, in its advisory report on a global nicotine reduction strategy, which summarized the literature available at that time, WHO (2015) concluded that the use of cigarettes with a nicotine content of 0.4 mg/g (or less) of cigarette tobacco filler does not significantly increase craving or withdrawal and does not result in compensatory smoking behaviors. Studies have found this to be consistent in populations highly vulnerable to nicotine addiction, including individuals with serious mental illness (Denlinger-Apte et al. 2018). However, among participants in clinical trials, levels of acceptability have been lower for experimental VLNC cigarettes than for commercially available cigarettes; and nonadherence has been prevalent, with one trial reporting greater than 70% of participants having substituted traditional cigarette brands for VLNC cigarettes (Nardone et al. 2016). Additionally, 25–45% of participants dropped out of these studies (Nardone et al. 2016; Mercincavage et al. 2017).

Combining VLNC cigarettes with nicotine patches was hypothesized to perhaps aid with the transition to VLNC cigarettes and increase compliance. However, Hatsukami and colleagues (2013) did not find that such a combination improved long-term quit rates of conventional cigarettes. Furthermore, in a two-by-two factorial RCT, Smith and colleagues (2019) found that assignment to the patch, along with VLNC cigarettes, did not significantly reduce cigarette smoking compared with assignment to VLNC cigarettes alone (Smith et al. 2019).

If, as outlined by Benowitz and Henningfield (1994, 2013) and summarized by USDHHS (2014), potential “end-game” options to complement existing, proven tobacco control interventions include reducing the nicotine content of all cigarettes to make them less addictive, then problems with adherence and attrition would not be an issue, unless there was widespread contraband, and long-term cessation rates would likely be higher than observed in the trials. Because a product standard reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes has not yet been implemented, studies have not examined the impact of a product standard that would reduce the level of nicotine in all cigarettes or other tobacco products would have on cessation.

Importantly, the advisory report from WHO (2015) noted that the ultimate health benefits of a nicotine reduction strategy aimed at individual smokers would require that the standard include all combustible tobacco products. The WHO report also noted that such a strategy needs to be accompanied by the provision of cessation treatments to help people quit, including behavioral support and NRT or other medications. In a randomized trial comparing the use of experimental VLNC cigarettes with the use of cigarettes with conventional levels of nicotine over an 8-week period, Hatsukami and colleagues (2017) found that smokers in the VLNC cigarette arm (a) had consumed fewer combustible products at almost all visits compared with those in the conventional nicotine arm (p <.02); (b) had higher rates of abstinence (VLNC cigarette arm vs. conventional nicotine arm: RR = 9.96; 95% CI, 5.01–19.81); and (c) used significantly more alternative tobacco products, including nonstudy cigarettes, noncigarette combustible products, and noncombustible products (RR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.94–2.46 for the VLNC cigarette arm vs. RR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.46–1.85 for the conventional nicotine arm). As outlined by WHO (2015), for persons who switched from cigarettes to noncombustible forms of tobacco to sustain their nicotine intake, the health benefits of not smoking conventional cigarettes depended on the level of tobacco-related toxicants delivered by the noncombustible products and the patterns and duration of use of such products.

Although evidence to date is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that VLNC cigarettes could reduce smoking and nicotine dependence and increase smoking cessation, further research could help better understand the impact that a nicotine product standard could have on increasing cessation from conventional cigarettes. Several issues warrant continued consideration regarding the impacts of a nicotine product standard on cigarette cessation, including whether compensatory behaviors would occur in the given policy framework (Gottlieb and Zeller 2017), whether there would be illicit trade for products with higher nicotine yield and how to minimize such effects (Ribisl et al. 2019), and how populations that are more vulnerable to nicotine may be impacted, including those with mental illness and substance use disorders (USDHHS 2016).

Product standards to decrease nicotine in all cigarettes will likely have a greater impact on smoking cessation if they are accompanied by a comprehensive cessation strategy that promotes available cessation treatments, including FDA-approved medications and behavioral support.

E-Cigarettes

E-cigarettes (also called electronic nicotine delivery systems [ENDS], vapes, vape pens, tanks, mods, and podmods) are battery-powered devices designed to convert a liquid (often called e-liquid) into an aerosol for inhalation by the user (Figure 6.1). E-liquid contains solvents (propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin) to produce the aerosol and typically contains nicotine, flavorings, and other compounds. E-cigarettes, which have been available in the United States since at least 2007 (USDHHS 2016), have been discussed as a potential harm-reduction tool for current smokers (Fagerstrom et al. 2015). For this reason, smokers, scientists, clinicians, and policymakers have an interest in understanding how e-cigarettes will impact the smoking cessation landscape.

Figure 6.1

The evolution of e-cigarettes, by product generation and characteristics. Source: Photos by James Gathany and Lauren Bishop, CDC.

As e-cigarettes are products designed to deliver nicotine to the body through the pulmonary route, which results in more rapid absorption and delivery of nicotine to the brain than through other modes of administration (i.e., mouth, transdermal), it is useful to consider their ability to deliver nicotine in the context of a smoker attempting to use e-cigarettes to quit cigarette smoking. The design and components of many e-cigarettes are intended to generate aerosols that can rapidly deliver boluses of nicotine to the brain, similar to nicotine delivery by conventional cigarettes (Farsalinos et al. 2016). E-cigarettes vary in their ability to deliver nicotine to the body (Vansickel and Eissenberg 2013). However, the pharmacokinetics of nicotine delivery of certain e-cigarette products, such as more recent generation e-cigarettes, resemble those of conventional cigarettes, and thus have the potential to mirror the pharmacologic effects of conventional cigarettes (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018). Therefore, for smokers of conventional cigarettes who seek a product with a rapid onset of the dose of nicotine similar to cigarettes, e-cigarettes that deliver nicotine in a similar way to conventional cigarettes could have greater appeal than current FDA-approved NRTs. However, although rapid boluses of nicotine could increase the appeal of these products relative to NRTs, whether this pharmacokinetic profile supports an effective method of cessation has not been extensively studied (Shihadeh and Eissenberg 2015). However, when considering e-cigarettes as a potential cessation aid for adult smokers, it is also important to take into account factors related to both safety and efficacy. NRT has been proven safe and effective, whereas the same has not been proven for any e-cigarette. There is no safe tobacco product. Although e-cigarette aerosol generally contains fewer toxic chemicals than conventional cigarette smoke, all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, carry risks.

Other features of e-cigarettes that may enhance their appeal to conventional cigarette smokers are the ways in which e-cigarettes mirror some of the sensorimotor features of conventional cigarette smoking, including stimulation of the airways, the sensation and taste of e-cigarette aerosol in the mouth and lungs, the hand-to-mouth movements and puffing in which e-cigarette users engage, and the exhalation of aerosol that may visually resemble cigarette smoking. Given the potentially important role of such sensorimotor factors in the reinforcing and addictive qualities of conventional cigarettes (Chaudhri et al. 2006), these attributes could make e-cigarettes more appealing to smokers than FDA-approved NRTs. However, the sensiro-motor aspects of e-cigarettes could (a) facilitate uptake for use as a cessation aid, with the goal of attaining complete nicotine abstinence, similar to how NRTs are intended to be used or (b) facilitate the use of e-cigarettes as a long-term substitute for conventional cigarettes to sustain nicotine use. The potential abuse liability of e-cigarettes that deliver nicotine in a manner comparable, or higher than, conventional cigarettes should also be considered, including long-term dual use and decreased likelihood of cessation through maintenance of addiction. When considering the potential role of e-cigarettes used in smoking cessation, it is important to consider the intent of therapeutic FDA-approved NRT (i.e., that they are intended to act as a support for attaining complete abstinence from smoking).

Two previous Surgeon General’s reports have addressed e-cigarettes. However, to date, no Surgeon General’s report has reviewed the available science related to e-cigarettes and cessation. E-cigarettes were first discussed in the 2014 Surgeon General’s report (USDHHS 2014), which noted that the use of e-cigarettes could have positive and negative public health impacts at the individual and population levels. Additionally, the 2016 Surgeon General’s report (USDHHS 2016), E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults, examined many topics related to e-cigarettes, including patterns of use and health risks of e-cigarettes among young people, as well as the importance of population-based strategies to prevent and reduce the use of e-cigarettes among this population. USDHHS (2016) underscored the need to understand any effects of e-cigarettes on adult smoking cessation, as well as the risks that the products pose to youth and young adults. This is especially important in light of alarming increases in e-cigarette use among adolescents, which threaten decades of progress in tobacco control (USDHHS 2016; Miech et al. 2018; Gentzke et al. 2019). Additionally, e-cigarette, or vaping, product use may be associated with other health risks beyond youth initiation and use. For example, CDC, FDA, state and local health departments, and public health and clinical partners have been investigating a multistate outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury (EVALI) (Siegel et al. 2019). The latest national and state findings show e-cigarette, or vaping, products containing THC— particularly those from informal sources, such as friends, family, or in-person or online dealers—are linked to most of the cases of lung injury and play a major role in the outbreak (Moritz et al. 2019; Navon et al. 2019). In particular, vitamin E acetate is closely associated with EVALI (Blount et al. 2019). Vitamin E acetate has been identified in several tested products used by EVALI patients, and has been identified in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid samples from 48 of 51 assessed EVALI patients, but not in the BAL fluid from a control group. However, as of January 2020, evidence is not yet sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern among some EVALI patients.

Current use of e-cigarettes among adults rose through 2014 (Adkison et al. 2013; Dockrell et al. 2013; Goniewicz et al. 2013; Agaku et al. 2014; Kasza et al. 2017), but has since declined gradually through 2017 (Wang et al. 2018). In 2017, 2.8% of adults were current users of e-cigarettes (Wang et al. 2018). More than half of current adult e-cigarette users also currently smoke cigarettes, which is commonly known as “dual use” (CDC 2016; Mirbolouk et al. 2018). Among current e-cigarette users in 2016, 15.0% were never cigarette smokers, 30.4% were former smokers, and 54.6% were current smokers (Mirbolouk et al. 2018). Data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey showed that among high school students, current (past 30-day) e-cigarette use rose from 1.5% in 2011 to 20.8% in 2018 (Cullen et al. 2018), including a 78% increase from 2017 to 2018 (USDHHS 2018a). E-cigarette use among middle school students has also risen dramatically in the same time period, with a 49% increase from 2017 to 2018 (3.3% to 4.9%) (USDHHS 2018a). Dual use is also common among youth. In 2018, approximately half of youth who used tobacco products reported using two or more products; among high school students who reported currently using two or more tobacco products, the most common combinations reported were e-cigarettes and cigarettes (14.8%) (Gentzke et al. 2019).

Since its introduction into the U.S. marketplace in 2015, the JUUL brand e-cigarette has been increasingly popular among U.S. youth (USDHHS 2018a), and increases in sales in recent years have corresponded with the previously described increases in current e-cigarette use among U.S. youth in recent years. For example, sales of JUUL increased 600% during 2016–2017, largely driven by uptake among youth and young adults, giving it the greatest market share of any e-cigarette in the United States by the end of 2017 (King et al. 2018b). Sales have continued to increase since that time; in the assessed channels by the end of 2018, JUUL held approximately 75% of the market share of total U.S. e-cigarette sales (Truth Initiative 2018). JUUL’s popularity with youth appears to stem from several factors:

• Appearance of a flash drive,
• Ease of concealment (small and does not emit as much aerosol or odor as some other types of e-cigarettes),
• Availability in a variety of flavors,
• Widespread promotion through a variety of media, including social media, and
• High nicotine content delivered in a form (e.g., nicotine salt) that may facilitate easier initiation (Cullen et al. 2018; Goniewicz et al. 2018a; Spindle and Eissenberg 2018).

E-cigarettes may appeal to adult smokers of conventional cigarettes because they mimic cigarettes in several ways: size, appearance (at least in the case of first-generation e-cigarettes), method of inhalation, production of a smoke-like aerosol, and the taste and ritual behaviors associated with smoking (Prochaska and Benowitz 2016). In terms of exposure risks, as part of a comprehensive review on the public health consequences of e-cigarette use, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) concluded that for current cigarette smokers, completely substituting e-cigarettes for combustible tobacco products would reduce exposure to several toxicants and carcinogens present in tobacco cigarettes. For example, an analysis of 12 first-generation brands of e-cigarettes found that toxicants (including carcinogenic compounds) were present in the e-cigarettes’ aerosol across brands at varying levels, ranging from about 9- to 450-times lower than cigarette smoke to levels in some brands that were comparable to levels in the NRT inhaler (Goniewicz et al. 2014). In a separate analysis of urine samples from 5,105 adult participants in the 2013–2014 wave of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, Goniewicz and colleagues (2018b) concluded that the exclusive use of e-cigarettes was associated with exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants (e.g., tobacco-specific nitrosamines, such metals as cadmium and lead, and some volatile organic compounds), but that this exposure was markedly lower than that associated with both cigarette smoking and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. However, depending on the toxicant analyzed, dual users (n = 792) had similar or higher exposures to toxicants compared with users of only conventional cigarettes (n = 2,411). Among dual users, the frequency of cigarette use was positively correlated with exposure to both nicotine and toxicants. These findings suggest that exclusive use of e-cigarettes can result in markedly lower exposure to tobacco-related toxicants compared with exclusive use of conventional cigarettes, but that using e-cigarettes concurrently with conventional cigarettes does not meaningfully reduce exposure to potentially harmful toxicants. Of note, ingredients unique to e-cigarettes (i.e., not found in conventional cigarettes) pose potential harms (Erythropel et al. 2019). It is important to note that the findings from the PATH Study analysis pertain to e-cigarette products used in 2013–2014, and because the landscape of e-cigarette products continues to diversify and evolve rapidly, the findings may or may not be generalizable to behaviors surrounding the use of these products years later (e.g., in 2019). Moreover, the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (2018) concluded that exposure to nicotine and exposure to potentially toxic substances in aerosol from e-cigarettes are highly variable and depend on product characteristics (e.g., e-liquid constituents and device characteristics and settings), how the device is operated, and user behavior.

Although the available scientific evidence indicates that e-cigarettes generally have a markedly lower number and level of harmful toxicants than conventional cigarettes, use of the products is not without potential health risks; the long-term health effects of using these products remain unknown, and short-term risks are only slowly coming into focus (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018). However, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) concluded that there is substantial evidence that e-cigarette use is associated with several adverse health outcomes that are precursors to disease, including acute endothelial cell dysfunction, formation of reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, and increased heart rate (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018). The report also concluded that there is substantial evidence that some chemicals present in e-cigarette aerosols are capable of causing DNA damage and mutagenesis, which supports the biologic plausibility that long-term exposure to e-cigarette aerosols could increase risk of cancer and adverse reproductive outcomes; however, whether the levels of exposure are high enough to contribute to human carcinogenesis remains uncertain. The report further noted that there is no available evidence whether e-cigarette use is associated with certain longer term health outcomes, including clinical cardiovascular outcomes and subclinical atherosclerosis, intermediate cancer endpoints in humans, respiratory diseases, and pregnancy outcomes (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018). Additionally, Gotts and colleagues (2019) reviewed the available science to date on risks to the respiratory system from using e-cigarettes or being exposed to aerosol from e-cigarettes. The study found negative impacts on cellular and organ physiology and immune function (Gotts et al. 2019). Accordingly, more research is warranted to assess the extent to which e-cigarette use may impact the likelihood of these and other health outcomes. Of note, some studies have found that after accounting for conventional cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use is associated with increased risk of having had a myocardial infarction (Alzahrani et al. 2018; Alzahrani and Glantz 2019; Osei et al. 2019). However, the cross-sectional nature of these studies limits the ability to ascertain causality (Farsalinos and Niaura 2019a). A longitudinal study using data from the PATH Study found that having had a myocardial infarction at Wave 1 of the study did not predict e-cigarette use at Wave 2 (Bhatta and Glantz 2019). This finding, according to the study’s authors, suggests that reverse causality cannot explain the cross-sectional association between e-cigarette use and myocardial infarction observed at Wave 1. However, further longitudinal research is warranted to fully account for the time period when myocar-dial infarction has occurred relative to e-cigarette use.

Research on the impact of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation is limited but growing. In addition to the review of this topic by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018), multiple systematic reviews have assessed the literature on e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, some of which conducted meta-analyses of RCT data and observational studies (Franck et al. 2014; Grana et al. 2014; Harrell et al. 2014; McRobbie et al. 2014; Lam and West 2015; Rahman et al. 2015; Hartmann-Boyce et al. 2016; Kalkhoran and Glantz 2016; Khoudigian et al. 2016; Malas et al. 2016; El Dib et al. 2017).

Few RCTs have been conducted that directly investigate the utility of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, and no RCTs on this topic have been conducted in the United States. Only four RCTs—a clinical trial of smokers in Italy who were not motivated to quit (Caponnetto et al. 2013), a clinical trial of smokers in New Zealand who were motivated to quit (Bullen et al. 2013), another clinical trial of smokers in New Zealand who were motivated to quit (Walker et al. 2019), and an RCT of adults using the stop-smoking service of the UK National Health Service (Hajek et al. 2019)—have directly tested the efficacy of using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation with a follow-up timepoint of at least 6 months; none were funded by the tobacco or e-cigarette industries. In a randomized clinical trial of smokers who were not motivated to quit, Caponnetto and colleagues (2013) found that the use of first-generation e-cigarettes resulted in a nonsignificant (p = 0.24) increase in the likelihood of smoking abstinence at 52-weeks follow-up compared with those who used first-generation e-cigarettes that did not contain nicotine (placebo e-cigarette). Abstinence rates were 13% in Group A (12-weeks supply of 7.2 mg nicotine cartridges), 9% in Group B (one 6-week supply of 7.2-mg nicotine cartridges and one 6-week supply of 5.4-mg nicotine cartridges), and 4% in Group C (cartridges without nicotine). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, a statistically significant increase in the abstinence rate was observed at 52-weeks follow-up: 11.0% when Groups A and B were combined compared with 4.0% in Group C (p = 0.04). The RCT by Bullen and colleagues (2013) also showed (a) a nonsignifi-cant elevated RR of 6-month continuous abstinence rates for smokers who were assigned to use first generation e-cigarettes that contained nicotine compared with those who were assigned to use first generation e-cigarettes that did not contain nicotine (7.3% vs 4.1%, RR 1.77, p = 0.44) and (b) a nonsignificantly elevated RR for 6-month continuous abstinence (RR = 1.26; p = 0.46) between smokers who were assigned to use e-cigarettes that contained nicotine (7.3%) and those who were assigned to use nicotine patches (5.8%). As reviewed in National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018), the results of these two RCTs were pooled in two different, rigorous meta-analyses. A 2016 Cochrane review that pooled data from these two RCTs showed (a) no significant statistical heterogeneity between the two studies and (b) that use of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes was associated with statistically significant higher abstinence rates than use of placebo e-cigarettes (RR = 2.29; 95% CI, 1.05–4.96; 9% for nicotine e-cigarette group vs. 4% in placebo e-cigarette group, among 662 participants) (Hartmann-Boyce et al. 2016). El Dib and colleagues (2017) pooled the same two RCTs into a meta-analysis and found a nonsignificant increase in smoking cessation for nicotine e-cigarettes compared with placebo e-cigarettes (RR = 2.03; 95% CI, 0.94–4.38; p = 0.07). A notable difference in the methodology between these two reviews was that Hartmann-Boyce and colleagues (2016) considered participants with missing data as smokers and retained them in the analysis, increasing their sample size to 662 compared with the 481 cases analyzed by El Dib and colleagues (2017) (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018).

A few notable limitations to two RCTs (Bullen et al. 2013; Caponnetto et al. 2013) should be noted: They both produced fairly low quit rates in all conditions (range: 4–13%) and used first generation e-cigarettes that do not have comparable nicotine pharmacokinetics as cigarettes. Furthermore, Bullen and colleagues (2013) found that rates of compliance were substantially lower among smokers in the nicotine patch condition than among those in either of the e-cigarette conditions, suggesting that the similar efficacy among users of e-cigarettes with nicotine and of the nicotine patches might be mediated by different mechanisms of action. The greater adherence to e-cigarettes could be driven, in part, by past experience of failed quit attempts with patches and/or greater appeal of e-cigarettes.

The third RCT (Hajek et al. 2019) randomly assigned 886 adults attending stop-smoking services from the UK National Health Service. Participants received either an NRT medication of their choice or an e-cigarette starter pack, which included a newer generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid (18 mg per milliliter [ml]). Both conditions received face-to-face smoking cessation counseling from a trained counselor for at least 4 weeks. At 1 year, the biochemically verified cigarette smoking abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group compared with 9.9% in the NRT group. Of note, participants in both the e-cigarette and NRT groups rated their assigned products as less satisfying than cigarettes. However, participants who were assigned to use e-cigarettes reported that e-cigarettes provided them with greater satisfaction and rated e-cigarettes as more helpful to refrain from smoking than participants in the NRT group rated NRT medications (Hajek et al. 2019). The study concluded that use of e-cigarettes was more effective than use of NRT for smoking cessation in the trial when both were accompanied by behavioral support. Of note, among participants with 1-year abstinence, 80% of participants in the e-cigarette group were using e-cigarettes at 52 weeks follow-up and 9% of participants in the NRT group were using NRT, suggesting greater likelihood of complete abstinence from all products in the long term from NRT use compared with e-cigarette use. This also suggests that, among those who use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, cigarette abstinence may be predicated on long-term use of e-cigarettes, which may pose unknown long-term health risks, in addition to short-term risks that are only slowly coming into focus. Limitations of the study should also be considered. First, participants were enrolled through the UK National Health Service’s stop-smoking service, so they were motivated to quit. Participants also received evidence-based cessation counseling in addition to e-cigarettes or NRT. Furthermore, the policy and regulatory environment regarding both e-cigarettes and tobacco products in the United Kingdom differs greatly from that of the United States. For example, compared with the United States, the United Kingdom limits the amount of nicotine permitted in e-cigarettes (maximum concentration 20 mg/ml) and has more restrictions on the advertising and marketing of e-cigarettes, which aligns with its advertising restrictions on tobacco products more generally. Further well-designed RCTs will ultimately be important before any substantive conclusions can be made about the comparative efficacy of e-cigarettes relative to NRT, other cessation pharmacotherapies, or not using a cessation aid.

A fourth RCT conducted in 2016–2017 in New Zealand explored e-cigarettes, with and without nicotine, as an adjunct to the nicotine patch (Walker et al. 2019). The study randomized smokers motivated to quit (n = 1,124) to receive either nicotine patch, nicotine patch plus nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, or nicotine patch plus nicotine-free e-cigarettes. Participants randomized to the e-cigarette conditions received a tank-style device and tobacco-flavored e-liquid in either 0 mg/ml or 18 mg/ml concentration, depending on assigned group; and all participants received 21 mg nicotine patches. Smokers using nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were more likely to have biochemically verified, continuous cigarette abstinence at 6-month follow-up than those randomized to patch plus nicotine-free e-cigarettes or to nicotine patch alone (7%, 4%, and 2%, respectively). However, the study had higher than expected rates of attrition: 50% in the patch-only group, 32% in the patch plus nicotine-containing e-cigarettes group, and 33% in the patch plus nicotine-free e-cigarettes group. Moreover, quit rates were much lower than expected among all three randomized groups.

In addition to the aforementioned RCTs, an additional RCT assigned smokers employed by 54 companies to one of four workplace smoking-cessation interventions or to usual care (Halpern et al. 2018). Usual care consisted of access to information about the benefits of smoking cessation and to a motivational text-messaging service. The four interventions consisted of usual care and one of the following interventions: free access to cessation aids (NRT or pharmacotherapy, with e-cigarettes if standard therapies failed); free access to e-cigarettes, without a requirement that standard therapies had been tried; free access to cessation aids and $600 in rewards for sustained abstinence; or free access to cessation aids plus $600 in redeemable funds, with money removed from the account if cessation milestones were not met. The study found that rates of sustained abstinence through 6 months were 0.1% in the usual care group, 0.5% in the free cessation aids group, 1.0% in the free e-cigarettes group, 2.0% in the rewards group, and 2.9% in the redeemable funds group. Of note, the free e-cigarettes intervention was not superior to usual care (p = 0.20) or to the free cessation aids intervention (p = 0.43), and among smokers who received usual care, the addition of free cessation aids or e-cigarettes did not significantly enhance cessation efficacy. However, the study did not assess actual use of e-cigarettes, only access to the products, nor did it compare free access to e-cigarettes with free access to conventional cessation aids without any option for e-cigarettes (Halpern et al. 2018).

In addition to the data from the previously summarized RCTs, multiple observational studies have explored the effectiveness of using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Several systematic reviews have synthesized the observational literature on the impact of e-cigarette use on smoking cessation (Franck et al. 2014; Grana et al. 2014; Harrell et al. 2014; McRobbie et al. 2014; Lam and West 2015; Rahman et al. 2015; Hartmann-Boyce et al. 2016; Kalkhoran and Glantz 2016; Khoudigian et al. 2016; Malas et al. 2016; El Dib et al. 2017). The review by El Dib and colleagues (2017), which used a methodology known as GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to formally assess the certainty of evidence by outcome, concluded that the findings on this topic from two RCTs (Bullen et al. 2013; Caponnetto et al. 2013) and eight observational studies (Vickerman et al. 2013; Borderud et al. 2014; Prochaska and Grana 2014; Al-Delaimy et al. 2015; Biener and Hargraves 2015; Brose et al. 2015; Harrington et al. 2015; Manzoli et al. 2015) were of very low quality. Several of the reviews noted that findings from the observational studies varied, and differences in study design and the selection of participants made it difficult to make conclusive comparisons. Similarly, a review conducted by USPSTF (2015), which also considered the existing RCTs, concluded that the current evidence was insufficient to recommend e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant women.

In one of the prospective observational studies, Manzoli and colleagues (2015) reported that the rate of quitting smoking did not differ between smokers who had used e-cigarettes weekly for at least 6 months and smokers who did not use e-cigarettes. However, in a longitudinal study of a nationally representative population of adults surveyed in 2012 and 2014, Zhuang and colleagues (2016) found that long-term e-cigarette users appeared to have (a) higher rates of quit attempts than short-term e-cigarette users or nonusers of e-cigarettes (72.6% vs. 53.8% and 45.5%, respectively) and (b) higher rates of cigarette cessation (42.4% vs. 14.2% and 15.6%, respectively). Adjusting for smoking characteristics and demographics, long-term e-cigarette users were significantly more likely than nonusers of e-cigarettes to try to quit smoking (OR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.34–6.44) and to do so successfully (OR = 4.14; 95% CI, 1.50–11.42); cessation outcomes for short-term e-cigarette users were similar to those for nonusers. The study also found that 43.7% of adults who were dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes at baseline were still using e-cigarettes at follow-up. In a study of multiple years of nationally representative data from the U.S. Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplement, Zhu and colleagues (2017) found that the smoking cessation rate for the overall population increased from 4.5% in 2010–2011 to 5.6% in 2014–2015, and in 2014–2015, e-cigarette users were more likely than nonusers to attempt to quit smoking (65.1% vs. 40.1%; percentage point change = 25%; 95% CI, 23.2–26.9%) and to succeed in quitting (8.2% vs. 4.8%, p <0.001). The study also examined the potential impact on cessation of other tobacco control efforts that were underway during the study period (e.g., mass media campaigns and increased taxation of cigarettes) and concluded that their effects could not fully account for the observed increase in the quit rate, leaving the use of e-cigarettes as a potential explanation. Finally, in a cross-sectional household survey of smokers 16 years of age and older in England, Beard and colleagues (2016) found that the success rate of attempts to quit cigarettes increased by 0.098% (p <.001) for every 1% increase in the prevalence of e-cigarette use among smokers, and by 0.058% for every 1% increase in the prevalence of e-cigarette use during a recent quit attempt. The study concluded that increases in e-cigarette use in England have been associated with increased success in quitting cigarette smoking.

As noted previously, some of the literature suggests potential utility of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. However, the current literature is limited by small numbers of trials, low event rates, and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, interpretation of results is further complicated by the wide variation in e-cigarette products (i.e., types of devices and components and levels of nicotine content in e-liquids) and the contexts in which they are used, including the motivation of smokers to quit and whether the products are used with behavioral support. Accordingly, more well-designed RCTs and prospective observational studies are needed to determine whether and how e-cigarettes influence smoking cessation, including whether the type of e-cigarette and the setting in which it is used impacts the potential for e-cigarette use to help smokers quit.

Existing research suggests that the frequency of e-cigarette use and the type of product are important factors that influence the extent to which the products increase the likelihood of smoking cessation. As part of a comprehensive report on the public health consequences of e-cigarettes, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) reviewed three RCTs (Bullen et al. 2013; Caponnetto et al. 2013; Adriaens et al. 2014)—one of which assessed smoking reduction and not actual cessation (Adriaens et al. 2014)—and results from several prospective cohort studies or repeated cross-sectional design studies (Biener and Hargraves 2015; Brose et al. 2015; Hitchman et al. 2015; Delnevo et al. 2016; Malas et al. 2016; Zhuang et al. 2016; Levy et al. 2018) on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. The review concluded that while the overall evidence from observational trials is mixed, there is moderate evidence from observational studies that more frequent use of e-cigarettes is associated with an increased likelihood of cessation. For example, in a cross-sectional study using data from the 2016 and 2017 National Health Interview Survey, Farsalinos and Niaura (2019b) found that daily e-cigarette use was not associated with being a former smoker when quit duration was ignored, but was positively associated with being a former smoker of less than 1 year (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63–4.49), 1–3 years (aPR = 2.51; 95% CI, 2.13–2.95), and 4–6 years (aPR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.49–2.26). Moreover, using data from waves 1 (2013–2014) and 2 (2014–2015) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, Berry and colleagues (2019) found that after adjusting for covariates, (a) cigarette smokers who initiated e-cigarette use between waves and reported that they used e-cigarettes daily at wave 2, had 7.88 (95% CI, 4.45–13.95) times the odds of 30-day cigarette cessation compared with nonusers of e-cigarettes at wave 2, and (b) nondaily e-cigarette users had significantly lower odds of cessation compared with nonusers. Similarly, in a longitudinal sample from two U.S. municipalities, Biener and Hargraves (2015) found that after accounting for demographic characteristics and tobacco dependence, intensive users of e-cigarettes (used e-cigarettes daily for at least 1 month) were six times more likely than nonusers to quit smoking (OR = 6.07; 95% CI, 1.11–33.2); a comparable relationship was not observed between intermittent users (used e-cigarettes regularly but not daily for more than 1 month) and nonusers/triers (used e-cigarettes only once or twice). Furthermore, among a longitudinal sample of smokers in Great Britain, Hitchman and colleagues (2015) found that compared with smokers who did not report using e-cigarettes at follow-up, nondaily users of disposable e-cigarettes were less likely to have quit smoking since baseline (p = 0.0002); daily users of disposable e-cigarettes and nondaily users of tank-style e-cigarettes were no more or less likely to have quit (p = 0.36 and p = 0.42, respectively); and daily users of tank-style e-cigarettes were more likely to have quit (p ≤0.01). These findings are consistent with findings from the RCT by Hajek and colleagues (2019), which found greater efficacy for cessation from the use of more recent generations of e-cigarettes with higher nicotine yield, and from studies showing that open tank e-cigarettes, which allow the user to refill the nicotine liquid and to titrate the dose of nicotine, result in greater nicotine absorption (Farsalinos et al. 2013a,^b; 2015). Most recently, Gomajee and colleagues (2019) assessed longitudinal data from the CONSTANCES (Consultants des Centres d’Examens de Santé) cohort and found that among the 5,400 daily smokers, daily e-cigarette use was associated with a significantly higher decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked per day compared with daily smokers who did not use e-cigarettes (−4.4 [95% CI, −4.8 to −3.9] vs. −2.7 [95% CI, −3.1 to −2.4]), as well as a higher adjusted RR of smoking cessation (1.67; 95% CI, 1.51–1.84]). However, among 2,025 former smokers, e-cigarette use was associated with an increase in the rate of smoking relapse (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.70; 95% CI, 1.25–2.30) compared with former smokers who did not use e-cigarettes. In addition to frequency of use and product type, some data suggest that the reason for using e-cigarettes (e.g., to quit or reduce smoking vs. all other reasons) may be an important factor that influences the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation (Vickerman et al. 2017). Taken together, these findings suggest that the type and design of e-cigarettes (e.g., open tank systems vs. closed systems vs. disposable) and the way in which they are used (e.g., more frequent use vs. less frequent use) may affect their utility for cessation (Hitchman et al. 2015).

The landscape of e-cigarettes continues to evolve, with the arrival of a new generation of devices and e-liquids that can more efficiently deliver nicotine (Farsalinos et al. 2014; USDHHS 2018b). For example, some e-cigarettes contain nicotine salt e-liquids (also called nic salts); nicotine salts are created by adding an acid to the nicotine to lower the overall pH (Goniewicz et al. 2018a; Spindle and Eissenberg 2018). Nicotine salt-based liquids allow users to inhale aerosols with high levels of nicotine more easily and with less irritation than the freebase nicotine e-liquids that have been used in e-cigarettes since they were first introduced into the marketplace (USDHHS 2018b; O’Connell et al. 2019). Nicotine salt e-liquids may also help deliver nicotine to the brain faster and in a way that is more comparable to the nicotine delivery achieved via conventional cigarettes (Goniewicz et al. 2018a). Although justifiable concerns exist that nicotine salts could promote initiation of e-cigarette use among youth, this new product formulation also has the potential to enhance the dose and efficiency with which nicotine is delivered to adult smokers who may be attempting to quit smoking, thus potentially increasing the likelihood that they are able to transition completely to e-cigarettes. However, this formulation could also make it more difficult for those who fully transition to e-cigarettes to eventually quit using these products completely.

The 2014 Surgeon General’s report noted that “the promotion of noncombustible products is much more likely to provide public health benefits only in an environment where the appeal, accessibility, promotion, and use of cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products are being rapidly reduced” (USDHHS 2014, p. 874). Therefore, it is particularly important to consider both the potential benefits of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and the high level of e-cigarette use among youth, which increased to unprecedented levels between 2017 and 2018 primarily because of the introduction of JUUL and other e-cigarettes shaped like USB flash drives (Cullen et al. 2018). As noted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018), the specific time frame and magnitude of population health effects of e-cigarettes will depend on their impact on the rates of initiation and net cessation of combustible tobacco cigarettes and their intrinsic harm, and the risks of the high level of e-cigarette use among youth. To date, a variety of modeling projections have estimated the potential magnitude of these effects, but it is important to note that results can vary greatly depending on parameter inputs, underlying assumptions, and other factors. Using a Mendez-Warner modeling approach, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) found that the use of e-cigarettes will generate a net public health benefit, at least in the short term. The model found that the harms from increased initiation by youth will take time to manifest, occurring decades after the benefits of increased cessation are observed. However, for long-term projections, the net public health benefit was projected to be substantially less and was negative under some scenarios in the model. Importantly, irrespective of the range of assumptions used, the model projected a net public health harm in the short and long terms if the products do not increase net combustible tobacco cessation in adults. Warner and Mendez (2019) used a similar approach, concluding that potential life-years gained as a result of e-cigarette-induced smoking cessation are projected to exceed potential life-years lost due to e-cigarette-induced smoking initiation, and that these results held over a wide range of assessed parameters. In contrast, Soneji and colleagues (2018), using a Monte Carlo stochastic simulation model, found that 2,070 additional current cigarette smoking adults (25–69 years of age) (95% CI, −42,900–46,200) would, because of e-cigarette use in 2014, quit smoking in 2015 and remain continually abstinent from smoking for 7 or more years. The model also estimated 168,000 additional never-cigarette smoking adolescents (12–17 years of age) and young adults (18–29 years of age) (95% CI, 114,000–229,000) would, because of e-cigarette use in 2014, initiate cigarette smoking in 2015 and become daily cigarette smokers at 35–39 years of age. Based on the existing scientific evidence related to e-cigarettes and optimistic assumptions about the relative harm of e-cigarette use compared with cigarette smoking, the authors concluded that e-cigarette use currently represents more population-level harm than benefit.

In summary, the evidence is inadequate to infer that e-cigarettes, in general, increase smoking cessation; factors contributing to the uncertainty include the changing characteristics of e-cigarettes, the many different contexts in which they are used, and the limited number of studies conducted to date. However, the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that the use of e-cigarettes containing nicotine is associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine; of important note, the evidence to support this conclusion lacks comparison to standard evidence-based therapy, and more research on this topic is warranted. The evidence is also suggestive but not sufficient to infer that more frequent use of e-cigarettes is associated with increased smoking cessation compared with less frequent use of e-cigarettes; however, future research on this topic is also warranted because existing evidence is primarily from observational studies that did not control for confounding based on motivation to quit smoking or assess potential characteristics of e-cigarette use that may be correlated with frequency of use, such as duration of use and product nicotine levels. The effects of e-cigarette use on smoking cessation will likely be determined by a combination of the physical characteristics of these products; how they are used; and how society, policymakers, manufacturers, smokers, and clinicians approach such products. Well-controlled clinical trials and rigorous, large-scale observational studies with long-term follow-up will be critical to better understand the impact of various e-cigarettes under various conditions. E-cigarettes could help adult smokers, by reducing the risk of smoking-attributable disease, if they completely switch from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes and do not partake in an extended period of dual use that delays quitting. It is also important to consider the extent of health risks posed by ingredients that are unique to e-cigarettes but not present in conventional cigarettes (Clapp and Jaspers 2017; Gotts et al. 2019; Madison et al. 2019). Among those who have transitioned completely, the ultimate goal should be to also quit the use of e-cigarettes completely in order to achieve the maximum individual and public health benefit. However, at the population level, any potential benefits these products confer in terms of increasing cessation among adult smokers would need to outweigh potential risks related to use among youth (USDHHS 2014), including the already unprecedented increase in the use of e-cigarettes among youth that has occurred in recent years (Cullen et al. 2018; Miech et al. 2019). It is particularly important to emphasize the current diversity of e-cigarette products: they do not comprise a homogenous product category, and they have changed rapidly in design and characteristics since first entering the U.S. marketplace in 2007. Consequently, much of the existing scientific literature on cessation relates to past generations of e-cigarette products. Therefore, further research is needed on the effects that e-cigarettes have on smoking cessation, including research on:

• Differential effects based on the type of e-cigarette product (e.g., newer vs. older devices),
• Comparison groups (e.g., e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine, NRT, no cessation aid),
• Components in e-cigarette devices and the settings at which they are used (e.g., temperature of the heating coils),
• Frequency of use (e.g., daily vs. less frequent use),
• Informational context (e.g., forms of marketing and promotion, communication about risk and harm, behavioral support for use as a cessation aid),
• Potential variations in effects across geographies, and
• Real-world use of e-cigarettes in different regulatory contexts.

Such research will shed light on whether and how it may be possible to leverage e-cigarettes (or certain types of e-cigarette products) to maximize positive smoking cessation outcomes while minimizing adverse consequences related to youth initiation and use.

Teachable Moments

Teachable moments—including life changes, disease diagnoses, medical procedures, and screening results—can motivate patients to make and sustain a quit attempt. Smokers often come into contact with health-care professionals—including physicians, nurses, medical staff, dentists, and pharmacists—during such moments. In addition to the specific situations described below, several other situations can also serve as teachable moments (e.g., when a pharmacist is dispensing a drug that interacts with cigarette smoking or when a dentist, periodontist, or dental hygienist is treating a smoker).

Considerations for Subpopulations

As the prevalence of cigarette smoking in the general U.S. population has declined over time, increased attention has been devoted to tobacco cessation interventions focused on certain subgroups that may be more likely to smoke, be heavier smokers, bear a disproportionate burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality, and face special challenges in quitting. In some cases, certain populations or conditions may warrant specific cessation interventions and/or lack an indication for or have certain considerations or contraindications related to cessation medication. This section outlines the evidence and considerations for cessation interventions across specific populations and/or conditions for which existing interventions are not indicated and/or are less effective.

Emerging Intervention Approaches

Summary of the Evidence

The prevalence of cigarette smoking in the general U.S. population has declined steadily since the 1960s (USDHHS 2014), due in part to the development and concerted implementation of evidence-based tobacco control interventions, including cessation interventions. Since 2002 the number of former smokers has been greater than the number of current smokers (CDC 2005). However, as of 2017, there were still 34 million adult current cigarette smokers in the United States (Wang et al. 2018). This chapter highlighted key topics and developments associated with the content and delivery of smoking cessation interventions, with a focus on emerging evidence that can inform future smoking cessation efforts.

The evidence indicates that nicotine addiction is a chronic, relapsing disorder and that the chances of successfully sustaining a quit attempt and avoiding relapse increase with the use of evidence-based cessation treatments, with those chances generally increasing with higher dose, duration, and intensity of treatment. A large number of high-quality studies continues to support the use of behavioral counseling, pharmacologic interventions, and combined counseling and pharmacologic interventions for smoking cessation, with the latter combination being the most effective approach. Effective counseling interventions include diverse behavioral treatments that can be delivered effectively in a variety of formats, including individual, group, and telephone counseling. There are currently seven FDA-approved medications for use as first-line tobacco cessation treatments. Although the products are not approved for combination use, there is clear scientific evidence that combinations of short-and long-acting forms of NRT are more effective in promoting cessation than individual forms of NRT (Lindson et al. 2019). Both behavioral and pharmacologic tobacco cessation treatments have been shown to be highly cost-effective (see Chapter 5).

Nationally representative data indicate that about three in five U.S. adults who ever smoked have quit successfully and that just over half of current smokers try to quit each year, but the success of any given quit attempt remains low (Babb et al. 2017). Despite progress over the past 30 years, the reach and use of smoking cessation interventions remain low, with less than one-third of smokers using any proven cessation treatments (counseling and/or medication) from 2000 to 2015 (Babb et al. 2017). Regardless of the generally wide availability of proven cessation treatments, about two-thirds of smokers still attempt to quit without using these treatments, contributing to low rates of success (Hughes et al. 2004; Fiore et al. 2008).

Increasing smoking cessation will require several strategies, including (1) increasing the appeal, reach, and use of existing evidence-based cessation interventions; (2) further increasing the effectiveness of those interventions; and (3) developing additional cessation interventions that have greater reach and/or effectiveness than existing interventions or that appeal to and are used by different populations of smokers. Increasing cessation at the population level will also require increasing quit attempts (including the number of smokers making quit attempts and the number of quit attempts that individual smokers make) and quit success, with quit attempts being driven primarily by the reach of cessation interventions and quit success being driven primarily by the intensity of these interventions (Zhu et al. 2012).

Additional research is needed to better understand (a) how e-cigarette use impacts smoking cessation, including determining which types of e-cigarettes and which patterns and contexts of e-cigarette use may facilitate or hinder smoking cessation among adults, and (b) the negative impacts of e-cigarette use (e.g., increases in youth initiation of e-cigarettes, conventional cigarettes, and other tobacco products; dual use of e-cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products; decreased use of evidence-based cessation treatments; and decreased or delayed complete cessation of conventional cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products). The research will need to track the changes in products over time.

Promising directions include leveraging emerging technologies to enhance the sustained engagement of smokers in cessation treatment, accelerating the integration of cessation services across multiple platforms and within healthcare systems, and developing new tobacco cessation medications and new indications for existing cessation medications. Although this chapter focuses on cessation interventions at the individual level, several population- and policy-based approaches (discussed in Chapter 7) have also been found to be effective in increasing tobacco cessation. Many of these broader approaches can be leveraged to complement and further increase the use of the cessation treatments described in this chapter.

Conclusions

1. The evidence is sufficient to infer that behavioral counseling and cessation medication interventions increase smoking cessation compared with self-help materials or no treatment.
2. The evidence is sufficient to infer that behavioral counseling and cessation medications are independently effective in increasing smoking cessation, and even more effective when used in combination.
3. The evidence is sufficient to infer that proactive quit-line counseling, when provided alone or in combination with cessation medications, increases smoking cessation.
4. The evidence is sufficient to infer that short text message services about cessation are independently effective in increasing smoking cessation, particularly if they are interactive or tailored to individual text responses.
5. The evidence is sufficient to infer that web or Internet-based interventions increase smoking cessation and can be more effective when they contain behavior change techniques and interactive components.
6. The evidence is inadequate to infer that smartphone apps for smoking cessation are independently effective in increasing smoking cessation.
7. The evidence is sufficient to infer that combining short- and long-acting forms of nicotine replacement therapy increases smoking cessation compared with using single forms of nicotine replacement therapy.
8. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that pre-loading (e.g., initiating cessation medication in advance of a quit attempt), especially with the nicotine patch, can increase smoking cessation.
9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that very-low-nicotine-content cigarettes can reduce smoking and nicotine dependence and increase smoking cessation when full-nicotine cigarettes are readily available; the effects on cessation may be further strengthened in an environment in which conventional cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products are not readily available.
10. The evidence is inadequate to infer that e-cigarettes, in general, increase smoking cessation. However, the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that the use of e-cigarettes containing nicotine is associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine, and the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that more frequent use of e-cigarettes is associated with increased smoking cessation compared with less frequent use of e-cigarettes.
11. The evidence is sufficient to infer that certain life events—including hospitalization, surgery, and lung cancer screening—can trigger attempts to quit smoking, uptake of smoking cessation treatment, and smoking cessation.
12. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that fully and consistently integrating standardized, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions into lung cancer screening increases smoking cessation while avoiding potential adverse effects of this screening on cessation outcomes.
13. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that cytisine increases smoking cessation.

References¹

• Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. New England Journal of Medicine 2011;365(5):395–409. [PMC free article: PMC4356534] [PubMed: 21714641]
• Abroms LC, Lee Westmaas J, Bontemps-Jones J, Ramani R, Mellerson J. A content analysis of popular smart-phone apps for smoking cessation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2013;45(6):732–6. [PMC free article: PMC3836190] [PubMed: 24237915]
• Abroms LC, Padmanabhan N, Thaweethai L, Phillips T. iPhone apps for smoking cessation: a content analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011;40(3):279–85. [PMC free article: PMC3395318] [PubMed: 21335258]
• Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Hyland A, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2013;44(3):207–15. [PMC free article: PMC3627474] [PubMed: 23415116]
• Adriaens K, Van Gucht D, Declerck P, Baeyens F. Effectiveness of the electronic cigarette: An eight-week Flemish study with six-month follow-up on smoking reduction, craving and experienced benefits and complaints. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2014;11(11):11220–48. [PMC free article: PMC4245610] [PubMed: 25358095]
• Adsit RT, Fox BM, Tsiolis T, Ogland C, Simerson M, Vind LM, Bell SM, Skora AD, Baker TB, Fiore MC. Using the electronic health record to connect primary care patients to evidence-based telephonic tobacco quit-line services: a closed-loop demonstration project. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2014;4(3):324–32. [PMC free article: PMC4167898] [PubMed: 25264471]
• Agaku IT, King BA, Husten CG, Bunnell R, Ambrose BK, Hu SS, Holder-Hayes E, Day HR. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2012–2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2014;63(25):542–7. [PMC free article: PMC5779380] [PubMed: 24964880]
• Agboola S, McNeill A, Coleman T, Leonardi Bee J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of smoking relapse prevention interventions for abstinent smokers. Addiction 2010;105(8):1362–80. [PubMed: 20653619]
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patients not ready to make a quit attempt now (The “5 R’s”). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012; <http://www​.ahrq.gov/professionals​/clinicians-providers​/guidelines-recommendations/tobacco/5rs.html.>; accessed: January 14, 2019.
• Ainscough TS, Brose LS, Strang J, McNeill A. Contingency management for tobacco smoking during opioid addiction treatment: a randomised pilot study. BMJ Open 2017;7(9):e017467. [PMC free article: PMC5589007] [PubMed: 28864706]
• Al-Delaimy WK, Myers MG, Leas EC, Strong DR, Hofstetter CR. E-cigarette use in the past and quitting behavior in the future: a population-based study. American Journal of Public Health 2015;105(6):1213–9. [PMC free article: PMC4431097] [PubMed: 25880947]
• Allen MH, Debanné M, Lazignac C, Adam E, Dickinson LM, Damsa C. Effect of nicotine replacement therapy on agitation in smokers with schizophrenia: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. American Journal of Psychiatry 2011;168(4):395–9. [PubMed: 21245085]
• Alpert HR, Connolly GN, Biener L. A prospective cohort study challenging the effectiveness of population-based medical intervention for smoking cessation. Tobacco Control 2013;22(1):32–7. [PubMed: 22234781]
• Alzahrani T, Glantz SA. The association between e-cigarette use and myocardial infarction is what one would expect based on the biological and clinical evidence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2019;56(4):627. [PMC free article: PMC9651146] [PubMed: 30898224]
• Alzahrani T, Pena I, Temesgen N, Glantz SA. Association between electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2018;55(4):455–61. [PMC free article: PMC6208321] [PubMed: 30166079]
• American College of Surgeons. Statement on the effects of tobacco use on surgical complications and the utility of smoking cessation counseling, August 1, 2014; <https://www​.facs.org​/about-acs/statements/71-tobacco-use>; accessed: February 13, 2018.
• An LC, Bluhm JH, Foldes SS, Alesci NL, Klatt CM, Center BA, Nersesian WS, Larson ME, Ahluwalia JS, Manley MW. A randomized trial of a pay-for-performance program targeting clinician referral to a state tobacco quitline. Archives of Internal Medicine 2008;168(18):1993–9. [PubMed: 18852400]
• An LC, Schillo BA, Kavanaugh AM, Lachter RB, Luxenberg MG, Wendling AH, Joseph AM. Increased reach and effectiveness of a statewide tobacco quitline after the addition of access to free nicotine replacement therapy. Tobacco Control 2006;15(4):286–93. [PMC free article: PMC2563594] [PubMed: 16885577]
• Anderson CM. Quitline Services: Current Practice and Evidence Base. Phoenix (AZ): North American Quitline Consortium, 2016; <http://c​.ymcdn.com/sites/www​.naquitline.org​/resource/resmgr/issue_papers​/Quitline​_Services_issue_pape.pdf>; accessed: May 24, 2017.
• Anguiano B, Brown-Johnson C, Rosas LG, Pechmann C, Prochaska JJ. Latino adults’ perspectives on treating tobacco use via social media. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth 2017;5(2):e12. [PMC free article: PMC5322200] [PubMed: 28179217]
• Anthenelli RM, Benowitz NL, West R, St Aubin L, McRae T, Lawrence D, Ascher J, Russ C, Krishen A, Evins AE. Neuropsychiatric safety and efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (EAGLES): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet 2016;387(10037):2507–20. [PubMed: 27116918]
• Anthenelli RM, Morris C, Ramey TS, Dubrava SJ, Tsilkos K, Russ C, Yunis C. Effects of varenicline on smoking cessation in adults with stably treated current or past major depression: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;159(6):390–400. [PubMed: 24042367]
• Applegate BW, Sheffer CE, Crews KM, Payne TJ, Smith PO. A survey of tobacco-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of primary care providers in Mississippi. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2008;14(4):537–44. [PubMed: 18462288]
• Aronson SJ, Rehm HL. Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine. Nature 2015;526(7573):336–42. [PMC free article: PMC5669797] [PubMed: 26469044]
• Ashare RL, Tang KZ, Mesaros AC, Blair IA, Leone F, Strasser AA. Effects of 21 days of varenicline versus placebo on smoking behaviors and urges among non-treatment seeking smokers. Journal of Psychopharmacology 2012;26(10):1383–90. [PMC free article: PMC3526838] [PubMed: 22695488]
• Asian Smokers’ Quitline. Home page, n.d.; <http://www​.asiansmokersquitline.org>; accessed: August 17, 2017.
• Atienza AA, Patrick K. Mobile health: the killer app for cyber-infrastructure and consumer health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011;40(5 Suppl 2):S151–S153. [PubMed: 21521588]
• Aubin HJ, Luquiens A, Berlin I. Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: pharmacological principles and clinical practice. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2014;77(2):324–36. [PMC free article: PMC4014023] [PubMed: 23488726]
• Augustine JM, Taylor AM, Pelger M, Schiefer D, Warholak TL. Smoking quit rates among patients receiving pharmacist-provided pharmacotherapy and telephonic smoking cessation counseling. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 2016;56(2):129–36. [PubMed: 27000162]
• Babb S, Malarcher A, Schauer G, Asman K, Jamal A. Quitting smoking among adults—United States, 2000–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2017;65(52):1457–64. [PubMed: 28056007]
• Baca CT, Yahne CE. Smoking cessation during substance abuse treatment: what you need to know. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2009;36(2):205–19. [PubMed: 18715746]
• Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, Azzoli CG, Berry DA, Brawley OW, Byers T, Colditz GA, Gould MK, Jett JR, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2012;307(22):2418–29. [PMC free article: PMC3709596] [PubMed: 22610500]
• Baezconde-Garbanati L, Guy M, Soto C. The Use of Quitlines Among Priority Populations in the U.S.: Lessons from the Scientific Evidence. Oakland (CA): North American Quitline Consortium, 2011; <https://cdn​.ymaws.com/www​.naquitline.org​/resource/resmgr/Issue_Papers​/IssuePaperTheUseofQuitlinesA​.pdf>; accessed: May 2, 2019.
• Baker TB, Piper ME, McCarthy DE, Bolt DM, Smith SS, Kim SY, Colby S, Conti D, Giovino GA, Hatsukami D, et al. Time to first cigarette in the morning as an index of ability to quit smoking: implications for nicotine dependence. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2007;9:(Suppl 4):S555–S570. [PMC free article: PMC2933747] [PubMed: 18067032]
• Barrera R, Shi W, Amar D, Thaler HT, Gabovich N, Bains MS, White DA. Smoking and timing of cessation: impact on pulmonary complications after thoracotomy. Chest 2005;127(6):1977–83. [PubMed: 15947310]
• Baskerville NB, Azagba S, Norman C, McKeown K, Brown KS. Effect of a digital social media campaign on young adult smoking cessation. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(3):351–60. [PubMed: 26045252]
• Bauld L, Graham H, Sinclair L, Flemming K, Naughton F, Ford A, McKell J, McCaughan D, Hopewell S, Angus K, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and following childbirth: literature review and qualitative study. Health Technology Assessment 2017;21(36):1–158. [PMC free article: PMC5502375] [PubMed: 28661375]
• Beard E, West R, Michie S, Brown J. Association between electronic cigarette use and changes in quit attempts, success of quit attempts, use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, and use of stop smoking services in England: time series analysis of population trends. BMJ 2016;354:i4645. [PubMed: 27624188]
• Beck AT. Cognitive therapy: nature and relation to behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy 1970;1(2):184–200.
• Benowitz NL, Dains KM, Hall SM, Stewart S, Wilson M, Dempsey D, Jacob P 3rd. Smoking behavior and exposure to tobacco toxicants during 6 months of smoking progressively reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2012;21(5):761–9. [PMC free article: PMC3348427] [PubMed: 22354905]
• Benowitz NL, Hall SM, Stewart S, Wilson M, Dempsey D, Jacob P 3rd. Nicotine and carcinogen exposure with smoking of progressively reduced nicotine content cigarette. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2007;16(11):2479–85. [PubMed: 18006940]
• Benowitz NL, Henningfield JE. Establishing a nicotine threshold for addiction. The implications for tobacco regulation. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(2):123–5. [PubMed: 7818638]
• Benowitz NL, Henningfield JE. Reducing the nicotine content to make cigarettes less addictive. Tobacco Control 2013;22(Suppl 1)i14–i17. [PMC free article: PMC3632983] [PubMed: 23591498]
• Benowitz NL, Nardone N, Dains KM, Hall SM, Stewart S, Dempsey D, Jacob P 3rd. Effect of reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes on cigarette smoking behavior and tobacco smoke toxicant exposure: 2-year follow up. Addiction 2015;110(10):1667–75. [PMC free article: PMC4565734] [PubMed: 26198394]
• Benowitz NL, Pipe A, West R, Hays JT, Tonstad S, McRae T, Lawrence D, St Aubin L, Anthenelli RM. Cardiovascular safety of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine 2018;178(5):622–31. [PMC free article: PMC6145797] [PubMed: 29630702]
• Berger I, Mooney-Somers J. Smoking cessation programs for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people: a content-based systematic review. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016. [PubMed: 27613909]
• Bernstein SL, Boudreaux ED. Emergency department-based tobacco interventions improve patient satisfaction. Journal of Emergency Medicine 2010;38(4):e35–e40. [PubMed: 18922661]
• Berry KM, Reynolds LM, Collins JM, Siegel MB, Fetterman JL, Hamburg NM, Bhatnagar A, Benjamin EJ, Stokes A. E-cigarette initiation and associated changes in smoking cessation and reduction: the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, 2013–2015. Tobacco Control 2019;28(1):42–9. [PMC free article: PMC6317439] [PubMed: 29574448]
• Bhatta DN, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction among adults in the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health. Journal of the American Heart Association 2019;8(12):e012317. [PMC free article: PMC6645634] [PubMed: 31165662]
• Biener L, Hargraves JL. A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette use among a population-based sample of adult smokers: association with smoking cessation and motivation to quit. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2015;17(2):127–33. [PMC free article: PMC4375383] [PubMed: 25301815]
• Bloom EL, Wing RR, Kahler CW, Thompson JK, Meltzer S, Hecht J, Minami H, Price LH, Brown RA. Distress tolerance treatment for weight concern in smoking cessation among women: the WE QUIT Pilot Study. Behavior Modification 2017;41(4):468–98. [PMC free article: PMC5453845] [PubMed: 28027666]
• Blount BC, Karwowski MP, Shields PG, Morel-Espinosa M, Valentin-Blasini L, Gardner M, Braselton M, Brosius CR, Caron KT, Chambers D, et al. Vitamin E acetate in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid associated with EVALI. New England Journal of Medicine 2019. [PMC free article: PMC7032996] [PubMed: 31860793]
• Blumenthal DS. Barriers to the provision of smoking cessation services reported by clinicians in underserved communities. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 2007;20(3):272–9. [PubMed: 17478660]
• Bock B, Graham A, Sciamanna C, Krishnamoorthy J, Whiteley J, Carmona-Barros R, Niaura R, Abrams D. Smoking cessation treatment on the Internet: content, quality, and usability. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2004;6(2):207–19. [PubMed: 15203794]
• Bock BC, Graham AL, Whiteley JA, Stoddard JL. A review of web-assisted tobacco interventions (WATIs). Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;10(5):e39. [PMC free article: PMC2630838] [PubMed: 19000979]
• Bombard JM, Farr SL, Dietz PM, Tong VT, Zhang L, Rabius V. Telephone smoking cessation quitline use among pregnant and non-pregnant women. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2013;17(6):989–95. [PMC free article: PMC4425351] [PubMed: 22798140]
• Borderud SP, Li Y, Burkhalter JE, Sheffer CE, Ostroff JS. Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes. Cancer 2014;120(22):3527–35. [PMC free article: PMC5642904] [PubMed: 25252116]
• Borland R, Partos TR, Cummings KM. Systematic biases in cross-sectional community studies may underestimate the effectiveness of stop-smoking medications. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2012;14(12):1483–7. [PMC free article: PMC3509007] [PubMed: 22318689]
• Borrelli B, Bartlett YK, Tooley E, Armitage CJ, Wearden A. Prevalence and frequency of mHealth and eHealth use among U.S and UK smokers and differences by motivation to quit. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2015;17(7):e164. [PMC free article: PMC4526978] [PubMed: 26149323]
• Boucher J, Konkle AT. Understanding inequalities of maternal smoking—bridging the gap with adapted intervention strategies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2016;13(3):pii: E282. [PMC free article: PMC4808945] [PubMed: 26959037]
• Boyle R, Solberg L, Fiore M. Use of electronic health records to support smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD008743. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008743.pub2. [PubMed: 22161436] [CrossRef]
• Boyle R, Solberg L, Fiore M. Use of electronic health records to support smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD008743. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008743.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC7173728] [PubMed: 25547090] [CrossRef]
• Bricker J, Wyszynski C, Comstock B, Heffner JL. Pilot randomized controlled trial of web-based acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(10):1756–64. [PMC free article: PMC3768336] [PubMed: 23703730]
• Bricker JB, Bush T, Zbikowski SM, Mercer LD, Heffner JL. Randomized trial of telephone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation: a pilot study. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2014a;16(11):1446–54. [PMC free article: PMC4200023] [PubMed: 24935757]
• Bricker JB, Copeland W, Mull KE, Zeng EY, Watson NL, Akioka KJ, Heffner JL. Single-arm trial of the second version of an acceptance & commitment therapy smartphone application for smoking cessation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2017;170:37–42. [PMC free article: PMC5183543] [PubMed: 27870987]
• Bricker JB, Mann SL, Marek PM, Liu J, Peterson AV. Telephone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy for adult smoking cessation: a feasibility study. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010;12(4):454–8. [PubMed: 20142417]
• Bricker JB, Mull KE, Kientz JA, Vilardaga R, Mercer LD, Akioka KJ, Heffner JL. Randomized, controlled pilot trial of a smartphone app for smoking cessation using acceptance and commitment therapy. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2014b;143:87–94. [PMC free article: PMC4201179] [PubMed: 25085225]
• Bricker JB, Sridharan V, Zhu Y, Mull KE, Heffner JL, Watson NL, McClure JB, Di C. Trajectories of 12-month usage patterns for two smoking cessation websites: exploring how users engage over time. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2018;20(4):e10143. [PMC free article: PMC5935807] [PubMed: 29678799]
• Brody AL, Zorick T, Hubert R, Hellemann GS, Balali S, Kawasaki SS, Garcia LY, Enoki R, Abraham P, Young P, et al. Combination extended smoking cessation treatment plus home visits for smokers with schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2017;19(1):68–76. [PMC free article: PMC5157714] [PubMed: 27613888]
• Brooks-Brunn JA. Predictors of postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. Chest 1997;111(3):564–71. [PubMed: 9118688]
• Brose LS, Hitchman SC, Brown J, West R, McNeill A. Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1-year follow-up. Addiction 2015;110(7):1160–8. [PMC free article: PMC4862028] [PubMed: 25900312]
• Buchting FO, Emory KT, Scout NFN, Kim Y, Fagan P, Vera LE, Emery S. Transgender use of cigarettes, cigars, and e-cigarettes in a national study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2017;53(1):e1–e7. [PMC free article: PMC5478444] [PubMed: 28094133]
• Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, McRobbie H, Parag V, Williman J, Walker N. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013;382(9905):1629–37. [PubMed: 24029165]
• Bullen C, Howe C, Lin RB, Grigg M, Laugesen M, McRobbie H, Glover M, Walker N, Wallace-Bell M, Whittaker R, et al. Pre-cessation nicotine replacement therapy: pragmatic randomized trial. Addiction 2010;105(8):1474–83. [PubMed: 20528810]
• Bush TM, McAfee T, Deprey M, Mahoney L, Fellows JL, McClure J, Cushing C. The impact of a free nicotine patch starter kit on quit rates in a state quit line. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008;10(9):1511–6. [PubMed: 19023843]
• Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review 2006;26(1):17–31. [PubMed: 16199119]
• Cahill K, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R. Incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD004307. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub5. [PubMed: 25983287] [CrossRef]
• Cahill K, Lancaster T. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003440. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003440.pub4. [PubMed: 24570145] [CrossRef]
• Cahill K, Lindson-Hawley N, Thomas KH, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD006103. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006103.pub7. [PMC free article: PMC6464943] [PubMed: 27158893] [CrossRef]
• Cahill K, Perera R. Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004307. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub4. [PubMed: 21491388] [CrossRef]
• Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009329. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2. [PMC free article: PMC8406789] [PubMed: 23728690] [CrossRef]
• Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Broken Promises to Our Children: A State-by-State Look at the 1998 Tobacco Settlement 20 Years Later, 2018; <https://www​.tobaccofreekids​.org/what-we-do/us/statereport>; accessed: January 15, 2019.
• Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, Morjaria JB, Caruso M, Russo C, Polosa R. EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One 2013;8(6):e66317. [PMC free article: PMC3691171] [PubMed: 23826093]
• Caraballo RS, Shafer PR, Patel D, Davis KC, McAfee TA. Quit methods used by U.S. adult cigarette smokers, 2014–2016. Preventing Chronic Disease 2017;14:160600. [PMC free article: PMC5392446] [PubMed: 28409740]
• Carpenter MJ, Jardin BF, Burris JL, Mathew AR, Schnoll RA, Rigotti NA, Cummings KM. Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature. Drugs 2013;73(5):407–26. [PMC free article: PMC3662024] [PubMed: 23572407]
• Carr AB, Ebbert J. Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD005084. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005084.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC3916957] [PubMed: 22696348] [CrossRef]
• Carson KV, Verbiest MEA, Crone MR, Brinn MP, Esterman AJ, Assendelft WJJ, Smith BJ. Training health professionals in smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD000214. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000214.pub2. [PMC free article: PMC10088066] [PubMed: 22592671] [CrossRef]
• Cartmell KB, Dismuke CE, Dooley M, Mueller M, Nahhas GJ, Warren GW, Fallis P, Cummings KM. Effect of an inpatient tobacco dependence treatment service on 1-year postdischarge health care costs. Medical Care 2018a;56(10):883–9. [PMC free article: PMC6136961] [PubMed: 30130271]
• Cartmell KB, Dooley M, Mueller M, Nahhas GJ, Dismuke CE, Warren GW, Talbot V, Cummings KM. Effect of an evidence-based inpatient tobacco dependence treatment service on 30-, 90-, and 180-day hospital read-mission rates. Medical Care 2018b;56(4):358–63. [PMC free article: PMC5851827] [PubMed: 29401186]
• Cataldo JK. High-risk older smokers’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening. Cancer Medicine 2016;5(4):753–9. [PMC free article: PMC4831294] [PubMed: 26822940]
• Catley D, Goggin K, Harris KJ, Richter KP, Williams K, Patten C, Resnicow K, Ellerbeck EF, Bradley-Ewing A, Lee HS, et al. A randomized trial of motivational interviewing: cessation induction among smokers with low desire to quit. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;50(5):573–83. [PMC free article: PMC4841713] [PubMed: 26711164]
• Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Smoking Cessation and Related Indications: Developing Nicotine Replacement Therapy Drug Products, February 2019; <https://www​.regulations​.gov/document?D=FDA-2019-D-0297-0002>; accessed: May 9, 2019.
• Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Chapter 8. Intensive outpatient treatment approaches. In: Substance Abuse: Clinical Issues in Intensive Outpatient Treatment. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 47. Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2006. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 06-4182.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Telephone Quitlines: A Resource for Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, September 2004.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific prevalence of cigarette smoking and quitting among adults—United States, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2005;54(44):1124–7. [PubMed: 16280970]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2014. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014; <https://www​.cdc.gov/tobacco​/stateandcommunity​/best_practices​/pdfs/2014/comprehensive.pdf>; accessed: July 26, 2017.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. QuickStats: cigarette smoking status among current adult e-cigarette users, by age group—National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016;65(42):1177. [PubMed: 27787495]
• Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Diseases grants [press release], September 13, 2011; <https://www​.cms.gov/Newsroom​/MediaReleaseDatabase​/Fact-sheets​/2011-Fact-sheets-items/2011-09-13.html>; accessed: February 23, 2018.
• Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Medicaid Incentives for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases Model, January 8 2018; <https://innovation​.cms​.gov/initiatives/MIPCD/>; accessed: February 9, 2018.
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision memo for screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N), 2015; <https://www​.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database​/details/nca-decision-memo​.aspx?NCAId=274>; accessed: July 18, 2019.
• Chaiton M, Diemert L, Cohen JE, Bondy SJ, Selby P, Philipneri A, Schwartz R. Estimating the number of quit attempts it takes to quit smoking successfully in a longitudinal cohort of smokers. BMJ Open 2016;6(6):e011045. [PMC free article: PMC4908897] [PubMed: 27288378]
• Chang PH, Chiang CH, Ho WC, Wu PZ, Tsai JS, Guo FR. Combination therapy of varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy is better than varenicline alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Public Health 2015;15:689. [PMC free article: PMC4508997] [PubMed: 26198192]
• Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Palmatier MI, Liu X, Sved AF. Complex interactions between nicotine and nonpharmacological stimuli reveal multiple roles for nicotine in reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 2006;184(3-4):353–66. [PubMed: 16240165]
• Chenoweth MJ, Tyndale RF. Pharmacogenetic optimization of smoking cessation treatment. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 2017;38(1):55–66. [PMC free article: PMC5195866] [PubMed: 27712845]
• Cheung YT, Chan CH, Lai CK, Chan WF, Wang MP, Li HC, Chan SS, Lam TH. Using WhatsApp and Facebook online social groups for smoking relapse prevention for recent quitters: a pilot pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2015;17(10):e238. [PMC free article: PMC4642789] [PubMed: 26494159]
• Choi J, Noh GY, Park DJ. Smoking cessation apps for smartphones: content analysis with the self-determination theory. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(2):e44. [PMC free article: PMC3936270] [PubMed: 24521881]
• Cinciripini PM, Robinson JD, Karam-Hage M, Minnix JA, Lam C, Versace F, Brown VL, Engelmann JM, Wetter DW. Effects of varenicline and bupropion sustained-release use plus intensive smoking cessation counseling on prolonged abstinence from smoking and on depression, negative affect, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. JAMA Psychiatry 2013;70(5):522–33. [PMC free article: PMC4128024] [PubMed: 23536105]
• Civljak M, Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Sheikh A, Car J. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD007078. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007078.pub4. [PubMed: 23839868] [CrossRef]
• Clapp PW, Jaspers I. Electronic cigarettes: their constituents and potential links to asthma. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports 2017;17(11):79. [PMC free article: PMC5995565] [PubMed: 28983782]
• Clark MM, Cox LS, Jett JR, Patten CA, Schroeder DR, Nirelli LM, Vickers K, Hurt RD, Swensen SJ. Effectiveness of smoking cessation self-help materials in a lung cancer screening population. Lung Cancer 2004;44(1):13–21. [PubMed: 15013579]
• Cobb NK, Graham AL. Characterizing Internet searchers of smoking cessation information. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2006;8(3):e17. [PMC free article: PMC2018828] [PubMed: 17032633]
• Cobb NK, Jacobs MA, Saul J, Wileyto EP, Graham AL. Diffusion of an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention through Facebook: a randomised controlled trial study protocol. BMJ Open 2014;4(1):e004089. [PMC free article: PMC3902462] [PubMed: 24448847]
• Cole-Lewis H, Augustson E, Sanders A, Schwarz M, Geng Y, Coa K, Hunt Y. Analysing user-reported data for enhancement of SmokefreeTXT: a national text message smoking cessation intervention. Tobacco Control 2016. [PubMed: 27852892]
• Coleman-Cowger VH, Koszowski B, Rosenberry ZR, Terplan M. Factors associated with early pregnancy smoking status among low-income smokers. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2016;20(5):1054–60. [PMC free article: PMC4826823] [PubMed: 26649884]
• Coleman T, Chamberlain C, Davey MA, Cooper SE, Leonardi-Bee J. Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012a, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD010078. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010078. [PubMed: 22972148] [CrossRef]
• Coleman T, Chamberlain C, Davey MA, Cooper SE, Leonardi-Bee J. Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD010078. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010078.pub2. [PubMed: 26690977] [CrossRef]
• Coleman T, Cooper S, Thornton JG, Grainge MJ, Watts K, Britton J, Lewis S. A randomized trial of nicotine-replacement therapy patches in pregnancy. New England Journal of Medicine 2012b;366(9):808–18. [PubMed: 22375972]
• Collins SE, Witkiewitz K, Kirouac M, Marlatt GA. Preventing relapse following smoking cessation. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 2010;4(6):421–8. [PMC free article: PMC4636196] [PubMed: 26550097]
• Conklin CA, Salkeld RP, Perkins KA, Robin N. Do people serve as cues to smoke? Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(12):2081–7. [PMC free article: PMC3819981] [PubMed: 23873978]
• Connett JE, Kusek JW, Bailey WC, O’Hara P, Wu M. Design of the Lung Health Study: a randomized clinical trial of early intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Controlled Clinical Trials 1993;14(2 Suppl)3S–19S. [PubMed: 8500311]
• Cooper J, Borland R, Yong HH, McNeill A, Murray RL, O’Connor RJ, Cummings KM. To what extent do smokers make spontaneous quit attempts and what are the implications for smoking cessation maintenance? Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four country survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010;12(Suppl):S51–S57. [PMC free article: PMC2948138] [PubMed: 20889481]
• Corelli RL, Hudmon KS. Medications for smoking cessation. Western Journal of Medicine 2002;176(2):131–5. [PMC free article: PMC1071687] [PubMed: 11897741]
• Corey CG, Chang JT, Rostron BL. Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) battery-related burns presenting to US emergency departments, 2016. Injury Epidemiology 2018;5(1):4. [PMC free article: PMC5835487] [PubMed: 29504085]
• Cristea IA, Gentili C, Cotet CD, Palomba D, Barbui C, Cuijpers P. Efficacy of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2017;74(4):319–28. [PubMed: 28249086]
• Cryan JF, Bruijnzeel AW, Skjei KL, Markou A. Bupropion enhances brain reward function and reverses the affective and somatic aspects of nicotine withdrawal in the rat. Psychopharmacology 2003;168(3):347–58. [PubMed: 12698231]
• Culbertson CS, Shulenberger S, De La Garza R, Newton TF, Brody AL. Virtual reality cue exposure therapy for the treatment of tobacco dependence. Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation 2012;5(1):57–64. [PMC free article: PMC4204479] [PubMed: 25342999]
• Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Gentzke AS, Apelberg BJ, Jamal A, King BA. Notes from the field: use of electronic cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2018. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2018;67(45):1276–7. [PMC free article: PMC6290807] [PubMed: 30439875]
• Cummings KM, Fix B, Celestino P, Carlin-Menter S, O’Connor R, Hyland A. Reach, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of free nicotine medication giveaway programs. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 2006;12(1):37–43. [PubMed: 16340514]
• Cummings KM, Hyland A, Carlin-Menter S, Mahoney MC, Willett J, Juster HR. Costs of giving out free nicotine patches through a telephone quit line. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 2011;17(3):E16–E23. [PubMed: 21464679]
• Cummings SR, Stein MJ, Hansen B, Richard RJ, Gerbert B, Coates TJ. Smoking counseling and preventive medicine. A survey of internists in private practices and a health maintenance organization. Archives of Internal Medicine 1989;149(2):345–9. [PubMed: 2916878]
• Cummins SE, Tedeschi GJ, Anderson CM, Zhu SH. Telephone Intervention for pregnant smokers: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(3):318–26. [PubMed: 27056131]
• Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Smoking prevalence and cessation before and during pregnancy: data from the birth certificate, 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports 2016;65(1):1–14. [PubMed: 26905977]
• Danaher BG, Boles SM, Akers L, Gordon JS, Severson HH. Defining participant exposure measures in Web-based health behavior change programs. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2006;8(3):e15. [PMC free article: PMC1761946] [PubMed: 16954125]
• Das S, Prochaska JJ. Innovative approaches to support smoking cessation for individuals with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine 2017;11(10):841–50. [PMC free article: PMC5790168] [PubMed: 28756728]
• Delgado-Rodriguez M, Medina-Cuadros M, Martinez-Gallego G, Gómez-Ortega A, Mariscal-Ortiz M, Palma-Pérez S, Sillero-Arenas M. A prospective study of tobacco smoking as a predictor of complications in general surgery. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2003;24(1):37–43. [PubMed: 12558234]
• Delnevo CD, Giovenco DP, Steinberg MB, Villanti AC, Pearson JL, Niaura RS, Abrams DB. Patterns of Electronic Cigarette Use Among Adults in the United States. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(5):715–9. [PMC free article: PMC5896829] [PubMed: 26525063]
• Denison E, Underland V, Mosdøl A, Vist GE. Cognitive Therapies for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review. Oslo (Norway): The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2017. [PubMed: 29553674]
• Denlinger-Apte RL, Donny EC, Lindgren BR, Rubin N, Goodwin C, DeAtley T, Colby SM, Cioe PA, Hatsukami DK, Tidey JW. Smoking topography characteristics during a six-week trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes in smokers with serious mental illness. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2019:ntz198. [PMC free article: PMC7364846] [PubMed: 31628475]
• Deprey M, McAfee T, Bush T, McClure JB, Zbikowski S, Mahoney L. Using free patches to improve reach of the Oregon Quit Line. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 2009;15(5):401–8. [PubMed: 19704308]
• Dermody SS, McClernon FJ, Benowitz N, Luo X, Tidey JW, Smith TT, Vandrey R, Hatsukami D, Donny EC. Effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes on individual withdrawal symptoms over time and during abstinence. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2018;26(3):223–32. [PMC free article: PMC5986583] [PubMed: 29504780]
• DiClemente CC, Dolan-Mullen P, Windsor RA. The process of pregnancy smoking cessation: implications for interventions. Tobacco Control 2000;9:(Suppl 3):iii16–iii21. [PMC free article: PMC1766302] [PubMed: 10982900]
• DiGiulio A, Jump Z, Yu A, Babb S, Schecter A, Williams KS, Yembra D, Armour BS. State Medicaid coverage for tobacco cessation treatments and barriers to accessing treatments—United States, 2015–2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2018;67(13):390–5. [PMC free article: PMC5889244] [PubMed: 29621205]
• Dilley JA, Spigner C, Boysun MJ, Dent CW, Pizacani BA. Does tobacco industry marketing excessively impact lesbian, gay and bisexual communities? Tobacco Control 2008;17(6):385–90. [PubMed: 18723561]
• Dobbie F, Hiscock R, Leonardi-Bee J, Murray S, Shahab L, Aveyard P, Coleman T, McEwen A, McRobbie H, Purves R, et al. Evaluating Long-term Outcomes of NHS Stop Smoking Services (ELONS): a prospective cohort study. Health Technology Assessment 2015;19(95):1–156. [PMC free article: PMC4781027] [PubMed: 26565129]
• Dockrell M, Morrison R, Bauld L, McNeill A. E-cigarettes: prevalence and attitudes in Great Britain. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(10):1737–44. [PMC free article: PMC3768337] [PubMed: 23703732]
• Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004;328(7455):1519. [PMC free article: PMC437139] [PubMed: 15213107]
• Donny EC, Denlinger RL, Tidey JW, Koopmeiners JS, Benowitz NL, Vandrey RG, al’Absi M, Carmella SG, Cinciripini PM, Dermody SS, et al. Randomized trial of reduced-nicotine standards for cigarettes. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373(14):1340–9. [PMC free article: PMC4642683] [PubMed: 26422724]
• Donny EC, Hatsukami DK, Benowitz NL, Sved AF, Tidey JW, Cassidy RN. Reduced nicotine product standards for combustible tobacco: building an empirical basis for effective regulation. Preventive Medicine 2014;68:17–22. [PMC free article: PMC4253911] [PubMed: 24967958]
• Donny EC, Houtsmuller E, Stitzer ML. Smoking in the absence of nicotine: behavioral, subjective and physiological effects over 11 days. Addiction 2007;102(2):324–34. [PubMed: 17222288]
• Donny EC, Jones M. Prolonged exposure to denicotinized cigarettes with or without transdermal nicotine. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2009;104(1–2):23–33. [PMC free article: PMC2726800] [PubMed: 19446968]
• Drake P, Driscoll AK, Mathews TJ. Cigarette Smoking During Pregnancy: United States, 2016. NCHS Data Brief, Number 305. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2018. [PubMed: 29528282]
• Dreher M, Schillo BA, Hull M, Esqueda V, Mowery A. A case study for redesigning tobacco cessation services gaining critical insights from current and former smokers. Social Marketing Quarterly 2015;21(4):200–13.
• Ebbert JO, Hatsukami DK, Croghan IT, Schroeder DR, Allen SS, Hays JT, Hurt RD. Combination varenicline and bupropion SR for tobacco-dependence treatment in cigarette smokers: a randomized trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2014;311(2):155–63. [PMC free article: PMC3959999] [PubMed: 24399554]
• Ebbert JO, Hays JT, Hurt RD. Combination pharmaco-therapy for stopping smoking: what advantages does it offer? Drugs 2010;70(6):643–50. [PMC free article: PMC3164516] [PubMed: 20394453]
• Ebbert JO, Hughes JR, West RJ, Rennard SI, Russ C, McRae TD, Treadow J, Yu CR, Dutro MP, Park PW. Effect of varenicline on smoking cessation through smoking reduction: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2015;313(7):687–94. [PMC free article: PMC4883651] [PubMed: 25688780]
• Ebbert JO, Post JA, Moyer TP, Dale LC, Schroeder DR, Hurt RD. Nicotine percentage replacement among smokeless tobacco users with nicotine patch. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2007;89(2–3):223–6. [PMC free article: PMC2679895] [PubMed: 17300878]
• Eisenberg MJ, Windle SB, Roy N, Old W, Grondin FR, Bata I, Iskander A, Lauzon C, Srivastava N, Clarke A, et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation in hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndrome. Circulation 2016;133(1):21–30. [PubMed: 26553744]
• El Dib R, Suzumura EA, Akl EA, Gomaa H, Agarwal A, Chang Y, Prasad M, Ashoorion V, Heels-Ansdell D, Maziak W, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7(2):e012680. [PMC free article: PMC5337697] [PubMed: 28235965]
• Ellis A. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York (NY): Lyle Stuart, 1962.
• Erythropel HC, Jabba SV, DeWinter TM, Mendizabal M, Anastas PT, Jordt SE, Zimmerman JB. Formation of flavorant-propylene glycol adducts with novel toxicological properties in chemically unstable e-cigarette liquids. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2019;21(9):1248–58. [PMC free article: PMC6698951] [PubMed: 30335174]
• Etter JF. Comparing the efficacy of two Internet-based, computer-tailored smoking cessation programs: a randomized trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2005;7(1):e2. [PMC free article: PMC1550632] [PubMed: 15829474]
• Evins AE, Cather C, Pratt SA, Pachas GN, Hoeppner SS, Goff DC, Achtyes ED, Ayer D, Schoenfeld DA. Maintenance treatment with varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2014;311(2):145–54. [PMC free article: PMC4124884] [PubMed: 24399553]
• Fagan P, Augustson E, Backinger CL, O’Connell ME, Vollinger RE Jr, Kaufman A, Gibson JT. Quit attempts and intention to quit cigarette smoking among young adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 2007;97(8):1412–20. [PMC free article: PMC1931471] [PubMed: 17600244]
• Fagerström K, Etter JF, Unger JB. E-cigarettes: a disruptive technology that revolutionizes our field? Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2015;17(2):125–6. [PMC free article: PMC4892710] [PubMed: 25609846]
• Fagerström K, Gilljam H, Metcalfe M, Tonstad S, Messig M. Stopping smokeless tobacco with varenicline: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c6549. [PMC free article: PMC2997603] [PubMed: 21134997]
• Farsalinos K, Niaura R. E-cigarette use and myocardial infarction: association versus causal inference. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2019a;56(4):626–7. [PubMed: 30898223]
• Farsalinos K, Niaura R. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in the United States according to frequency of e-cigarette use and quitting duration: analysis of the 2016 and 2017 National Health Interview Surveys. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2019b. [PubMed: 30768136]
• Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluating nicotine levels selection and patterns of electronic cigarette use in a group of “vapers” who had achieved complete substitution of smoking. Substance Abuse 2013a;7:139–46. [PMC free article: PMC3772898] [PubMed: 24049448]
• Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluation of electronic cigarette use (vaping) topography and estimation of liquid consumption: implications for research protocol standards definition and for public health authorities’ regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2013b;10(6):2500–14. [PMC free article: PMC3717749] [PubMed: 23778060]
• Farsalinos KE, Spyrou A, Stefopoulos C, Tsimopoulou K, Kourkoveli P, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Poulas K, Voudris V. Corrigendum: Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between experienced consumers (vapers) and naive users (smokers). Scientific Reports 2015;5:13506. [PMC free article: PMC4559805] [PubMed: 26336999]
• Farsalinos KE, Spyrou A, Tsimopoulou K, Stefopoulos C, Romagna G, Voudris V. Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices. Scientific Reports 2014;4:4133. [PMC free article: PMC3935206] [PubMed: 24569565]
• Farsalinos KE, Yannovits N, Sarri T, Voudris V, Poulas K. Protocol proposal for, and evaluation of, consistency in nicotine delivery from the liquid to the aerosol of electronic cigarettes atomizers: regulatory implications. Addiction 2016;111(6):1069–76. [PubMed: 26756124]
• FDAnews. Carrot lands FDA approval for smoking cessation mobile device, October 11, 2017; <https://www​.fdanews.com​/articles/183905-carrot-lands-fda-approval-for-smoking-cessation-mobile-device>; accessed: January 8, 2019.
• Federal Communications Commission. Mapping broadband health in America, n.d.; <https://www​.fcc.gov/health/maps>; accessed: March 20, 2019.
• Federal Register. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration’s Approach To Evaluating Nicotine Replacement Therapies; Public Hearing; Request for Comments. 82 Fed. Reg. 56759 (2017); <https://www​.federalregister​.gov/d/2017-25671>; accessed: May 9, 2019.
• Federal Register. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Eliminating Youth Electronic Cigarette and Other Tobacco Product Use: The Role for Drug Therapies; Public Hearing; Request for Comments. 83 Fed. Reg. 55318 (2018); <https://www​.federalregister​.gov/d/2018-24126>; accessed: January 9, 2019.
• Federal Register. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Modifications to labeling of nicotine replacement therapy products for over-the-counter human use. 78 Fed. Reg. 19718 (2013).
• Fellows JL, Bush T, McAfee T, Dickerson J. Cost effectiveness of the Oregon quitline “free patch initiative”. Tobacco Control 2007;16:(Suppl 1):i47–i52. [PMC free article: PMC2598519] [PubMed: 18048632]
• Ferguson J, Docherty G, Bauld L, Lewis S, Lorgelly P, Boyd KA, McEwen A, Coleman T. Effect of offering different levels of support and free nicotine replacement therapy via an English national telephone quitline: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012;344:e1696. [PMC free article: PMC3311694] [PubMed: 22446739]
• Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Transitions to cigarette smoking during adolescence. Addictive Behaviors 1995;20(5):627–42. [PubMed: 8712060]
• Ferketich AK, Otterson GA, King M, Hall N, Browning KK, Wewers ME. A pilot test of a combined tobacco dependence treatment and lung cancer screening program. Lung Cancer 2012;76(2):211–5. [PMC free article: PMC4272196] [PubMed: 22088938]
• Fiore M, Adsit R, Zehner M, McCarthy D, Lundsten S, Hartlaub P, Mahr T, Gorrilla A, Skora A, Baker T. An electronic health record-based interoperable eReferral system to enhance smoking quitline treatment in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2019. [PMC free article: PMC6696502] [PubMed: 31089727]
• Fiore M, Baker T. Reduced-nicotine cigarettes—a promising regulatory pathway. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373(14):1289–91. [PMC free article: PMC4593068] [PubMed: 26422720]
• Fiore MC, Goplerud E, Schroeder SA. The Joint Commission’s new tobacco-cessation measures—will hospitals do the right thing? New England Journal of Medicine 2012;366(13):1172–4. [PMC free article: PMC4461200] [PubMed: 22417200]
• Fiore MC, Jaen CR. A clinical blueprint to accelerate the elimination of tobacco use. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2008;299(17):2083–5. [PubMed: 18460668]
• Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB, Bailey WC, Benowitz NL, Curry SJ, Dorfman SF, Froelicher ES, Goldstein MG, Healton CG, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. U.S. Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.
• Flemming K, McCaughan D, Angus K, Graham H. Qualitative systematic review: barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation experienced by women in pregnancy and following childbirth. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2015;71(6):1210–26. [PubMed: 25430626]
• Foulds J, Gandhi KK, Steinberg MB, Richardson DL, Williams JM, Burke MV, Rhoads GG. Factors associated with quitting smoking at a tobacco dependence treatment clinic. American Journal of Health Behavior 2006;30(4):400–12. [PubMed: 16787130]
• Foulds J, Schmelzer AC, Steinberg MB. Treating tobacco dependence as a chronic illness and a key modifiable predictor of disease. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2010;64(2):142–6. [PubMed: 19919548]
• Franck C, Budlovsky T, Windle SB, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Electronic cigarettes in North America: history, use, and implications for smoking cessation. Circulation 2014;129(19):1945–52. [PubMed: 24821825]
• Free C, Knight R, Robertson S, Whittaker R, Edwards P, Zhou W, Rodgers A, Cairns J, Kenward MG, Roberts I. Smoking cessation support delivered via mobile phone text messaging (txt2stop): a single-blind, randomised trial. Lancet 2011;378(9785):49–55. [PMC free article: PMC3143315] [PubMed: 21722952]
• Free C, Phillips G, Galli L, Watson L, Felix L, Edwards P, Patel V, Haines A. The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Medicine 2013;10(1):e1001362. [PMC free article: PMC3548655] [PubMed: 23349621]
• Free C, Whittaker R, Knight R, Abramsky T, Rodgers A, Roberts IG. Txt2stop: a pilot randomised controlled trial of mobile phone-based smoking cessation support. Tobacco Control 2009;18(2):88–91. [PubMed: 19318534]
• Freund M, Campbell E, Paul C, McElduff P, Walsh RA, Sakrouge R, Wiggers J, Knight J. Smoking care provision in hospitals: a review of prevalence. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008;10(5):757–74. [PubMed: 18569750]
• Freund M, Campbell E, Paul C, Sakrouge R, McElduff P, Walsh RA, Wiggers J, Knight J, Girgis A. Increasing smoking cessation care provision in hospitals: a meta-analysis of intervention effect. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2009;11(6):650–62. [PubMed: 19423696]
• Friedman AS, Schpero WL, Busch SH. Evidence suggests that the ACA’s tobacco surcharges reduced insurance take-up and did not increase smoking cessation. Health Affairs 2016;35(7):1176–83. [PMC free article: PMC5589079] [PubMed: 27385231]
• Frosch DL, Krueger PM, Hornik RC, Cronholm PF, Barg FK. Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising. Annals of Family Medicine 2007;5(1):6–13. [PMC free article: PMC1783924] [PubMed: 17261859]
• Fucito LM, Czabafy S, Hendricks PS, Kotsen C, Richardson D, Toll BA. Pairing smoking-cessation services with lung cancer screening: A clinical guideline from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. Cancer 2016;122(8):1150–9. [PMC free article: PMC4828323] [PubMed: 26916412]
• Gallaway MS, Huang B, Chen Q, Tucker TC, McDowell JK, Durbin E, Stewart SL, Tai E. Smoking and smoking cessation among persons with tobacco- and non-tobacco-associated cancers. Journal of Community Health 2019. [PMC free article: PMC6504566] [PubMed: 30767102]
• García-Rodríguez O, Secades-Villa R, Flórez-Salamanca L, Okuda M, Liu SM, Blanco C. Probability and predictors of relapse to smoking: results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2013;132(3):479–85. [PMC free article: PMC3723776] [PubMed: 23570817]
• García-Vera MP, Sanz J. Análisis de la situación de los tratamientos para dejar de fumar basados en terapia cognitivo-conductual y en parches de Nicotina [Analysis of the situation of treatments for smoking cessation based on cognitive-behavioral therapy and nicotine patches]. Psicooncología 2006;3(2–3):269–89.
• Gelkopf M, Noam S, Rudinski D, Lerner A, Behrbalk P, Bleich A, Melamed Y. Nonmedication smoking reduction program for inpatients with chronic schizophrenia: a randomized control design study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 2012;200(2):142–6. [PubMed: 22297311]
• Gentzke AS, Creamer M, Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Willis G, Jamal A, King BA. Vital signs: tobacco product use among middle and high school students, United States, 2011–2018. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2019;68(6):157–64. [PMC free article: PMC6375658] [PubMed: 30763302]
• Glasgow RE, Dickinson P, Fisher L, Christiansen S, Toobert DJ, Bender BG, Dickinson LM, Jortberg B, Estabrooks PA. Use of RE-AIM to develop a multi-media facilitation tool for the patient-centered medical home. Implementation Science 2011;6:118. [PMC free article: PMC3229439] [PubMed: 22017791]
• Glassman SD, Anagnost SC, Parker A, Burke D, Johnson JR, Dimar JR. The effect of cigarette smoking and smoking cessation on spinal fusion. Spine 2000;25(20):2608–15. [PubMed: 11034645]
• Gomajee R, El-Khoury F, Goldberg M, Zins M, Lemogne C, Wiernik E, Lequy-Flahault E, Romanello L, Kousignian I, Melchior M. Association between electronic cigarette use and smoking reduction in France. JAMA Internal Medicine 2019. [PMC free article: PMC6632120] [PubMed: 31305860]
• Goniewicz ML, Boykan R, Messina CR, Eliscu A, Tolentino J. High exposure to nicotine among adolescents who use JUUL and other vape pod systems (“pods”). Tobacco Control 2018a. [PMC free article: PMC6453732] [PubMed: 30194085]
• Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, Prokopowicz A, Jablonska-Czapla M, Rosik-Dulewska C, Havel C, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2014;23(2):133–9. [PMC free article: PMC4154473] [PubMed: 23467656]
• Goniewicz ML, Lingas EO, Hajek P. Patterns of electronic cigarette use and user beliefs about their safety and benefits: an internet survey. Drug and Alcohol Review 2013;32(2):133–40. [PMC free article: PMC3530631] [PubMed: 22994631]
• Goniewicz ML, Smith DM, Edwards KC, Blount BC, Caldwell KL, Feng J, Wang L, Christensen C, Ambrose B, Borek N, et al. Comparison of nicotine and toxicant exposure in users of electronic cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. JAMA Network Open 2018b;1(8):e185937. [PMC free article: PMC6324349] [PubMed: 30646298]
• Gordon JS, Andrews JA, Crews KM, Payne TJ, Severson HH, Lichtenstein E. Do faxed quitline referrals add value to dental office-based tobacco-use cessation interventions? Journal of the American Dental Association 2010;141(8):1000–7. [PMC free article: PMC3780769] [PubMed: 20675426]
• Gottlieb S, Zeller M. A nicotine-focused framework for public health. New England Journal of Medicine 2017;377(12):1111–4. [PubMed: 28813211]
• Gotts JE, Jordt S-E, McConnell R, Tarran R. What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes? BMJ 2019;366:l5275. [PMC free article: PMC7850161] [PubMed: 31570493]
• Graham AL, Carpenter KM, Cha S, Cole S, Jacobs MA, Raskob M, Cole-Lewis H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of Internet interventions for smoking cessation among adults. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation 2016;7:55–69. [PMC free article: PMC4876804] [PubMed: 27274333]
• Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation 2014;129(19):1972–86. [PMC free article: PMC4018182] [PubMed: 24821826]
• Grant JM, Mottet LA, Tanis J, Herman JL, Harrison J, Keisling M. National Transgender Discrimination Survey Report on Health and Health Care: Findings of a Study by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Washington (DC): National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, October 2010.
• Greenhalgh T, Macfarlane F, Steed L, Walton R. What works for whom in pharmacist-led smoking cessation support: realist review. BMC Medicine 2016;14(1):209. [PMC free article: PMC5159995] [PubMed: 27978837]
• Greenwood S, Perrin A, Duggan M. Social media update 2016: Facebook usage and engagement is on the rise, while adoption of other platforms holds steady, November 11, 2016; <http://www​.pewinternet​.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/>; accessed: June 5, 2017.
• Haas AL, Munoz RF, Humfleet GL, Reus VI, Hall SM. Influences of mood, depression history, and treatment modality on outcomes in smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2004;72(4):563–70. [PubMed: 15301640]
• Hackshaw A, Morris JK, Boniface S, Tang JL, Milenkovic D. Low cigarette consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: meta-analysis of 141 cohort studies in 55 study reports. BMJ 2018;360:j5855. [PMC free article: PMC5781309] [PubMed: 29367388]
• Haines-Saah RJ, Kelly MT, Oliffe JL, Bottorff JL. Picture Me Smokefree: a qualitative study using social media and digital photography to engage young adults in tobacco reduction and cessation. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2015;17(1):e27. [PMC free article: PMC4327185] [PubMed: 25624064]
• Hajek P. Withdrawal-oriented therapy for smokers. British Journal of Addiction 1989;84(6):591–8. [PubMed: 2752191]
• Hajek P, Belcher M, Stapleton J. Enhancing the impact of groups: an evaluation of two group formats for smokers. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 1985;24(Pt 4):289–94. [PubMed: 4074989]
• Hajek P, McRobbie H, Myers K. Efficacy of cytisine in helping smokers quit: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2013a;68(11):1037–42. [PubMed: 23404838]
• Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, Bisal N, Li J, Parrott S, Sasieni P, Dawkins L, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;380(7):629–37. [PubMed: 30699054]
• Hajek P, Smith KM, Dhanji AR, McRobbie H. Is a combination of varenicline and nicotine patch more effective in helping smokers quit than varenicline alone? A randomised controlled trial. BMC Medicine 2013b;11:140. [PMC free article: PMC4231450] [PubMed: 23718718]
• Hajek P, Stead LF, West R, Jarvis M, Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013c, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD003999. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub4. [PubMed: 23963584] [CrossRef]
• Hajek P, West R, Foulds J, Nilsson F, Burrows S, Meadow A. Randomized comparative trial of nicotine polacrilex, a transdermal patch, nasal spray, and an inhaler. Archives of Internal Medicine 1999;159(17):2033–8. [PubMed: 10510989]
• Hall SM, Humfleet GL, Munoz RF, Reus VI, Prochaska JJ, Robbins JA. Using extended cognitive behavioral treatment and medication to treat dependent smokers. American Journal of Public Health 2011;101(12):2349–56. [PMC free article: PMC3222443] [PubMed: 21653904]
• Hall SM, Humfleet GL, Munoz RF, Reus VI, Robbins JA, Prochaska JJ. Extended treatment of older cigarette smokers. Addiction 2009;104(6):1043–52. [PMC free article: PMC2718733] [PubMed: 19392908]
• Hall SM, Munoz RF, Reus VI. Cognitive-behavioral intervention increases abstinence rates for depressive-history smokers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994;62(1):141–6. [PubMed: 8034816]
• Hall SM, Munoz RF, Reus VI, Sees KL, Duncan C, Humfleet GL, Hartz DT. Mood management and nicotine gum in smoking treatment: a therapeutic contact and placebo-controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1996;64(5):1003–9. [PubMed: 8916629]
• Hall SM, Prochaska JJ. Treatment of smokers with cooccurring disorders: emphasis on integration in mental health and addiction treatment settings. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2009;5:409–31. [PMC free article: PMC2718730] [PubMed: 19327035]
• Hall SM, Tsoh JY, Prochaska JJ, Eisendrath S, Rossi JS, Redding CA, Rosen AB, Meisner M, Humfleet GL, Gorecki JA. Treatment for cigarette smoking among depressed mental health outpatients: a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Public Health 2006;96(10):1808–14. [PMC free article: PMC1586139] [PubMed: 17008577]
• Halpern SD, Harhay MO, Saulsgiver K, Brophy C, Troxel AB, Volpp KG. A pragmatic trial of e-cigarettes, incentives, and drugs for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2018;378(24):2302–10. [PubMed: 29791259]
• Harrell PT, Simmons VN, Correa JB, Padhya TA, Brandon TH. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (“e-cigarettes”): review of safety and smoking cessation efficacy. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 2014;151(3):381–93. [PMC free article: PMC4376316] [PubMed: 24898072]
• Harrington KF, Cheong J, Hendricks S, Kohler C, Bailey WC. E-cigarette and traditional cigarette use among smokers during hospitalization and 6 months later. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2015;24(4):762.
• Harris RP. The psychological effects of lung cancer screening on heavy smokers: another reason for concern. JAMA Internal Medicine 2015;175(9):1537–8. [PubMed: 26214149]
• Hartmann-Boyce J, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Bullen C, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD000146. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub5. [PMC free article: PMC6353172] [PubMed: 29852054] [CrossRef]
• Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T, Stead LF. Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD001118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001118.pub3. [PubMed: 24888233] [CrossRef]
• Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Stead LF, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD010216. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC6457845] [PubMed: 27622384] [CrossRef]
• Haskins BL, Lesperance D, Gibbons P, Boudreaux ED. A systematic review of smartphone applications for smoking cessation. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2017;7(2):292–9. [PMC free article: PMC5526818] [PubMed: 28527027]
• Hassmiller KM, Warner KE, Mendez D, Levy DT, Romano E. Nondaily smokers: who are they? American Journal of Public Health 2003;93(8):1321–7. [PMC free article: PMC1447964] [PubMed: 12893622]
• Hatsukami DK, Hertsgaard LA, Vogel RI, Jensen JA, Murphy SE, Hecht SS, Carmella SG, al’Absi M, Joseph AM, Allen SS. Reduced nicotine content cigarettes and nicotine patch. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2013;22(6):1015–24. [PMC free article: PMC3681886] [PubMed: 23603206]
• Hatsukami DK, Kotlyar M, Hertsgaard LA, Zhang Y, Carmella SG, Jensen JA, Allen SS, Shields PG, Murphy SE, Stepanov I, et al. Reduced nicotine content cigarettes: effects on toxicant exposure, dependence and cessation. Addiction 2010;105(2):343–55. [PMC free article: PMC4565618] [PubMed: 20078491]
• Hatsukami DK, Luo X, Dick L, Kangkum M, Allen SS, Murphy SE, Hecht SS, Shields PG, al’Absi M. Reduced nicotine content cigarettes and use of alternative nicotine products: exploratory trial. Addiction 2017;112(1):156–67. [PMC free article: PMC5249662] [PubMed: 27614097]
• Hatsukami DK, Luo X, Jensen JA, al’Absi M, Allen SS, Carmella SG, Chen M, Cinciripini PM, Denlinger-Apte R, Drobes DJ, et al. Effect of immediate vs gradual reduction in nicotine content of cigarettes on bio-markers of smoke exposure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2018;320(9):880–91. [PMC free article: PMC6372240] [PubMed: 30193275]
• Hawkins J, Hollingworth W, Campbell R. Long-term smoking relapse: a study using the British Household Panel Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010;12(12):1228–35. [PubMed: 21036960]
• Hayes SC. Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy 2004;35:639–65. [PubMed: 27993338]
• Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D, Roche B, editors. Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. New York (NY): Plenum Press, 2001.
• Hayes SC, Levin ME, Plumb-Vilardaga J, Villatte JL, Pistorello J. Acceptance and commitment therapy and contextual behavioral science: examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy 2013;44(2):180–98. [PMC free article: PMC3635495] [PubMed: 23611068]
• Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2006;44(1):1–25. [PubMed: 16300724]
• Hayes SC, Strosahl K, Wilson KG. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.
• Hays JT, Hurt RD, Rigotti NA, Niaura R, Gonzales D, Durcan MJ, Sachs DP, Wolter TD, Buist AS, Johnston JA, et al. Sustained-release bupropion for pharmacologic relapse prevention after smoking cessation. a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(6):423–33. [PubMed: 11560455]
• Hebert KK, Cummins SE, Hernandez S, Tedeschi GJ, Zhu SH. Current major depression among smokers using a state quitline. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011;40(1):47–53. [PMC free article: PMC3006168] [PubMed: 21146767]
• Heffner JL, McClure JB, Mull KE, Anthenelli RM, Bricker JB. Acceptance and commitment therapy and nicotine patch for smokers with bipolar disorder: preliminary evaluation of in-person and telephone-delivered treatment. Bipolar Disorders 2015;17(5):560–6. [PMC free article: PMC4526426] [PubMed: 25912192]
• Heffner JL, Watson NL, McClure JB, Anthenelli RM, Hohl S, Bricker JB. “I smoke like this to suppress these issues that are flaws of my character”: challenges and facilitators of cessation among smokers with bipolar disorder. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2018;14(1):32–9. [PMC free article: PMC5995156] [PubMed: 29351507]
• Heil SH, Higgins ST, Bernstein IM, Solomon LJ, Rogers RE, Thomas CS, Badger GJ, Lynch ME. Effects of voucher-based incentives on abstinence from cigarette smoking and fetal growth among pregnant women. Addiction 2008;103(6):1009–18. [PMC free article: PMC2731575] [PubMed: 18482424]
• Henningfield JE, Rose CA, Zeller M. Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: continued dependence on past views. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl 4)iv27–iv36. [PMC free article: PMC2563585] [PubMed: 17130621]
• Hennrikus DJ, Jeffery RW, Lando HA. Occasional smoking in a Minnesota working population. American Journal of Public Health 1996;86(9):1260–6. [PMC free article: PMC1380589] [PubMed: 8806378]
• Hernández-López M, Luciano MC, Bricker JB, Roales-Nieto JG, Montesinos F. Acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation: a preliminary study of its effectiveness in comparison with cognitive behavioral therapy. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2009;23(4):723–30. [PubMed: 20025380]
• Higgins ST, Heil SH, Solomon LJ, Bernstein IM, Lussier JP, Abel RL, Lynch ME, Badger GJ. A pilot study on voucher-based incentives to promote abstinence from cigarette smoking during pregnancy and postpartum. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2004;6(6):1015–20. [PubMed: 15801574]
• Higgins ST, Washio Y, Lopez AA, Heil SH, Solomon LJ, Lynch ME, Hanson JD, Higgins TM, Skelly JM, Redner R, et al. Examining two different schedules of financial incentives for smoking cessation among pregnant women. Preventive Medicine 2014;68:51–7. [PMC free article: PMC4183736] [PubMed: 24704135]
• Higgins TM, Higgins ST, Heil SH, Badger GJ, Skelly JM, Bernstein IM, Solomon LJ, Washio Y, Preston AM. Effects of cigarette smoking cessation on breastfeeding duration. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010;12(5):483–8. [PMC free article: PMC2861887] [PubMed: 20339141]
• Hitchman SC, Brose LS, Brown J, Robson D, McNeill A. Associations between e-cigarette type, frequency of use, and quitting smoking: findings from a longitudinal online panel survey in Great Britain. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2015;17(10):1187–94. [PMC free article: PMC4580313] [PubMed: 25896067]
• Hoeppner BB, Hoeppner SS, Seaboyer L, Schick MR, Wu GW, Bergman BG, Kelly JF. How smart are smart-phone apps for smoking cessation? A content analysis. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(5):1025–31. [PMC free article: PMC5942604] [PubMed: 26045249]
• Hoerger T, Boland E, Acquah JK, Alva M, Kish Doto J, Farrell K, Gard Read J, Goodrich C, Perry R, Romaire M, et al. Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Diseases Model: Final Evaluation Report. Research Triangle Park (NC): RTI International, April 2017.
• Hofmann SG, Asmundson GJ, Beck AT. The science of cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy 2013;44(2):199–212. [PubMed: 23611069]
• Hofmann SG, Asnaani A, Vonk IJ, Sawyer AT, Fang A. The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research 2012;36(5):427–40. [PMC free article: PMC3584580] [PubMed: 23459093]
• Holla N, Brantley E, Ku L. Physicians’ recommendations to Medicaid patients about tobacco cessation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2018;55(6):762–9. [PubMed: 30344039]
• Hollis JF, McAfee TA, Fellows JL, Zbikowski SM, Stark M, Riedlinger K. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline. Tobacco Control 2007;16:(Suppl 1):i53–i59. [PMC free article: PMC2598511] [PubMed: 18048633]
• Hollis JF, Polen MR, Whitlock EP, Lichtenstein E, Mullooly JP, Velicer WF, Redding CA. Teen reach: outcomes from a randomized, controlled trial of a tobacco reduction program for teens seen in primary medical care. Pediatrics 2005;115(4):981–9. [PubMed: 15805374]
• Hong AS, Elrashidi MY, Schroeder DR, Ebbert JO. Depressive symptoms among patients receiving varenicline and bupropion for smoking cessation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2015;52:78–81. [PMC free article: PMC4382391] [PubMed: 25530426]
• Hu SS, Neff L, Agaku IT, Cox S, Day HR, Holder-Hayes E, King BA. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2013–2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016;65(27):685–91. [PubMed: 27416365]
• Hughes JR, Keely J, Naud S. Shape of the relapse curve and long-term abstinence among untreated smokers. Addiction 2004;99(1):29–38. [PubMed: 14678060]
• Hughes JR, Keely JP, Fagerstrom KO, Callas PW. Intentions to quit smoking change over short periods of time. Addictive Behaviors 2005;30(4):653–62. [PubMed: 15833571]
• Hughes JR, Peters EN, Naud S. Effectiveness of over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy: a qualitative review of nonrandomized trials. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2011;13(7):512–22. [PMC free article: PMC3129240] [PubMed: 21471303]
• Hughes JR, Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cahill K, Lancaster T. Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000031. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub4. [PMC free article: PMC7027688] [PubMed: 24402784] [CrossRef]
• Hurt RD, Sachs DP, Glover ED, Offord KP, Johnston JA, Dale LC, Khayrallah MA, Schroeder DR, Glover PN, Sullivan CR, et al. A comparison of sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337(17):1195–202. [PubMed: 9337378]
• Hyland A, Rezaishiraz H, Bauer J, Giovino GA, Cummings KM. Characteristics of low-level smokers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2005;7(3):461–8. [PubMed: 16085514]
• Inoue-Choi M, Liao LM, Reyes-Guzman C, Hartge P, Caporaso N, Freedman ND. Association of long-term, low-intensity smoking with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. JAMA Internal Medicine 2017;177(1):87–95. [PMC free article: PMC5555224] [PubMed: 27918784]
• Institute of Medicine. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2007.
• Jamal A, Gentzke A, Hu SS, Cullen KA, Apelberg BJ, Homa DM, King BA. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2017;66(23):597–603. [PMC free article: PMC5657845] [PubMed: 28617771]
• Jamal A, King BA, Neff LJ, Whitmill J, Babb SD, Graffunder CM. Current cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2005–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016;65(44):1205–11. [PubMed: 27832052]
• Jamal A, Phillips E, Gentzke AS, Homa DM, Babb SD, King BA, Neff LJ. Current cigarette smoking among adults— United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2018;67(2):53–9. [PMC free article: PMC5772802] [PubMed: 29346338]
• Jemal A, Fedewa SA. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in the United States—2010 to 2015. JAMA Oncology 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5824282] [PubMed: 28152136]
• Jeong SH, Newcombe D, Sheridan J, Tingle M. Pharmacokinetics of cytisine, an alpha4 beta2 nicotinic receptor partial agonist, in healthy smokers following a single dose. Drug Testing and Analysis 2015;7(6):475–82. [PubMed: 25231024]
• Jha P, MacLennan M, Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, Ramasundarahettige C, Palipudi K, Zatonksi W, Asma S, Gupta PC. Chapter 10. Global hazards of tobacco and the benefits of smoking cessation and tobacco taxes. In: Gelband H, Jha P, Sankaranarayanan R, Horton S, editors. Cancer: Disease Control Priorities. 3rd ed., Vol. 3. Washington (DC):2015:175–94.
• Jha P, Ramasundarahettige C, Landsman V, Rostron B, Thun M, Anderson RN, McAfee T, Peto R. 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;368(4):341–50. [PubMed: 23343063]
• Johnson KC, Klesges LM, Somes GW, Coday MC, DeBon M. Access of over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy products to minors. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2004;158(3):212–6. [PubMed: 14993077]
• Jones HA, Heffner JL, Mercer L, Wyszynski CM, Vilardaga R, Bricker JB. Web-based acceptance and commitment therapy smoking cessation treatment for smokers with depressive symptoms. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2015;11(1):56–62. [PMC free article: PMC4325367] [PubMed: 25671683]
• Joseph AM, Fu SS, Lindgren B, Rothman AJ, Kodl M, Lando H, Doyle B, Hatsukami D. Chronic disease management for tobacco dependence: a randomized, controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171(21):1894–900. [PMC free article: PMC4110895] [PubMed: 22123795]
• Joseph AM, Rothman AJ, Almirall D, Begnaud A, Chiles C, Cinciripini PM, Fu SS, Graham AL, Lindgren BR, Melzer AC, et al. Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation clinical trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. American Journal of Respiratory Care Medicine 2018;197(2):172–82. [PMC free article: PMC5768904] [PubMed: 28977754]
• Kahler CW, Spillane NS, Busch AM, Leventhal AM. Time-varying smoking abstinence predicts lower depressive symptoms following smoking cessation treatment. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2011;13(2):146–50. [PMC free article: PMC3028190] [PubMed: 21106663]
• Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2016;4(2):116–28. [PMC free article: PMC4752870] [PubMed: 26776875]
• Kalkhoran S, Grana RA, Neilands TB, Ling PM. Dual use of smokeless tobacco or e-cigarettes with cigarettes and cessation. American Journal of Health Behavior 2015;39(2):277–84. [PMC free article: PMC4472731] [PubMed: 25564840]
• Kameyama N, Chubachi S, Hegab AE, Yasuda H, Kagawa S, Tsutsumi A, Fukunaga K, Shimoda M, Kanai Y, Soejima K, et al. Intermittent exposure to cigarette smoke increases lung tumors and the severity of emphysema more than continuous exposure. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology 2018;59(2):179–88. [PubMed: 29443539]
• Karpinski JP, Timpe EM, Lubsch L. Smoking cessation treatment for adolescents. Journal of Pediatric and Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2010;15(4):249–63. [PMC free article: PMC3042263] [PubMed: 22477813]
• Kasza KA, Ambrose BK, Conway KP, Borek N, Taylor K, Goniewicz ML, Cummings KM, Sharma E, Pearson JL, Green VR, et al. Tobacco-product use by adults and youths in the United States in 2013 and 2014. New England Journal of Medicine 2017;376(4):342–53. [PMC free article: PMC5317035] [PubMed: 28121512]
• Kasza KA, Hyland AJ, Borland R, McNeill AD, Bansal-Travers M, Fix BV, Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM. Effectiveness of stop-smoking medications: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction 2013;108(1):193–202. [PMC free article: PMC3500450] [PubMed: 22891869]
• Katz R, Mesfin T, Barr K. Lessons from a community-based mHealth diabetes self-management program: “it’s not just about the cell phone”. Journal of Health Communication 2012;17(Suppl 1)67–72. [PubMed: 22548601]
• Keenan PS. Smoking and weight change after new health diagnoses in older adults. Archives of Internal Medicine 2009;169(3):237–42. [PMC free article: PMC3752594] [PubMed: 19204214]
• Keller PA, Feltracco A, Bailey LA, Li Z, Niederdeppe J, Baker TB, Fiore MC. Changes in tobacco quitlines in the United States, 2005–2006. Preventing Chronic Disease 2010;7(2):A36. [PMC free article: PMC2831790] [PubMed: 20158964]
• Keller PA, Schillo BA, Kerr AN, Lien RK, Saul J, Dreher M, Lachter RB. Increasing reach by offering choices: results from an innovative model for statewide services for smoking cessation. Preventive Medicine 2016;91:96–102. [PubMed: 27514248]
• Kelly MM, Sido H, Forsyth JP, Ziedonis DM, Kalman D, Cooney JL. Acceptance and commitment therapy smoking cessation treatment for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder: a pilot study. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2015;11(1):50–5. [PubMed: 25491589]
• Kerr AN, Schillo BA, Keller PA, Lachter RB, Lien RK, Zook HG. Impact and effectiveness of a stand-alone NRT starter kit in a statewide tobacco cessation program. American Journal of Health Promotion 2018. [PubMed: 29747516]
• Khoudigian S, Devji T, Lytvyn L, Campbell K, Hopkins R, O’Reilly D. The efficacy and short-term effects of electronic cigarettes as a method for smoking cessation: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health 2016;61(2):257–67. [PubMed: 26825455]
• Khoury B, Lecomte T, Fortin G, Masse M, Therien P, Bouchard V, Chapleau MA, Paquin K, Hofmann SG. Mindfulness-based therapy: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review 2013;33(6):763–71. [PubMed: 23796855]
• King BA, Creamer MR, Harrell M, Kelder S, Norman L, Perry CL. Surgeon General’s reports on tobacco: a continued legacy of unbiased and rigorous synthesis of the scientific evidence. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2018a;20(8):1033–6. [PMC free article: PMC6023778] [PubMed: 29300946]
• King BA, Dube SR, Babb SD, McAfee TA. Patient-reported recall of smoking cessation interventions from a health professional. Preventive Medicine 2013;57(5):715–7. [PMC free article: PMC4572889] [PubMed: 23872172]
• King BA, Gammon DG, Marynak KL, Rogers T. Electronic cigarette sales in the United States, 2013–2017. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2018b;320(13):1379–80. [PMC free article: PMC6233837] [PubMed: 30285167]
• Koegelenberg CF, Noor F, Bateman ED, van Zyl-Smit RN, Bruning A, O’Brien JA, Smith C, Abdool-Gaffar MS, Emanuel S, Esterhuizen TM, et al. Efficacy of varenicline combined with nicotine replacement therapy vs. varenicline alone for smoking cessation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2014;312(2):155–61. [PubMed: 25005652]
• Kong G, Ells DM, Camenga DR, Krishnan-Sarin S. Text messaging-based smoking cessation intervention: a narrative review. Addictive Behaviors 2014;39(5):907–17. [PMC free article: PMC3980005] [PubMed: 24462528]
• Kotsen C, Santorelli ML, Bloom EL, Goldstein AO, Ripley-Moffitt C, Steinberg MB, Burke MV, Foulds J. A narrative review of intensive group tobacco treatment: clinical, research, and U.S. policy recommendations. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2017:1–10. [PubMed: 30124924]
• Kotz D, Brown J, West R. “Real-world” effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments: a population study. Addiction 2014;109(3):491–9. [PubMed: 24372901]
• Kotz D, Viechtbauer W, Simpson C, van Schayck OC, West R, Sheikh A. Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks of varenicline: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2015;3(10):761–8. [PMC free article: PMC4593936] [PubMed: 26355008]
• Koutroumpisa P, Leiponenb A. Crowdsourcing mobile coverage. Telecommunications Policy 2016;40(6):532–44.
• Krebs P, Rogers E, Smelson D, Fu S, Wang B, Sherman S. Relationship between tobacco cessation and mental health outcomes in a tobacco cessation trial. Journal of Health Psychology 2016. [PubMed: 27151069]
• Kruger J, O’Halloran A, Rosenthal AC, Babb SD, Fiore MC. Receipt of evidence-based brief cessation interventions by health professionals and use of cessation assisted treatments among current adult cigarette-only smokers: National Adult Tobacco Survey, 2009–2010. BMC Public Health 2016;16:141. [PMC free article: PMC4751655] [PubMed: 26868930]
• Kuiper N, Zhang L, Lee J, Babb SD, Anderson CM, Shannon C, Welton M, Lew R, Zhu SH. A national Asian-language smokers’ quitline—United States, 2012–2014. Preventing Chronic Disease 2015;12:E99. [PMC free article: PMC4492217] [PubMed: 26111159]
• Lakon CM, Pechmann C, Wang C, Pan L, Delucchi K, Prochaska JJ. Mapping engagement in Twitter-based support networks for adult smoking cessation. American Journal of Public Health 2016;106(8):1374–80. [PMC free article: PMC4940661] [PubMed: 27310342]
• Lam C, West A. Are electronic nicotine delivery systems an effective smoking cessation tool? Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy 2015;51(4):93–8. [PMC free article: PMC4631136] [PubMed: 26566380]
• Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001292. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001292.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC6464359] [PubMed: 28361496] [CrossRef]
• Larabie LC. To what extent do smokers plan quit attempts? Tobacco Control 2005;14(6):425–8. [PMC free article: PMC1748114] [PubMed: 16319368]
• Laude JR, Bailey SR, Crew E, Varady A, Lembke A, McFall D, Jeon A, Killen D, Killen JD, David SP. Extended treatment for cigarette smoking cessation: a randomized control trial. Addiction 2017;112(8):1451–9. [PMC free article: PMC5503769] [PubMed: 28239942]
• Lavernia CJ, Sierra RJ, Gomez-Marin O. Smoking and joint replacement: resource consumption and short-term outcome. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1999;(367):172–80. [PubMed: 10546612]
• Leas EC, Pierce JP, Benmarhnia T, White MM, Noble ML, Trinidad DR, Strong DR. Effectiveness of pharmaceutical smoking cessation aids in a nationally representative cohort of American smokers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2018;110(6):581–7. [PMC free article: PMC6005055] [PubMed: 29281040]
• Lee JG, Matthews AK, McCullen CA, Melvin CL. Promotion of tobacco use cessation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;47(6):823–31. [PMC free article: PMC4255587] [PubMed: 25455123]
• Lee SM, Landry J, Jones PM, Buhrmann O, Morley-Forster P. Long-term quit rates after a perioperative smoking cessation randomized controlled trial. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2015;120(3):582–7. [PubMed: 25695576]
• Lerman C, Schnoll RA, Hawk LW Jr, Cinciripini P, George TP, Wileyto EP, Swan GE, Benowitz NL, Heitjan DF, Tyndale RF, et al. Use of the nicotine metabolite ratio as a genetically informed biomarker of response to nicotine patch or varenicline for smoking cessation: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2015;3(2):131–8. [PMC free article: PMC4480925] [PubMed: 25588294]
• Levy DT, Yuan Z, Luo Y, Abrams DB. The Relationship of E-Cigarette Use to Cigarette Quit Attempts and Cessation: Insights From a Large, Nationally Representative U.S. Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2018;20(8):931–9. [PMC free article: PMC6037106] [PubMed: 29059341]
• Li S, Li Z, Pei L, Le AD, Liu F. The alpha7nACh-NMDA receptor complex is involved in cue-induced reinstatement of nicotine seeking. Journal of Experimental Medicine 2012;209(12):2141–7. [PMC free article: PMC3501362] [PubMed: 23091164]
• Lindson-Hawley N, Aveyard P, Hughes JR. Reduction versus abrupt cessation in smokers who want to quit. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD008033. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008033.pub3. [PubMed: 23152252] [CrossRef]
• Lindson-Hawley N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Fanshawe TR, Begh R, Farley A, Lancaster T. Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD005231. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005231.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC6463938] [PubMed: 27734465] [CrossRef]
• Lindson-Hawley N, Thompson TP, Begh R. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006936. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006936.pub3. [PubMed: 25726920] [CrossRef]
• Lindson N, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Fanshawe TR, Bullen C, Hartmann-Boyce J. Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD013308. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308. [PMC free article: PMC6470854] [PubMed: 30997928] [CrossRef]
• Linehan MM, Korslund KE, Harned MS, Gallop RJ, Lungu A, Neacsiu AD, McDavid J, Comtois KA, Murray-Gregory AM. Dialectical behavior therapy for high suicide risk in individuals with borderline personality disorder: a randomized clinical trial and component analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2015;72(5):475–82. [PubMed: 25806661]
• Lipari RN, Van Horn SL. Smoking and mental illness among adults in the United States. Rockville (MD): Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, March 30, 2017.
• Little MA, Talcott GW, Bursac Z, Linde BD, Pagano LA, Messler EC, Ebbert JO, Klesges RC. Efficacy of a brief tobacco intervention for tobacco and nicotine containing product use in the U.S. Air Force. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(5):1142–9. [PubMed: 26508394]
• Liu X, Li R, Lanza ST, Vasilenko SA, Piper M. Understanding the role of cessation fatigue in the smoking cessation process. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2013;133(2):548–55. [PMC free article: PMC4057045] [PubMed: 23954071]
• Livingstone-Banks J, Norris E, Hartmann-Boyce J, West R, Jarvis M, Hajek P. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003999. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub5. [PMC free article: PMC6372978] [PubMed: 30758045] [CrossRef]
• Løchen ML, Gram IT, Mannsverk J, Mathiesen EB, Njølstad I, Schirmer H, Wilsgaard T, Jacobsen BK. Association of occasional smoking with total mortality in the population-based Tromsø study, 2001–2015. BMJ Open 2017;7(12):e019107. [PMC free article: PMC5770901] [PubMed: 29288187]
• Lumley J, Chamberlain C, Dowswell T, Oliver S, Oakley L, Watson L. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001055. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC4090746] [PubMed: 19588322] [CrossRef]
• Luo SX, Covey LS, Hu MC, Levin FR, Nunes EV, Winhusen TM. Toward personalized smoking-cessation treatment: Using a predictive modeling approach to guide decisions regarding stimulant medication treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in smokers. American Journal on Addictions 2015;24(4):348–56. [PMC free article: PMC4425992] [PubMed: 25659348]
• Luoto R, Uutela A, Puska P. Occasional smoking increases total and cardiovascular mortality among men. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2000;2(2):133–9. [PubMed: 11072451]
• Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction 2006;101(2):192–203. [PubMed: 16445548]
• Maciosek MV, LaFrance AB, Dehmer SP, McGree DA, Flottemesch TJ, Xu Z, Solberg LI. Updated priorities among effective clinical preventive services. Annals of Family Medicine 2017a;15(1):14–22. [PMC free article: PMC5217840] [PubMed: 28376457]
• Maciosek MV, LaFrance AB, Dehmer SP, McGree DA, Xu Z, Flottemesch TJ, Solberg LI. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of brief clinician tobacco counseling for youth and adults. Annals of Family Medicine 2017b;15(1):37–47. [PMC free article: PMC5217842] [PubMed: 28376459]
• Madison MC, Landers CT, Gu BH, Chang CY, Tung HY, You R, Hong MJ, Baghaei N, Song LZ, Porter P, et al. Electronic cigarettes disrupt lung lipid homeostasis and innate immunity independent of nicotine. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2019;129(10):4290–430. [PMC free article: PMC6763255] [PubMed: 31483291]
• Magill M, Ray LA. Cognitive-behavioral treatment with adult alcohol and illicit drug users: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2009;70(4):516–27. [PMC free article: PMC2696292] [PubMed: 19515291]
• Malaiyandi V, Sellers EM, Tyndale RF. Implications of CYP2A6 genetic variation for smoking behaviors and nicotine dependence. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2005;77(3):145–58. [PubMed: 15735609]
• Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, Andrews J, Zawertailo L, Ferrence R. Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(10):1926–36. [PubMed: 27113014]
• Mann N, Nonnemaker J, Chapman L, Shaikh A, Thompson J, Juster H. Comparing the New York State Smokers’ Quitline reach, services offered, and quit outcomes to 44 other state quitlines, 2010 to 2015. American Journal of Health Promotion 2018;32(5):1264–72. [PubMed: 28805074]
• Manzoli L, Flacco ME, Fiore M, La Vecchia C, Marzuillo C, Gualano MR, Liguori G, Cicolini G, Capasso L, D’Amario C, et al. Electronic cigarettes efficacy and safety at 12 months: cohort study. PLoS One 2015;10(6):e0129443. [PMC free article: PMC4464650] [PubMed: 26061661]
• Markham CM, Craig Rushing S, Jessen C, Gorman G, Torres J, Lambert WE, Prokhorov AV, Miller L, Allums-Featherston K, Addy RC, et al. Internet-based delivery of evidence-based health promotion programs among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: a case study. JMIR Research Protocols 2016;5(4):e225. [PMC free article: PMC5138449] [PubMed: 27872037]
• Marshall HM, Courtney DA, Passmore LH, McCaul EM, Yang IA, Bowman RV, Fong KM. Brief tailored smoking cessation counseling in a lung cancer screening population is feasible: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(7):1665–9. [PubMed: 26834052]
• Marzano L, Bardill A, Fields B, Herd K, Veale D, Grey N, Moran P. The application of mHealth to mental health: opportunities and challenges. Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2(10):942–8. [PubMed: 26462228]
• May S, West R. Do social support interventions (“buddy systems”) aid smoking cessation? A review. Tobacco Control 2000;9(4):415–22. [PMC free article: PMC1748387] [PubMed: 11106712]
• May S, West R, Hajek P, McEwen A, McRobbie H. Randomized controlled trial of a social support (‘buddy’) intervention for smoking cessation. Patient Education and Counseling 2006;64(1–3):235–41. [PubMed: 16616450]
• Mazurek JM, England LJ. Cigarette smoking among working women of reproductive age—United States, 2009–2013. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(5):894–9. [PMC free article: PMC5301263] [PubMed: 26791371]
• McAfee T. Re: effect of offering different levels of support and free nicotine replacement therapy via an English national telephone quitline: randomised controlled trial [letter to the editor]. BMJ 2012;344:e1696. [PMC free article: PMC3311694] [PubMed: 22446739]
• McAfee T, Davis KC, Shafer P, Patel D, Alexander R, Bunnell R. Increasing the dose of television advertising in a national antismoking media campaign: results from a randomised field trial. Tobacco Control 2017;26(1):19–28. [PMC free article: PMC5108680] [PubMed: 26678518]
• McClure JB, Hartzler AL, Catz SL. Design considerations for smoking cessation apps: feedback from nicotine dependence treatment providers and smokers. JMIR mHhealth uHhealth 2016;4(1):e17. [PMC free article: PMC4769359] [PubMed: 26872940]
• McCrabb S, Baker AL, Attia J, Skelton E, Twyman L, Palazzi K, McCarter K, Ku D, Bonevski B. Internet-based programs incorporating behavior change techniques are associated with increased smoking cessation in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2019;53(2):180–95. [PubMed: 29750240]
• McFall M, Saxon AJ, Malte CA, Chow B, Bailey S, Baker DG, Beckham JC, Boardman KD, Carmody TP, Joseph AM, et al. Integrating tobacco cessation into mental health care for posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2010;304(22):2485–93. [PMC free article: PMC4218733] [PubMed: 21139110]
• McKee SA, Smith PH, Kaufman M, Mazure CM, Weinberger AH. Sex differences in varenicline efficacy for smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(5):1002–11. [PMC free article: PMC5942618] [PubMed: 26446070]
• McKelvey K, Thrul J, Ramo D. Impact of quitting smoking and smoking cessation treatment on substance use outcomes: an updated and narrative review. Addictive Behaviors 2017;65:161–70. [PMC free article: PMC5140700] [PubMed: 27816663]
• McRobbie H, Bullen C, Hartmann-Boyce J, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD010216. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. [PubMed: 25515689] [CrossRef]
• Mercincavage M, Wileyto EP, Saddleson ML, Lochbuehler K, Donny EC, Strasser AA. Attrition during a randomized controlled trial of reduced nicotine content cigarettes as a proxy for understanding acceptability of nicotine product standards. Addiction 2017;112(6):1095–103. [PMC free article: PMC5407938] [PubMed: 28107596]
• Metse AP, Wiggers JH, Wye PM, Wolfenden L, Prochaska JJ, Stockings EA, Williams JM, Ansell K, Fehily C, Bowman JA. Smoking and mental illness: a biblio-metric analysis of research output over time. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2017;19(1):24–31. [PMC free article: PMC5157717] [PubMed: 27980040]
• Meyers L, Voller EK, McCallum EB, Thuras P, Shallcross S, Velasquez T, Meis L. Treating veterans with PTSD and borderline personality symptoms in a 12-week intensive outpatient setting: findings from a pilot program. Journal of Traumatic Stress 2017;30(2):178–81. [PubMed: 28329406]
• Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles MP, Cane J, Wood CE. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2013;46(1):81–95. [PubMed: 23512568]
• Miech R, Johnston L, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Patrick ME. Adolescent vaping and nicotine use in 2017–2018—U.S. national estimates. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;380(2):192–3. [PMC free article: PMC7310988] [PubMed: 30554549]
• Miech RA, Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O’Malley PM, Patrick ME. National adolescent drug trends in 2018 [press release], December 17, 2018; <http:​//monitoringthefuture​.org/pressreleases/18drugpr.pdf>; accessed: March 14, 2019.
• Miller WR. Motivational interviewing with drinkers. Behavioural Psychotherapy 1983;11:147–72.
• Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2002.
• Mirbolouk M, Charkhchi P, Kianoush S, Uddin SMI, Orimoloye OA, Jaber R, Bhatnagar A, Benjamin EJ, Hall ME, DeFilippis AP, et al. Prevalence and distribution of e-cigarette use among U.S. adults: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2016. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018;169(7):429–38. [PMC free article: PMC10534294] [PubMed: 30167658]
• Møller AM, Villebro N, Pedersen T, Tønnesen H. Effect of preoperative smoking intervention on postoperative complications: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2002;359(9301):114–7. [PubMed: 11809253]
• Moolchan ET, Robinson ML, Ernst M, Cadet JL, Pickworth WB, Heishman SJ, Schroeder JR. Safety and efficacy of the nicotine patch and gum for the treatment of adolescent tobacco addiction. Pediatrics 2005;115(4):e407–14. [PubMed: 15805342]
• Moritz ED, Zapata LB, Lekiachvili A, Glidden E, Annor FB, Werner AK, Ussery EN, Hughes MM, Kimball A, DeSisto CL, et al. Update: characteristics of patients in a national outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injuries—United States, October 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2019;68(43):985–9. [PMC free article: PMC6822806] [PubMed: 31671085]
• Mosher WD, Jones J, Abma JC. Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010. National Health Statistics Reports No. 55. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2012. [PubMed: 23115878]
• Mottillo S, Filion KB, Belisle P, Joseph L, Gervais A, O’Loughlin J, Paradis G, Pihl R, Pilote L, Rinfret S, et al. Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Heart Journal 2009;30(6):718–30. [PubMed: 19109354]
• Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2014;160(5):330–8. [PubMed: 24378917]
• Mullen KA, Coyle D, Manuel D, Nguyen HV, Pham B, Pipe AL, Reid RD. Economic evaluation of a hospital-initiated intervention for smokers with chronic disease, in Ontario, Canada. Tobacco Control 2015;24(5):489–96. [PMC free article: PMC4552906] [PubMed: 24935442]
• Mullen KA, Manuel DG, Hawken SJ, Pipe AL, Coyle D, Hobler LA, Younger J, Wells GA, Reid RD. Effectiveness of a hospital-initiated smoking cessation programme: 2-year health and healthcare outcomes. Tobacco Control 2017;26(3):293–9. [PMC free article: PMC5543264] [PubMed: 27225016]
• Murphy-Hoefer R, Davis KC, Beistle D, King BA, Duke J, Rodes R, Graffunder C. Impact of the Tips From Former Smokers campaign on population-level smoking cessation, 2012–2015. Preventing Chronic Disease 2018;15:E71. [PMC free article: PMC5985905] [PubMed: 29862960]
• Myung SK, Ju W, Jung HS, Park CH, Oh SW, Seo H, Kim H. Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2012;119(9):1029–39. [PubMed: 22780818]
• Nabavizadeh P, Liu J, Havel CM, Ibrahim S, Derakhshandeh R, Jacob P III, Springer ML. Vascular endothelial function is impaired by aerosol from a single IQOS HeatStick to the same extent as by cigarette smoke. Tobacco Control 2018;27:(Suppl 1):S13–S19. [PMC free article: PMC6202192] [PubMed: 30206183]
• Nahhas GJ, Wilson D, Talbot V, Cartmell KB, Warren GW, Toll BA, Carpenter MJ, Cummings KM. Feasibility of implementing a hospital-based “opt-out” tobacco-cessation service. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2017;19(8):937–43. [PMC free article: PMC10615132] [PubMed: 27928052]
• Nakamura M, Abe M, Ohkura M, Treadow J, Yu CR, Park PW. Efficacy of varenicline for cigarette reduction before quitting in Japanese smokers: a subpopulation analysis of the Reduce to Quit Trial. Clinical Therapeutics 2017;39(4):863–72. [PubMed: 28365035]
• Nardone N, Donny EC, Hatsukami DK, Koopmeiners JS, Murphy SE, Strasser AA, Tidey JW, Vandrey R, Benowitz NL. Estimations and predictors of non-compliance in switchers to reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Addiction 2016;111(12):2208–16. [PMC free article: PMC5203964] [PubMed: 27367436]
• Nathan Mann, RTI International. personal communication, May 6, 2019.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press, 2018. [PubMed: 29894118]
• National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smokeless Tobacco and Public Health: A Global Perspective. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2014. NIH Publication No. 14-7983.
• National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2017: With Special Feature on Mortality. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2018. [PubMed: 30702833]
• Naughton F. Delivering “just-in-time” smoking cessation support via mobile phones: current knowledge and future directions. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016. [PubMed: 27235703]
• Navon L, Jones CM, Ghinai I, King BA, Briss PA, Hacker KA, Layden JE. Risk factors for e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) among adults who use e-cigarette, or vaping, products— Illinois, July–October 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2019 Nov 15;68(45):1034–9. [PMC free article: PMC6855514] [PubMed: 31725708]
• Newhall K, Suckow B, Spangler E, Brooke BS, Schanzer A, Tan TW, Burnette M, Edelen MO, Farber A, Goodney P. Impact and duration of brief surgeon-delivered smoking cessation advice on attitudes regarding nicotine dependence and tobacco harms for patients with peripheral arterial disease. Annals of Vascular Surgery 2017;38:113–21. [PMC free article: PMC5164838] [PubMed: 27521828]
• Ng JY, Ntoumanis N, Thogersen-Ntoumani C, Deci EL, Ryan RM, Duda JL, Williams GC. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012;7(4):325–40. [PubMed: 26168470]
• Nilsen W, Kumar S, Shar A, Varoquiers C, Wiley T, Riley WT, Pavel M, Atienza AA. Advancing the science of mHealth. Journal of Health Communication 2012;17:(Suppl 1):5–10. [PubMed: 22548593]
• Nolan MB, Warner DO. Perioperative tobacco use treatments: putting them into practice. BMJ 2017;358:j3340. [PubMed: 28877905]
• North American Quitline Consortium. 2015 survey, n.d.a; <http://www​.naquitline​.org/?page=2015Survey>; accessed: August 1, 2017.
• North American Quitline Consortium. Map: looking for data about quitlines?, n.d.b; <http://map​.naquitline.org/>; accessed: August 1, 2017.
• O’Connell G, Pritchard JD, Prue C, Thompson J, Verron T, Graff D, Walele T. A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profiles of cigarettes and e-cigarettes with nicotine salt formulations in U.S. adult smokers. Internal and Emergency Medicine 2019. [PMC free article: PMC6722145] [PubMed: 30712148]
• O’Malley SS, Zweben A, Fucito LM, Wu R, Piepmeier ME, Ockert DM, Bold KW, Petrakis I, Muvvala S, Jatlow P, et al. Effect of varenicline combined with medical management on alcohol use disorder with comorbid cigarette smoking: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2018;75(2):129–38. [PMC free article: PMC5838706] [PubMed: 29261824]
• Oquendo MA, Galfalvy H, Russo S, Ellis SP, Grunebaum MF, Burke A, Mann JJ. Prospective study of clinical predictors of suicidal acts after a major depressive episode in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 2004;161(8):1433–41. [PubMed: 15285970]
• Osei AD, Mirbolouk M, Orimoloye OA, Dzaye O, Uddin SMI, Benjamin EJ, Hall ME, DeFilippis AP, Stokes A, Bhatnagar A, et al. Association between e-cigarette use and cardiovascular disease among never and current combustible-cigarette smokers. American Journal of Medicine 2019. [PubMed: 30853474]
• Pacek LR, McClernon FJ, Bosworth HB. Adherence to pharmacological smoking cessation interventions: a literature review and synthesis of correlates and barriers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2018;20(10):1163–72. [PMC free article: PMC6121917] [PubMed: 29059394]
• Park ER, Gareen IF, Japuntich S, Lennes I, Hyland K, DeMello S, Sicks JD, Rigotti NA. Primary care provider-delivered smoking cessation interventions and smoking cessation among participants in the National Lung Screening Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine 2015;175(9):1509–16. [PMC free article: PMC5089370] [PubMed: 26076313]
• Patel K, Schlundt D, Larson C, Wang H, Brown A, Hargreaves M. Chronic illness and smoking cessation. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2009;11(8):933–9. [PMC free article: PMC2734285] [PubMed: 19516050]
• Patnode CD, Henderson JT, Thompson JH, Senger CA, Fortmann SP, Whitlock EP. Behavioral Counseling and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: A Review of Reviews for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Syntheses No. 134. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2015. Report No. 14-05200-EF-1. [PubMed: 26491759]
• Patnode CD, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP, Perdue LA, Soh C, Hollis J. Primary care-relevant interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(4):253–60. [PubMed: 23229625]
• Pechmann C, Delucchi K, Lakon CM, Prochaska JJ. Randomised controlled trial evaluation of Tweet2Quit: a social network quit-smoking intervention. Tobacco Control 2017;26(2):188–94. [PMC free article: PMC5112138] [PubMed: 26928205]
• Peirson L, Ali MU, Kenny M, Raina P, Sherifali D. Interventions for prevention and treatment of tobacco smoking in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine 2016;85:20–31. [PubMed: 26743631]
• Perkins KA, Conklin CA, Levine MD. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Practical Guidebook to the Most Effective Treatments. New York (NY): Routledge, 2008.
• Perkins KA, Scott J. Sex differences in long-term smoking cessation rates due to nicotine patch. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008;10(7):1245–50. [PubMed: 18629735]
• Pesis-Katz I, Williams GC, Niemiec CP, Fiscella K. Cost-effectiveness of intensive tobacco dependence intervention based on self-determination theory. American Journal of Managed Care 2011;17(10):e393–e398. [PMC free article: PMC3667397] [PubMed: 21999719]
• Pew Research Center. Internet/broadband fact sheet, 2017a; <http://www​.pewinternet​.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/>; accessed: June 8, 2017.
• Pew Research Center. Mobile fact sheet, January 12, 2017b; <http://www​.pewinternet​.org/fact-sheet/mobile/>; accessed: March 6, 2017.
• Pfizer. Nicotrol® NS (nicotine nasal spray), June 2010; <https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs​/label/2010/020385s010lbl.pdf>; accessed: November 29, 2018.
• Pfizer. Medication guide: Chantix (varenicline) tablets, June 2018; <http://labeling​.pfizer​.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id​=557&section=MedGuide>; accessed: January 8, 2019.
• Pierce JP, Cummins SE, White MM, Humphrey A, Messer K. Quitlines and nicotine replacement for smoking cessation: do we need to change policy? Annual Review of Public Health 2012;33:341–56. [PubMed: 22224888]
• Pierce JP, Gilpin EA. Impact of over-the-counter sales on effectiveness of pharmaceutical aids for smoking cessation. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2002;288(10):1260–4. [PubMed: 12215133]
• Pierce JP, White MM, Messer K. Changing age-specific patterns of cigarette consumption in the United States, 1992–2002: association with smoke-free homes and state-level tobacco control activity. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2009;11(2):171–7. [PMC free article: PMC2658899] [PubMed: 19246423]
• Piñeiro B, Simmons VN, Palmer AM, Correa JB, Brandon TH. Smoking cessation interventions within the context of Low-Dose Computed Tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review. Lung Cancer 2016;98:91–8. [PubMed: 27393513]
• Piper ME, Fiore MC, Smith SS, Fraser D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, Mermelstein R, Schlam TR, Cook JW, Jorenby DE, et al. Identifying effective intervention components for smoking cessation: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction 2016;111(1):129–41. [PMC free article: PMC4699315] [PubMed: 26582269]
• Piper ME, McCarthy DE, Bolt DM, Smith SS, Lerman C, Benowitz N, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Assessing dimensions of nicotine dependence: an evaluation of the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale (NDSS) and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM). Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008;10(6):1009–20. [PMC free article: PMC2614360] [PubMed: 18584464]
• Piper ME, Schlam TR, Cook JW, Smith SS, Bolt DM, Loh WY, Mermelstein R, Collins LM, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Toward precision smoking cessation treatment I: moderator results from a factorial experiment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2017;171:59–65. [PMC free article: PMC5263119] [PubMed: 28013098]
• Pirie K, Peto R, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V. The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK. Lancet 2013;381(9861):133–41. [PMC free article: PMC3547248] [PubMed: 23107252]
• Pisinger C, Vestbo J, Borch-Johnsen K, Jorgensen T. It is possible to help smokers in early motivational stages to quit. The Inter99 Study. Preventive Medicine 2005;40(3):278–84. [PubMed: 15533540]
• Pollak KI, Oncken CA, Lipkus IM, Lyna P, Swamy GK, Pletsch PK, Peterson BL, Heine RP, Brouwer RJ, Fish L, et al. Nicotine replacement and behavioral therapy for smoking cessation in pregnancy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2007;33(4):297–305. [PMC free article: PMC3602964] [PubMed: 17888856]
• Popova L, Ling PM. Alternative tobacco product use and smoking cessation: a national study. American Journal of Public Health 2013;103(5):923–30. [PMC free article: PMC3661190] [PubMed: 23488521]
• Potkin SG, Alphs L, Hsu C, Krishnan KR, Anand R, Young FK, Meltzer H, Green A. Predicting suicidal risk in schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients in a prospective two-year trial. Biological Psychiatry 2003;54(4):444–52. [PubMed: 12915289]
• Prochaska JJ, Benowitz NL. The past, present, and future of nicotine addiction therapy. Annual Review of Medicine 2016;67:467–86. [PMC free article: PMC5117107] [PubMed: 26332005]
• Prochaska JJ, Benowitz NL. Current advances in research in treatment and recovery: nicotine addiction. Science Advances 2019;5(10):eaay9763. [PMC free article: PMC6795520] [PubMed: 31663029]
• Prochaska JJ, Das S, Young-Wolff KC. Smoking, mental illness, and public health. Annual Review of Public Health 2017;38:165–85. [PMC free article: PMC5788573] [PubMed: 27992725]
• Prochaska JJ, Delucchi K, Hall SM. A meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions with individuals in substance abuse treatment or recovery. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2004;72(6):1144–56. [PubMed: 15612860]
• Prochaska JJ, Grana RA. E-cigarette use among smokers with serious mental illness. PLoS One 2014;9(11):e113013. [PMC free article: PMC4242512] [PubMed: 25419703]
• Prochaska JJ, Hall SE, Delucchi K, Hall SM. Efficacy of initiating tobacco dependence treatment in inpatient psychiatry: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health 2014;104(8):1557–65. [PMC free article: PMC4103208] [PubMed: 23948001]
• Prochaska JJ, Hall SM, Bero LA. Tobacco use among individuals with schizophrenia: what role has the tobacco industry played? Schizophrenia Bulletin 2008;34(3):555–67. [PMC free article: PMC2632440] [PubMed: 17984298]
• Prochaska JJ, Hilton JF. Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2012;344:e2856. [PMC free article: PMC3344735] [PubMed: 22563098]
• Prochaska JJ, Pechmann C, Kim R, Leonhardt JM. Twitter=quitter? An analysis of Twitter quit smoking social networks. Tobacco Control 2012;21(4):447–9. [PMC free article: PMC3310933] [PubMed: 21730101]
• Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1983;51(3):390–5. [PubMed: 6863699]
• Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Velicer WF, Rossi JS. Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychology 1993;12(5):399–405. [PubMed: 8223364]
• Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Fava JL, Rossi JS, Tsoh JY. Evaluating a population-based recruitment approach and a stage-based expert system intervention for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors 2001a;26(4):583–602. [PubMed: 11456079]
• Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Fava JL, Ruggiero L, Laforge RG, Rossi JS, Johnson SS, Lee PA. Counselor and stimulus control enhancements of a stage-matched expert system intervention for smokers in a managed care setting. Preventive Medicine 2001b;32(1):23–32. [PubMed: 11162323]
• Public Health England. Models of Delivery for Stop Smoking Services: Options and Evidence. London (UK): Public Health England, September 2017.
• Quinn VP, Hollis JF, Smith KS, Rigotti NA, Solberg LI, Hu W, Stevens VJ. Effectiveness of the 5-As tobacco cessation treatments in nine HMOs. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2009;24(2):149–54. [PMC free article: PMC2628990] [PubMed: 19083066]
• Quinn VP, Stevens VJ, Hollis JF, Rigotti NA, Solberg LI, Gordon N, Ritzwoller D, Smith KS, Hu W, Zapka J. Tobacco-cessation services and patient satisfaction in nine nonprofit HMOs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005;29(2):77–84. [PubMed: 16005802]
• Rahman MA, Hann N, Wilson A, Mnatzaganian G, Worrall-Carter L. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(3):e0122544. [PMC free article: PMC4378973] [PubMed: 25822251]
• Ramo DE, Liu H, Prochaska JJ. A mixed-methods study of young adults’ receptivity to using Facebook for smoking cessation: if you build it, will they come? American Journal of Health Promotion 2015;29(4):e126–35. [PMC free article: PMC4147019] [PubMed: 24575728]
• Reid RD, Mullen KA, Slovinec D’Angelo ME, Aitken DA, Papadakis S, Haley PM, McLaughlin CA, Pipe AL. Smoking cessation for hospitalized smokers: an evaluation of the “Ottawa Model”. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010;12(1):11–8. [PubMed: 19903737]
• Reyes-Guzman CM, Pfeiffer RM, Lubin J, Freedman ND, Cleary SD, Levine PH, Caporaso NE. Determinants of light and intermittent smoking in the United States: results from three pooled national health surveys. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2017;26(2):228–39. [PMC free article: PMC5296280] [PubMed: 27760782]
• Ribisl KM, Hatsukami DK, Huang J, Williams RS, Donny EC. Strategies to reduce illicit trade of regular nicotine tobacco products after introduction of a low-nicotine tobacco product standard. American Journal of Public Health 2019;109(7):1007–14. [PMC free article: PMC6603473] [PubMed: 31166743]
• Rice VH, Heath L, Livingstone-Banks J, Hartmann-Boyce J. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD001188. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001188.pub5. [PMC free article: PMC6486227] [PubMed: 29243221] [CrossRef]
• Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, Walker A. Systematic review of the effectiveness of stage based interventions to promote smoking cessation. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1175–7. [PMC free article: PMC156457] [PubMed: 12775617]
• Rigotti NA, Clair C, Munafo MR, Stead LF. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD001837. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC4498489] [PubMed: 22592676] [CrossRef]
• Rigotti NA, Regan S, Levy DE, Japuntich S, Chang Y, Park ER, Viana JC, Kelley JH, Reyen M, Singer DE. Sustained care intervention and postdischarge smoking cessation among hospitalized adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2014;312(7):719–28. [PMC free article: PMC4507269] [PubMed: 25138333]
• Rigotti NA, Tindle HA, Regan S, Levy DE, Chang Y, Carpenter KM, Park ER, Kelley JH, Streck JM, Reid ZZ, et al. A post-discharge smoking-cessation intervention for hospital patients: Helping Hand 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):597–608. [PMC free article: PMC5031242] [PubMed: 27647060]
• Rodgers A, Corbett T, Bramley D, Riddell T, Wills M, Lin RB, Jones M. Do u smoke after txt? Results of a randomised trial of smoking cessation using mobile phone text messaging. Tobacco Control 2005;14(4):255–61. [PMC free article: PMC1748056] [PubMed: 16046689]
• Rogers ES, Smelson DA, Gillespie CC, Elbel B, Poole S, Hagedorn HJ, Kalman D, Krebs P, Fang Y, Wang B, et al. Telephone smoking-cessation counseling for smokers in mental health clinics: a patient-randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;50(4):518–27. [PubMed: 26711163]
• Rüther T, Bobes J, De Hert M, Svensson TH, Mann K, Batra A, Gorwood P, Möller HJ. EPA guidance on tobacco dependence and strategies for smoking cessation in people with mental illness. European Psychiatry 2014;29(2):65–82. [PubMed: 24485753]
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 2000;55(1):68–78. [PubMed: 11392867]
• Ryan RM, Patrick H, Deci EL, Williams GC. Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory. The European Health Psychologist 2008;10:2–5.
• Sargent JD, Mott LA, Stevens M. Predictors of smoking cessation in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1998;152(4):388–93. [PubMed: 9559717]
• Schane RE, Glantz SA. Education on the dangers of passive smoking: a cessation strategy past due. Circulation 2008;118(15):1521–3. [PMC free article: PMC2760983] [PubMed: 18838572]
• Schane RE, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Nondaily and social smoking: an increasingly prevalent pattern. Archives of Internal Medicine 2009;169(19):1742–4. [PMC free article: PMC4350771] [PubMed: 19858429]
• Schane RE, Prochaska JJ, Glantz SA. Counseling nondaily smokers about secondhand smoke as a cessation message: a pilot randomized trial. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(2):334–42. [PMC free article: PMC3545714] [PubMed: 22592447]
• Schauer GL, Malarcher AM, Asman KJ. Trends in the average age of quitting among U.S. adult cigarette smokers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015a;49(6):939–44. [PubMed: 26362404]
• Schauer GL, Malarcher AM, Babb SD. Gradual reduction of cigarette consumption as a cessation strategy: prevalence, correlates, and relationship with quitting. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2015b;17(5):530–8. [PubMed: 25180077]
• Schauer GL, Malarcher AM, Mowery P. National trends in frequency and amount of nondaily smoking, and relation to quit attempts, 2000–2012. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016a;18(6):1539–44. [PubMed: 26588937]
• Schauer GL, Malarcher AM, Zhang L, Engstrom MC, Zhu SH. Prevalence and correlates of quitline awareness and utilization in the United States: an update from the 2009–2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2014a;16(5):544–53. [PubMed: 24253378]
• Schauer GL, Pederson LL, Malarcher AM. Past year quit attempts and use of cessation resources among cigarette-only smokers and cigarette smokers who use other tobacco products. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016b;18(1):41–7. [PMC free article: PMC5896792] [PubMed: 25744953]
• Schauer GL, Wheaton AG, Malarcher AM, Croft JB. Smoking prevalence and cessation characteristics among U.S. adults with and without COPD: findings from the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. COPD 2014b;11(6):697–704. [PubMed: 24841392]
• Schauer GL, Wheaton AG, Malarcher AM, Croft JB. Health-care provider screening and advice for smoking cessation among smokers with and without COPD: 2009–2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey. Chest 2016c;149(3):676–84. [PubMed: 26291388]
• Schnoll RA, Goelz PM, Veluz-Wilkins A, Blazekovic S, Powers L, Leone FT, Gariti P, Wileyto EP, Hitsman B. Long-term nicotine replacement therapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine 2015;175(4):504–11. [PMC free article: PMC4410859] [PubMed: 25705872]
• Schroeder SA. What to do with a patient who smokes. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2005;294(4):482–7. [PubMed: 16046655]
• Schwartz J, Fadahunsi O, Hingorani R, Mainali NR, Oluwasanjo A, Aryal MR, Donato A. Use of varenicline in smokeless tobacco cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(1):10–6. [PubMed: 25646351]
• Scott-Sheldon LA, Lantini R, Jennings EG, Thind H, Rosen RK, Salmoirago-Blotcher E, Bock BC. Text messaging-based interventions for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHhealth 2016;4(2):e49. [PMC free article: PMC4893152] [PubMed: 27207211]
• Severson HH, Gordon JS, Danaher BG, Akers L. ChewFree. com: evaluation of a Web-based cessation program for smokeless tobacco users. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008;10(2):381–91. [PubMed: 18236303]
• Sharapova S, Reyes-Guzman C, Singh T, Phillips E, Marynak KL, Agaku I. Age of tobacco use initiation and association with current use and nicotine dependence among U.S. middle and high school students, 2014–2016. Tobacco Control 2018. [PubMed: 30498008]
• Sheffer MA, Baker TB, Fraser DL, Adsit RT, McAfee TA, Fiore MC. Fax referrals, academic detailing, and tobacco quitline use: a randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2012;42(1):21–8. [PubMed: 22176842]
• Shi Y, Warner DO. Surgery as a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Anesthesiology 2010;112(1):102–7. [PubMed: 19996946]
• Shiffman S, Dunbar MS, Li X, Scholl SM, Tindle HA, Anderson SJ, Ferguson SG. Smoking patterns and stimulus control in intermittent and daily smokers. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e89911. [PMC free article: PMC3943840] [PubMed: 24599056]
• Shiffman S, Ferguson SG. Nicotine patch therapy prior to quitting smoking: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2008;103(4):557–63. [PubMed: 18339101]
• Shiffman S, Sembower MA, Rohay JM, Gitchell JG, Garvey AJ. Assigning dose of nicotine gum by time to first cigarette. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(2):407–12. [PubMed: 22990217]
• Shihadeh A, Eissenberg T. Electronic cigarette effectiveness and abuse liability: predicting and regulating nicotine flux. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2015;17(2):158–62. [PMC free article: PMC4837999] [PubMed: 25180079]
• Siegel DA, Jatlaoui TC, Koumans EH, Kiernan EA, Layer M, Cates JE, Kimball A, Weissman DN, Petersen EE, Reagan-Steiner S, et al. Update: Interim guidance for health care providers evaluating and caring for patients with suspected e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury—United States, October 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2019;68:919–27. [PMC free article: PMC6802682] [PubMed: 31633675]
• Simoyan OM, Badner VM, Freeman KD. Tobacco cessation services in dental offices. Are we doing all we can? New York State Dental Journal 2002;68(7):34–40. [PubMed: 12243092]
• Singh S, Loke YK, Spangler JG, Furberg CD. Risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events associated with varenicline: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2011;183(12):1359–66. [PMC free article: PMC3168618] [PubMed: 21727225]
• Singh S, Starkey NJ, Sargisson RJ. Using SmartQuit®, an acceptance and commitment therapy smartphone application, to reduce smoking intake. Digital Health 2017;3. [PMC free article: PMC6001237] [PubMed: 29942613]
• Slatore CG, Baumann C, Pappas M, Humphrey LL. Smoking behaviors among patients receiving computed tomography for lung cancer screening. Systematic review in support of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2014;11(4):619–27. [PubMed: 24701999]
• Slemmer JE, Martin BR, Damaj MI. Bupropion is a nicotinic antagonist. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 2000;295(1):321–7. [PubMed: 10991997]
• Smedberg J, Lupattelli A, Mardby AC, Nordeng H. Characteristics of women who continue smoking during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of pregnant women and new mothers in 15 European countries. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2014;14:213. [PMC free article: PMC4080751] [PubMed: 24964728]
• Smith PH, Weinberger AH, Zhang J, Emme E, Mazure CM, McKee SA. Sex differences in smoking cessation pharmacotherapy comparative efficacy: a network meta-analysis. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2017;19(3):273–81. [PMC free article: PMC5939704] [PubMed: 27613893]
• Smith SS, Keller PA, Kobinsky KH, Baker TB, Fraser DL, Bush T, Magnusson B, Zbikowski SM, McAfee TA, Fiore MC. Enhancing tobacco quitline effectiveness: identifying a superior pharmacotherapy adjuvant. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(3):718–28. [PMC free article: PMC3611992] [PubMed: 22992296]
• Smith TT, Koopmeiners JS, Tessier KM, Davis EM, Conklin CA, Denlinger-Apte RL, Lane T, Murphy SE, Tidey JW, Hatsukami DK, et al. Randomized trial of low-nicotine cigarettes and transdermal nicotine. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2019;57(4):515–24. [PMC free article: PMC6756174] [PubMed: 31542129]
• Smokefree​.gov. Sign up for SmokefreeTXT, n.d.; <https://smokefree​.gov/smokefreetxt>; accessed: August 17, 2017.
• Soneji SS, Sung HY, Primack BA, Pierce JP, Sargent JD. Quantifying population-level health benefits and harms of e-cigarette use in the United States. PLoS One 2018;13(3):e0193328. [PMC free article: PMC5851558] [PubMed: 29538396]
• Spencer L, Pagell F, Hallion ME, Adams TB. Applying the transtheoretical model to tobacco cessation and prevention: a review of literature. American Journal of Health Promotion 2002;17(1):7–71. [PubMed: 12271754]
• Spindle TR, Eissenberg T. Pod mod electronic cigarettes— an emerging threat to public health. JAMA Network Open 2018;1(6):e183518. [PMC free article: PMC7058175] [PubMed: 30646245]
• Squiers L, Brown D, Parvanta S, Dolina S, Kelly B, Dever J, Southwell BG, Sanders A, Augustson E. The SmokefreeTXT (SFTXT) study: web and mobile data collection to evaluate smoking cessation for young adults. JMIR Research Protocols 2016;5(2):e134. [PMC free article: PMC4940604] [PubMed: 27349898]
• Squiers LB, Augustson E, Brown D, Kelly B, Southwell B, Dever J, Dolina S, Tzeng J, Parvanta S, Holt S, et al. An experimental comparison of mobile texting programs to help young adults quit smoking. Health Systems 2017;6(1):1–14.
• Stanton A, Grimshaw G. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD003289. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub5. [PubMed: 23975659] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Buitrago D, Preciado N, Sanchez G, Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013a, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD000165. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub4. [PMC free article: PMC7064045] [PubMed: 23728631] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Carroll AJ, Lancaster T. Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001007. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC6464070] [PubMed: 28361497] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013b, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD002850. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub3. [PubMed: 23934971] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Koilpillai P, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD008286. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008286.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC10042551] [PubMed: 27009521] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Koilpillai P, Lancaster T. Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD009670. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub3. [PubMed: 26457723] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Lancaster T. Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005231. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005231.pub2. [PubMed: 17636791] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Lancaster T. Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012a, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD009670. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub3. [PubMed: 26457723] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Lancaster T. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012b, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD008286. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008286.pub2. [PubMed: 23076944] [CrossRef]
• Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cahill K, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD000146. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub4. [PubMed: 23152200] [CrossRef]
• Stearns M, Nambiar S, Nikolaev A, Semenov A, McIntosh S. Towards evaluating and enhancing the reach of online health forums for smoking cessation. Network Modeling and Analysis in Healthcare Informatics and Bioinformatics 2014;3. [PMC free article: PMC4461236] [PubMed: 26075158]
• Steinberg MB, Alvarez MS, Delnevo CD, Kaufman I, Cantor JC. Disparity of physicians’ utilization of tobacco treatment services. American Journal of Health Behavior 2006a;30(4):375–86. [PubMed: 16787128]
• Steinberg MB, Foulds J, Richardson DL, Burke MV, Shah P. Pharmacotherapy and smoking cessation at a tobacco dependence clinic. Preventive Medicine 2006b;42(2):114–9. [PubMed: 16375954]
• Steinberg MB, Schmelzer AC, Richardson DL, Foulds J. The case for treating tobacco dependence as a chronic disease. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008;148(7):554–6. [PubMed: 18378950]
• Stevens P, Carlson LM, Hinman JM. An analysis of tobacco industry marketing to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gender (LGBT) populations: strategies for mainstream tobacco control and prevention. Health Promotion Practice 2004;5:(3 Suppl):129S–34S. [PubMed: 15231106]
• Stoddard J, Delucchi K, Munoz R, Collins N, Stable EP, Augustson E, Lenert L. Smoking cessation research via the internet: a feasibility study. Journal of Health Communication 2005;10(1):27–41. [PubMed: 15764442]
• Stoddard JL, Augustson EM, Moser RP. Effect of adding a virtual community (bulletin board) to smokefree​.gov: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;10(5):e53. [PMC free article: PMC2630832] [PubMed: 19097974]
• Strecher VJ, Shiffman S, West R. Randomized controlled trial of a web-based computer-tailored smoking cessation program as a supplement to nicotine patch therapy. Addiction 2005;100(5):682–8. [PubMed: 15847626]
• Styn MA, Land SR, Perkins KA, Wilson DO, Romkes M, Weissfeld JL. Smoking behavior 1 year after computed tomography screening for lung cancer: effect of physician referral for abnormal CT findings. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2009;18(12):3484–9. [PMC free article: PMC2789354] [PubMed: 19959699]
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Adults with mental illness or substance use disorder account for 40 percent of all cigarettes smoked, March 20, 2013; <https://www​.samhsa.gov​/data/sites/default​/files/spot104-cigarettes-mental-illness-substance-use-disorder​/spot104-cigarettes-mental-illness-substance-use-disorder.pdf>; accessed: November 4, 2019.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: detailed tables (tables 6.10B and 6.24B), n.d.; <https://www​.samhsa.gov​/data/sites/default​/files/NSDUH-DetTabs2013​/NSDUH-DetTabs2013.htm>; accessed: February 13, 2018.
• Sussman S, Lichtman K, Ritt A, Pallonen UE. Effects of thirty-four adolescent tobacco use cessation and prevention trials on regular users of tobacco products. Substance Use and Misuse 1999;34(11):1469–503. [PubMed: 10468104]
• Swan GE, McAfee T, Curry SJ, Jack LM, Javitz H, Dacey S, Bergman K. Effectiveness of bupropion sustained release for smoking cessation in a health care setting: a randomized trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 2003;163(19):2337–44. [PubMed: 14581254]
• Sykes CM, Marks DF. Effectiveness of a cognitive behaviour therapy self-help programme for smokers in London, UK. Health Promotion International 2001;16(3):255–60. [PubMed: 11509461]
• Taber JM, Klein WM, Ferrer RA, Augustson E, Patrick H. A pilot test of self-affirmations to promote smoking cessation in a national smoking cessation text messaging program. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2016;4(2):e71. [PMC free article: PMC4917724] [PubMed: 27278108]
• Tammemägi MC, Berg CD, Riley TL, Cunningham CR, Taylor KL. Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2014;106(6):dju084. [PMC free article: PMC4081623] [PubMed: 24872540]
• Taylor KL, Deros DE, Fallon S, Stephens J, Kim E, Lobo T, Davis KM, Luta G, Jayasekera J, Meza R, et al. Study protocol for a telephone-based smoking cessation randomized controlled trial in the lung cancer screening setting: The lung screening, tobacco, and health trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2019;82:25–35. [PMC free article: PMC6657688] [PubMed: 31129371]
• Taylor G, McNeill A, Girling A, Farley A, Lindson-Hawley N, Aveyard P. Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;348:g1151. [PMC free article: PMC3923980] [PubMed: 24524926]
• Taylor KL, Cox LS, Zincke N, Mehta L, McGuire C, Gelmann E. Lung cancer screening as a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Lung Cancer 2007;56(1):125–34. [PubMed: 17196298]
• Teixeira PJ, Carraca EV, Marques MM, Rutter H, Oppert JM, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lakerveld J, Brug J. Successful behavior change in obesity interventions in adults: a systematic review of self-regulation mediators. BMC Medicine 2015;13:84. [PMC free article: PMC4408562] [PubMed: 25907778]
• The Community Guide. Tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure: internet-based cessation interventions, 2011a; <https://www​.thecommunityguide​.org/topic/tobacco?field​_recommendation_tid​=All&items_per_page​=5>; accessed: May 24, 2017.
• The Community Guide. Tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure: mobile phone-based cessation interventions, 2011b; <https://www​.thecommunityguide​.org/findings​/tobacco-use-and-secondhand-smoke-exposure-mobile-phone-based-cessation-interventions>; accessed: May 24, 2017.
• The Community Guide. Tobacco, 2012a; <https://www​.thecommunityguide​.org/topic/tobacco?field​_recommendation_tid​=All&items_per_page​=5>; accessed: May 24, 2017.
• The Community Guide. Tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure: quitline interventions, 2012b; <https://www​.thecommunityguide​.org/findings​/tobacco-use-and-secondhand-smoke-exposure-quit-line-interventions>; accessed: August 1, 2017.
• The Joint Commission. personal communication, March 18, 2019.
• Thomas KH, Martin RM, Davies NM, Metcalfe C, Windmeijer F, Gunnell D. Smoking cessation treatment and risk of depression, suicide, and self harm in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2013;347:f5704. [PMC free article: PMC3805476] [PubMed: 24124105]
• Thomsen T, Villebro N, Møller AM. Interventions for pre-operative smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD002294. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002294.pub3. [PubMed: 20614429] [CrossRef]
• Thomsen T, Villebro N, Møller AM. Interventions for pre-operative smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD002294. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002294.pub4. [PMC free article: PMC7138216] [PubMed: 24671929] [CrossRef]
• Tindle HA, Daigh R, Reddy VK, Bailey LA, Ochs JA, Maness MH, Davis EM, Schulze AE, Powers KM, Ylioja TE, et al. eReferral between hospitals and quitlines: an emerging tobacco control strategy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):522–6. [PubMed: 27476383]
• Tinkelman D, Wilson SM, Willett J, Sweeney CT. Offering free NRT through a tobacco quitline: impact on utilisation and quit rates. Tobacco Control 2007;16:(Suppl 1):i42–i46. [PMC free article: PMC2598517] [PubMed: 18048631]
• Tong EK, Ong MK, Vittinghoff E, Perez-Stable EJ. Nondaily smokers should be asked and advised to quit. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006;30(1):23–30. [PubMed: 16414420]
• Tong VT, Dietz PM, Morrow B, D’Angelo DV, Farr SL, Rockhill KM, England LJ. Trends in smoking before, during, and after pregnancy—Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, United States, 40 sites, 2000–2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries 2013;62(6):1–19. [PubMed: 24196750]
• Tonstad S, Tonnesen P, Hajek P, Williams KE, Billing CB, Reeves KR. Effect of maintenance therapy with varenicline on smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2006;296(1):64–71. [PubMed: 16820548]
• Truth Initiative. Behind the Explosive Growth of JUUL: Social Influences and Flavors Drive Rising Teen Use of the Top E-Cigarette, December 2018; <https:​//truthinitiative​.org/sites/default​/files/media/files/2019​/03/Behind-the-explosive-growth-of-JUUL.pdf>; accessed: July 25, 2019.
• Tsoi DT, Porwal M, Webster AC. Interventions for smoking cessation and reduction in individuals with schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007253. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007253.pub3. [PMC free article: PMC6486303] [PubMed: 23450574] [CrossRef]
• Tudor-Sfetea C, Rabee R, Najim M, Amin N, Chadha M, Jain M, Karia K, Kothari V, Patel T, Suseeharan M, et al. Evaluation of two mobile health apps in the context of smoking cessation: qualitative study of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus non-CBT-based digital solutions. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth 2018;6(4):e98. [PMC free article: PMC5932330] [PubMed: 29669708]
• Tulloch HE, Pipe AL, Els C, Clyde MJ, Reid RD. Flexible, dual-form nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline in comparison with nicotine patch for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine 2016;14:80. [PMC free article: PMC4884360] [PubMed: 27233840]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1988. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 88-8406.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking. A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease—The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010. [PubMed: 21452462]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012. [PubMed: 22876391]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. [PubMed: 24455788]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health 2016. [PubMed: 30869850]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Surgeon General releases advisory on e-cigarette epidemic among youth [press release], December 18, 2018a; <https://www​.hhs.gov/about​/news/2018/12/18​/surgeon-general-releases-advisory-e-cigarette-epidemic-among-youth.html>.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Surgeon General’s Advisory on E-cigarette Use Among Youth, 2018b; <https:​//e-cigarettes​.surgeongeneral.gov/documents​/surgeon-generals-advisory-on-e-cigarette-use-among-youth-2018.pdf>; accessed: January 9, 2019.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Nicotine replacement therapy labels may change, 2013; <https://www​.integration​.samhsa.gov/health-wellness​/NRT_Label_Change_0413.pdf>; accessed: August 7, 2018.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Want to Quit Smoking? FDA-Approved Products Can Help [consumer update], 2017; <https://www​.fda.gov/ForConsumers​/ConsumerUpdates/ucm198176​.htm>; accessed: August 1, 2018.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA drug safety communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings, 2018a; <https://www​.fda.gov/Drugs​/DrugSafety/ucm532221.htm>; accessed: March 13, 2019.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on pivotal public health step to dramatically reduce smoking rates by lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels [press release], March 15, 2018b; <https://www​.fda.gov/NewsEvents​/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements​/ucm601039.htm>; accessed: November 14, 2018.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Smoking Cessation and Related Indications: Developing Nicotine Replacement Therapy Drug Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability, February 2019a; <https://www​.regulations​.gov/document?D=FDA-2019-D-0297-0001>; accessed: May 9, 2019.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This Free Life campaign, September 23, 2019b; < https://www​.fda.gov/tobacco-products​/free-life-campaign?utm​_campaign​=ctphealthobservance&utm_medium​=social&utm_source​=CTPTwitter>; accessed: November 4, 2019.
• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Final Update Summary: Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions, September 2015; <https://www​.uspreventiveservicestaskforce​.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal​/tobacco-use-in-adults-and-pregnant-women-counseling-and-interventions1>; accessed: May 24, 2017.
• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement—Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions, December 2016; <https://www​.uspreventiveservicestaskforce​.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal​/tobacco-use-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions>; accessed: November 29, 2018.
• Ubhi HK, Kotz D, Michie S, van Schayck OC, Sheard D, Selladurai A, West R. Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014. Addictive Behaviors 2016;58:175–81. [PMC free article: PMC4821061] [PubMed: 26950256]
• Ussher M, Beard E, Abikoye G, Hajek P, West R. Urge to smoke over 52 weeks of abstinence. Psychopharmacology 2013;226(1):83–9. [PubMed: 23052572]
• van der Aalst CM, de Koning HJ, van den Bergh KA, Willemsen MC, van Klaveren RJ. The effectiveness of a computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention for participants in lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lung Cancer 2012;76(2):204–10. [PubMed: 22054915]
• van der Meer RM, Willemsen MC, Smit F, Cuijpers P. Smoking cessation interventions for smokers with current or past depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, 2013, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD006102. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006102.pub2. [PubMed: 23963776] [CrossRef]
• Vansickel AR, Eissenberg T. Electronic cigarettes: effective nicotine delivery after acute administration. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(1):267–70. [PMC free article: PMC3524053] [PubMed: 22311962]
• Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Fava JL, Laforge RG, Rossi JS. Interactive versus noninteractive interventions and dose-response relationships for stage-matched smoking cessation programs in a managed care setting. Health Psychology 1999;18(1):21–8. [PubMed: 9925042]
• Vickerman KA, Carpenter KM, Altman T, Nash CM, Zbikowski SM. Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(10):1787–91. [PubMed: 23658395]
• Vickerman KA, Schauer GL, Malarcher AM, Zhang L, Mowery P, Nash CM. Reasons for electronic nicotine delivery system use and smoking abstinence at 6 months: a descriptive study of callers to employer and health plan-sponsored quitlines. Tobacco Control 2017;26(2):126–34. [PubMed: 27071731]
• Vidrine JI, Shete S, Cao Y, Greisinger A, Harmonson P, Sharp B, Miles L, Zbikowski SM, Wetter DW. Ask-Advise-Connect: a new approach to smoking treatment delivery in health care settings. JAMA Internal Medicine 2013a;173(6):458–64. [PMC free article: PMC3858085] [PubMed: 23440173]
• Vidrine JI, Shete S, Li Y, Cao Y, Alford MH, Galindo-Talton M, Rabius V, Sharp B, Harmonson P, Zbikowski SM, et al. The Ask-Advise-Connect approach for smokers in a safety net healthcare system: a group-randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2013b;45(6):737–41. [PMC free article: PMC4023543] [PubMed: 24237916]
• Vinnikov D, Brimkulov N, Burjubaeva A. A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of cytisine for smoking cessation in medium-dependent workers. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2008;3(1):57–62.
• Volpp KG, Troxel AB, Pauly MV, Glick HA, Puig A, Asch DA, Galvin R, Zhu J, Wan F, DeGuzman J, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;360(7):699–709. [PubMed: 19213683]
• Wadgave U, Nagesh L. Nicotine replacement therapy: an overview. International Journal of Health Sciences 2016;10(3):425–35. [PMC free article: PMC5003586] [PubMed: 27610066]
• Walker N, Howe C, Bullen C, Grigg M, Glover M, McRobbie H, Laugesen M, Jiang J, Chen MH, Whittaker R, et al. Does improved access and greater choice of nicotine replacement therapy affect smoking cessation success? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2011;106(6):1176–85. [PubMed: 21371155]
• Walker N, Howe C, Glover M, McRobbie H, Barnes J, Nosa V, Parag V, Bassett B, Bullen C. Cytisine versus nicotine for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371(25):2353–62. [PubMed: 25517706]
• Walker N, Parag V, Verbiest M, Laking G, Laugesen M, Bullen C. Nicotine patches used in combination with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation: a pragmatic, randomised trial. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2019 [PubMed: 31515173]
• Wang TW, Asman K, Gentzke AS, Cullen KA, Holder-Hayes E, Reyes-Guzman C, Jamal A, Neff L, King BA. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2018;67(44):1225–32. [PMC free article: PMC6223953] [PubMed: 30408019]
• Wang TW, Walton K, Jamal A, Babb SD, Schecter A, Prutzman YM, King BA. State-specific cessation behaviors among adult cigarette smokers—United States, 2014–2015. Preventing Chronic Disease 2019;16:E26. [PMC free article: PMC6429691] [PubMed: 30844359]
• Warner DO. Perioperative abstinence from cigarettes: physiologic and clinical consequences. Anesthesiology 2006;104(2):356–67. [PubMed: 16436857]
• Warner DO, Nolan MB, Kadimpati S, Burke MV, Hanson AC, Schroeder DR. Quitline Tobacco interventions in hospitalized patients: a randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):473–84. [PubMed: 27067305]
• Warner KE, Mendez D. E-cigarettes: comparing the possible risks of increasing smoking initiation with the potential benefits of increasing smoking cessation. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2019;21(1):41–7. [PubMed: 29617887]
• Washington HA. Burning love: big tobacco takes aim at LGBT youths. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92(7):1086–95. [PMC free article: PMC3222279] [PubMed: 12084686]
• Webb Hooper M, Antoni MH, Okuyemi K, Dietz NA, Resnicow K. Randomized controlled trial of group-based culturally specific cognitive behavioral therapy among African American smokers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2017;19(3):333–41. [PubMed: 27613941]
• Webb MS, de Ybarra DR, Baker EA, Reis IM, Carey MP. Cognitive-behavioral therapy to promote smoking cessation among African American smokers: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2010a;78(1):24–33. [PubMed: 20099947]
• Webb TL, Sniehotta FF, Michie S. Using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behaviours. Addiction 2010b;105(11):1879–92. [PubMed: 20670346]
• West R. Time for a change: putting the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model to rest. Addiction 2005;100(8):1036–9. [PubMed: 16042624]
• West R, Edwards M, Hajek P. A randomized controlled trial of a “buddy” system to improve success at giving up smoking in general practice. Addiction 1998;93(7):1007–11. [PubMed: 9744131]
• West R, Zatonski W, Cedzynska M, Lewandowska D, Pazik J, Aveyard P, Stapleton J. Placebo-controlled trial of cytisine for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2011;365(13):1193–200. [PubMed: 21991893]
• West R, Zhou X. Is nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation effective in the “real world”? Findings from a prospective multinational cohort study. Thorax 2007;62(11):998–1002. [PMC free article: PMC2117127] [PubMed: 17573444]
• Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Rodgers A, Gu Y. Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006611. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub4. [PMC free article: PMC6485940] [PubMed: 27060875] [CrossRef]
• Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Borland R, Rodgers A, Gu Y. Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD006611. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub3. [PubMed: 23152238] [CrossRef]
• Williams GC, McGregor H, Sharp D, Kouldes RW, Levesque CS, Ryan RM, Deci EL. A self-determination multiple risk intervention trial to improve smokers’ health. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2006a;21(12):1288–94. [PMC free article: PMC1924739] [PubMed: 16995893]
• Williams GC, McGregor HA, Sharp D, Levesque C, Kouides RW, Ryan RM, Deci EL. Testing a self-determination theory intervention for motivating tobacco cessation: supporting autonomy and competence in a clinical trial. Health Psychology 2006b;25(1):91–101. [PubMed: 16448302]
• Williams GC, Minicucci DS, Kouides RW, Levesque CS, Chirkov VI, Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination, smoking, diet and health. Health Education Research 2002;17(5):512–21. [PubMed: 12408196]
• Williams GC, Niemiec CP, Patrick H, Ryan RM, Deci EL. The importance of supporting autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating long-term tobacco abstinence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2009;37(3):315–24. [PMC free article: PMC2819097] [PubMed: 19373517]
• Williams GC, Niemiec CP, Patrick H, Ryan RM, Deci EL. Outcomes of the Smoker’s Health Project: a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of tobacco-dependence interventions based on self-determination theory. Health Education Research 2016;31(6):749–59. [PMC free article: PMC5141968] [PubMed: 27923864]
• Williams GC, Patrick H, Niemiec CP, Ryan RM, Deci EL, Lavigne HM. The smoker’s health project: a self-determination theory intervention to facilitate maintenance of tobacco abstinence. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2011;32(4):535–43. [PMC free article: PMC3162229] [PubMed: 21382516]
• Williams JM, Anthenelli RM, Morris CD, Treadow J, Thompson JR, Yunis C, George TP. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2012;73(5):654–60. [PubMed: 22697191]
• Windle SB, Filion KB, Mancini JG, Adye-White L, Joseph L, Gore GC, Habib B, Grad R, Pilote L, Eisenberg MJ. Combination therapies for smoking cessation: a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(6):1060–71. [PubMed: 27617367]
• Winpenny E, Elliott MN, Haas A, Haviland AM, Orr N, Shadel WG, Ma S, Friedberg MW, Cleary PD. Advice to quit smoking and ratings of health care among Medicaid beneficiaries aged 65+. Health Services Research 2017;52(1):207–19. [PMC free article: PMC5264017] [PubMed: 27061081]
• Wisborg K, Henriksen TB, Jespersen LB, Secher NJ. Nicotine patches for pregnant smokers: a randomized controlled study. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;96(6):967–71. [PubMed: 11084187]
• Witman A, Acquah J, Alva M, Hoerger T, Romaire M. Medicaid incentives for preventing chronic disease: effects of financial incentives for smoking cessation. Health Services Research 2018;53(6):5016–34. [PMC free article: PMC6232448] [PubMed: 29896800]
• Woods SS, Haskins AE. Increasing reach of quitline services in a U.S. state with comprehensive tobacco treatment. Tobacco Control 2007;16:(Suppl 1):i33–i36. [PMC free article: PMC2598522] [PubMed: 18048629]
• World Health Organization. 1. Benefits and rationale for establishing quit-line services. In: Developing and Improving National Toll-Free Tobacco Quit Line Services: A World Health Organization Manual. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization, 2011:7–11.
• World Health Organization. Recommendations. In: WHO Recommendations for the Prevention and Management of Tobacco Use and Second-Hand Smoke Exposure in Pregnancy. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization, 2013:44–9. [PubMed: 24649520]
• World Health Organization. Advisory Note: Global Nicotine Reduction Strategy. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization, 2015.
• World Health Organization and International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 89: Smokeless Tobacco and some Tobacco-Specific N-Nitrosamines Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2007. [PMC free article: PMC4781254] [PubMed: 18335640]
• Wortley PM, Husten CG, Trosclair A, Chrismon J, Pederson LL. Nondaily smokers: a descriptive analysis. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2003;5(5):755–9. [PubMed: 14577992]
• Yalom ID, Leszcz M. Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. 5th ed. New York (NY): Basic Books, 2005.
• Yvonne Prutzman, NCI. personal communication, January 23, 2019.
• Zapka JG, Fletcher K, Pbert L, Druker SK, Ockene JK, Chen L. The perceptions and practices of pediatricians: tobacco intervention. Pediatrics 1999;103(5):e65. [PubMed: 10224209]
• Zeliadt SB, Heffner JL, Sayre G, Klein DE, Simons C, Williams J, Reinke LF, Au DH. Attitudes and perceptions about smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. JAMA Internal Medicine 2015;175(9):1530–7. [PubMed: 26214612]
• Zhang B, Cohen JE, Bondy SJ, Selby P. Duration of nicotine replacement therapy use and smoking cessation: a population-based longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2015;181(7):513–20. [PMC free article: PMC4371764] [PubMed: 25740789]
• Zhang L, Malarcher A, Mann N, Campbell K, Davis K, Anderson C, Alexander R, Rodes R. The influence of state-specific quitline numbers on call volume during a national tobacco education campaign promoting 1-800-QUIT-NOW. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2016;18(8):1780–5. [PubMed: 27073208]
• Zhu SH, Lee M, Zhuang YL, Gamst A, Wolfson T. Interventions to increase smoking cessation at the population level: how much progress has been made in the last two decades? Tobacco Control 2012;21(2):110–8. [PMC free article: PMC3446870] [PubMed: 22345233]
• Zhu SH, Stretch V, Balabanis M, Rosbrook B, Sadler G, Pierce JP. Telephone counseling for smoking cessation: effects of single-session and multiple-session interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1996;64(1):202–11. [PubMed: 8907100]
• Zhu SH, Zhuang YL, Wong S, Cummins SE, Tedeschi GJ. E-cigarette use and associated changes in population smoking cessation: evidence from U.S. current population surveys. BMJ 2017;358:j3262. [PMC free article: PMC5526046] [PubMed: 28747333]
• Zhuang YL, Cummins SE, J YS, Zhu SH. Long-term e-cigarette use and smoking cessation: a longitudinal study with U.S. population. Tobacco Control 2016;25(Suppl 1)i90–i95. [PMC free article: PMC5099206] [PubMed: 27697953]
• Ziedonis D, Hitsman B, Beckham JC, Zvolensky M, Adler LE, Audrain-McGovern J, Breslau N, Brown RA, George TP, Williams J, et al. Tobacco use and cessation in psychiatric disorders: National Institute of Mental Health report. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008;10(12):1691–715. [PubMed: 19023823]