Public Health Agency of Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Share this page

Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada

Volume 33 · Number 1 · December 2012

Assessing the reach of nicotine replacement therapy as a preventive public health measure

S. J. Bondy, PhD (1, 2); L. M. Diemert, MSc (2); J. C. Victor, MSc (2, 3); P. W. McDonald, PhD (2, 4); J. E. Cohen, PhD (1, 5)

This article has been peer reviewed.

Author references:

  1. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  5. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Correspondence: Susan Bondy, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, 6th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7; Tel.: 416-978-0141; Fax: 416-978-8299;

Email: Sue.Bondy@utoronto.ca

Abstract

Introduction: Access to Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) is a key public health intervention to reduce smoking. We assessed prevalence and correlates of use of NRT in Ontario, where NRT is available without prescription.

Methods: Participants were a representative sample of 2262 adult smokers in the Ontario Tobacco Survey cohort. Prospectively measured use of NRT over a 6-month period was reported in relation to smoking behaviour and history, attempts to quit, receipt of other supports for cessation supports and attitudes toward NRT.

Results: Overall, 11% of smokers used NRT over the six-month follow-up period.

Prevalence was 25% among the 27% of smokers matching clinical guidelines that recommend NRT as a therapeutic option, and low among smokers not trying to quit.

Conclusion: With increasing accessibility of NRT, further surveillance and research are warranted to determine the impact of the reach and benefits of NRT, considering both the general and targeted smoking populations.

Keywords: smoking cessation, nicotine, evidence-based medicine, population surveillance

Introduction

In trials, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) nearly doubles the likelihood of smoking cessation,Endnote 1–3 and so has the potential to reduce the disease burden from tobacco.Endnote 4 Ensuring access to NRT is a required public health intervention for all nations, including Canada, that have signed the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.Endnote 5,Endnote 6 Several jurisdictions (e.g. Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and much of Europe) have made NRT available over the counter (OTC) without prescription, while others propose to do the same.

Several authors have stated that measures to make NRT more available have increased its use,Endnote 7,Endnote 8 while others argue it is still underutilized.Endnote 9–11 However, few reports have described uptake of NRT at population levels where these have been made available OTC.Endnote 12–14 The cost of NRT in Canada has been described both as a serious barrierEndnote 15 and a contribution to inequality in access to effective cessation services.Endnote 16 New publicly funded programs are being considered and enacted to increase access and use of this treatment.Endnote 17 The effectiveness of making NRT readily accessible should be evaluated with quantitative surveillance data on the size of the ideal target population as well as the proportion of the population reached by the intervention.Endnote 18 These data have not been available in Canada.

This report addresses a gap in knowledge about the size of the population of smokers representing unmet need for increased use of NRT in Ontario. There is some controversy about whether all, or only specific, smokers should be encouraged to use NRT, and if medication is over-promoted to smokers who do not need it to quit.Endnote 19 Therefore, we report on prevalence of NRT use in all smokers and those matching de jure guidelines applied in programs providing publicly funded NRT in OntarioEndnote 20 and elsewhereEndnote 1,Endnote 21 to quantify reach of this preventive measure in smokers representing targeted and not targeted users. Targeting criteria used are drawn from evidence-based reviews,Endnote 22 including Cochrane reports Endnote 1,Endnote 2 and meta-analyses.Endnote 23,Endnote 24 These have concluded that there is strong evidence of the benefit of NRT for smokers who are both nicotine dependent (largely defined as consuming more than 10 to 15 cigarettes per day) and motivated to quit smoking.Endnote 1,Endnote 2 It is also recommended as a best practice that NRT users receive behavioural counselling, to achieve the additive effects of both interventions.Endnote 1,Endnote 2,Endnote 22 Authors who advocate that NRT is suited to all smokers without restrictionsEndnote 8,Endnote 11,Endnote 25 argue that NRT may be effective without clinical help and that the number of cigarettes smoked per day may not correlate with the presence or severity of withdrawal symptoms targeted by the medication or the perceived need for the medication.Endnote 11,Endnote 24–33 Others have suggested there may be increased use of NRT for reasons other than quitting (e.g. to postpone quitting or to cut down but continue smoking), and they have indicated a need to monitor such potential trends.Endnote 34–38

Evidence for the effectiveness of NRT obtained OTC also remains weaker than for clinical settings. This will depend on who uses it and how it is used, which makes patterns of NRT use important to monitor.Endnote 39

Methods

Study population and design

We conducted our research in Ontario, Canada, a province with a comprehensive Tobacco Control Strategy. Throughout the study period, NRT patch and gum forms were readily available OTC at pharmacies, grocery stores and convenience stores. No other forms of NRT (e.g. inhaler, lozenge) were licensed for use, and NRT products were licensed for use in immediate cessation (i.e. not to be used while still smoking or quitting gradually). Most OTC products were paid for privatelyEndnote 40 and not covered in universal drug benefits.

Data were from the Ontario Tobacco Survey, a population-representative telephone survey and panel study of adult smokersEndnote 41,Endnote 42 recruited from July 2005 through June 2007 (for whom NRT attitude questions were included in the interview). Of 2681 smokers at baseline (daily or occasional smokers who had smoked within 30 days and 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime), 2262 had complete baseline and first six-month follow-up data (84.4% retention). Approximately 12% of the sample were studied during a time when they could have been eligible for a free, government-funded NRT distribution program.Endnote 20

The University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo provided ethical approval to conduct and use the data from the Ontario Tobacco Survey.

Study variables

Respondents were asked at baseline if they had ever or never previously used NRT. At the six-month interview, respondents were asked if they had used either the nicotine patch, gum or inhaler in the preceding six months ''to quit or reduce smoking.'' We defined six-month period prevalence of NRT use as any use of NRT during follow-up, regardless of history.

A number of smokers' characteristics were considered as predictors of NRT use. These included factors known to be associated with quit attempts and measures derived to reflect practice guidelines around NRT (intention to quit; indications of nicotine dependence assessed through consumption level, typically 10 or more cigarettes; and receipt of behavioural supports for cessation). Six-month intention to quit smoking was obtained at baseline by asking, ''Are you planning to quit smoking within the next month, within the next six months, sometime in the future, beyond six months, or are you not planning to quit?'' Endnote 43,Endnote 44 A second derived covariate classified smokers as intending to quit if they intended to do so at baseline or reported having made a serious attempt to quit during the six-month follow-up. We calculated baseline consumption, time to first cigarette after wakingEndnote 45 and Heaviness of Smoking Index.Endnote 46 Respondents were also asked if they considered themselves ''very,'' ''somewhat'' or ''not at all'' addicted to cigarettes.Endnote 47 Derived variables were also created for combinations of indications for NRT (defined as above).

Respondents' confidence in their ability to quit was measured in four levels from ''not at all'' through ''very confident'' that they would succeed if they decided to quit completely in the next six months. Reports of having made a serious attempt to quit smoking, having received physician advice to quit smoking and using specific behavioural supports for cessation were obtained at baseline and follow-up. Attitudes toward pharmaceutical smoking cessation aids were determined at baseline from agreement with the following statements: ''stop-smoking medications make it easier to quit than trying to quit on your own''; ''the cost of stop-smoking medications makes it difficult to use them''; ''stop-smoking medications are hard to get''; and ''the risk of side effects from stop-smoking medications concerns you.'' The demographic characteristics considered were age, sex, education and rural residence.Endnote 48 Rural residence was considered as a potential indicator of relatively poorer access to NRT (due to any of the following: limited access to primary care providers who might recommend pharmacotherapy; larger distances to pharmacies that carry the product; or greater cost of the product in more remote locations).

Analyses

Use of NRT was reported in bivariate analyses and multivariable models relating NRT use to smoker demographics, baseline attitudes and smoking characteristics and to behaviours related to smoking cessation.

We obtained prevalence ratios for NRT use in relation to covariates using log-binomial regression models including all smokers. We restricted this to smokers who reported making a quit attempt during the six-month follow-up period. Regression diagnostics included assessment for non-linearity and multi-colinearity. All descriptive and multivariable analyses used sampling weights for the Ontario Tobacco Survey smoker cohort, which were calculated to produce estimates representative of the underlying population of Ontario adult recent smokers at baseline.Endnote 41 Variance estimates took the sampling design into account and were obtained using the Taylor series expansion methods in Stata version 11 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, United States).Endnote 49

Results

Table 1 presents the characteristics of 2262 respondents with complete six-month follow-up data, along with six-month prevalence of NRT use by smoker characteristics, predictors of cessation and attitudes toward NRT. Similarity of the sample to the underlying population is reported elsewhere.Endnote 41,Endnote 42 In this cohort 64% smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day at baseline, and 52% reported smoking within 30 minutes of waking. Most respondents (83%) had previously tried to quit, and 47% had previously used NRT. In our sample, 40% reported an intention to quit smoking at baseline, which is somewhat lower than estimates from other sources for the same population (55%–59%,Endnote 50,Endnote 51 although with different measures of intentionEndnote 52).

Table 1 Sample characteristics and prevalence of NRT use in six months by smoker characteristics, in a population-representative cohort of adult smokers, Ontario, Canada
Characteristic of smoker, history of smoking and cessation attempts, and attitudes Unweighted sample size, n Percent of sample, weighted Prevalence of NRT use in 6 months, by group
% % 95% CI

Source: Ontario Tobacco Survey, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, July 2005 to December 2007 (Cohorts 1 to 4 with 6-month follow-up data).

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy.

Table 1 - Footnote a
Statistically significant bivariate association as indicated using global chi-square test for association.
All smokers with complete 6 month data 2262 100 11.4 9.7–13.1
Demographics
Age, years 2261
18–34 592 33.4 11.0 7.8–14.2
35–54 1120 49.1 12.2 9.8–14.6
55+ 549 17.4 10.1 7.0–13.1
Sex 2262
Male 993 52.5 11.2 8.8–13.6
Female 1269 47.5 11.7 9.4–13.9
Education 2256
Some post-secondary education 1178 54.5 13.0 10.6–15.3
High school or less 1078 45.5 9.6 7.3–11.9
Heaviness of smoking at baseline
Number of cigarettes smoked/dayTable 1 - Footnote a 2239
0–9 695 36.4 9.3 6.3–12.2
10–15 568 25.1 15.1 11.1–19.0
16+ 976 38.5 11.4 9.1–13.7
Time from waking to first cigarette, minutes 2256
≤ 30 1300 51.5 12.4 10.2–14.6
> 30 956 48.5 10.2 7.7–12.8
Quit attempts and intentions
Lifetime number of quit attempts at baselineTable 1 - Footnote a 2260
0 321 16.7 6.4 2.1–10.6
1 514 23.2 8.2 5.3–11.0
2 506 23.1 10.6 7.1–14.1
≥ 3 919 37.0 16.3 13.3–19.3
Intended to quit at baselineTable 1 - Footnote a 2230
Yes 914 40.2 17.5 14.4–20.5
No 1316 59.8 7.6 5.6–9.5
Made a serious attempt to quit smoking during 6-month follow-up period (reported at follow-up)Table 1 - Footnote a 2098
Yes 467 25.5 29.6 24.2–35.0
No 1631 74.5 3.9 2.9–4.9
Supports for cessation
Lifetime history of NRT useTable 1 - Footnote a 2262
Yes 1177 46.8 19.4 16.5–22.3
No 1085 53.2 4.4 2.6–6.2
Lifetime history of any behavioural supports (including physician advice)Table 1 - Footnote a 2262
Yes 415 16.0 23.7 18.3–29.2
No 1847 84.0 9.1 7.4–10.8
Physician advice or use of behavioural supports during follow-upTable 1 - Footnote a 2235
Either 959 43.6 17.2 14.1–20.4
Neither 1276 56.4 7.3 5.6–9.0
Attitudes and beliefs
Perceived addictionTable 1 - Footnote a 2253
Not at all 151 8.8 2.1 0.0–6.0
Somewhat 603 30.7 8.1 5.2–10.9
Very 1499 60.5 14.5 12.2–16.8
Confident of quitting altogether in the next 6 monthsTable 1 - Footnote a 2248
Not at all confident 310 12.0 9.9 5.4–14.4
Not very confident 654 27.3 12.3 9.1–15.4
Fairly confident 753 33.8 14.4 11.0–17.7
Very confident 531 26.8 7.9 5.2–10.5
Stop-smoking medications make it easier to quit than trying to quit on your ownTable 1 - Footnote a 2261
Agree 1656 70.5 13.6 11.4–15.8
Disagree 494 24.8 6.8 4.2–9.4
Don't know 111 4.8 3.3 0.8–5.7
The cost of stop-smoking medications makes it difficult to use themTable 1 - Footnote a 2261
Agree 1334 55.5 12.0 9.8–14.2
Disagree 771 37.0 12.4 9.4–15.4
Don't know 156 7.5 2.4 0.4–4.5
Stop-smoking medications are hard to getTable 1 - Footnote a 2262
Agree 344 14.2 7.6 4.2–11.1
Disagree 1776 79.5 12.6 10.6–14.6
Don't know 142 6.3 5.3 1.2–9.5
The risk of side effects from stop-smoking medications concerns youTable 1 - Footnote a 2262
Agree 1309 56.1 10.5 8.4–12.6
Disagree 840 38.5 14.2 11.1–17.3
Don't know 113 5.5 1.5 0.1–3.0
Combination of indications for NRT use
Intention or attempts to quit plus 10+ cigarettes/dayTable 1 - Footnote a 2206
Yes 658 26.6 25.3 21.0–29.6
No 1548 73.4 6.5 4.8–8.1
Intention or attempts to quit plus 10+ cigarettes/day plus any supportTable 1 - Footnote a 2223
Yes 349 13.9 30.8 24.4–37.3
No 1874 86.1 8.3 6.7–10.0
Intention or attempts to quit plus any supportsTable 1 - Footnote a 2212
Yes 526 23.6 26.8 21.7–32.0
No 1686 76.4 6.8 5.3–8.2

 

Between baseline and the first six-month follow-up, 11% reported using NRT (see Table 1). Overall, 26% reported making a serious quit attempt and just 2% of all smokers in the sample were first-time users of NRT in this six-month period. There was no detectable difference in NRT use among the 12% of respondents whose time on study coincided with a free NRT give-away program in Ontario (data not shown).

Table 1 also shows the prevalence of NRT use by smoker characteristics. Use was significantly higher among respondents who intended to quit altogether (using various measures), who made serious attempts to quit, and who had received behavioural or professional supports for cessation. NRT use was also positively associated with baseline cigarette consumption, lifetime number of quit attempts, prior use of NRT, perceived addiction, confidence in ability to quit and attitudes toward stop-smoking medications. Age, sex or education were not associated with NRT use; nor was rural/urban residence in our analyses (data not shown).

Among smokers who intended to quit altogether (either a prior intention to quit at baseline or a reported serious attempt during the follow-up period) and a baseline consumption of 10 or more cigarettes per day (the 27% of smokers meeting explicit practice guidelines), 25% used NRT. The highest prevalence of NRT use observed by subgroup, at 31%, was among smokers who exactly met the most conservative eligibility criteria and also reported past or recent receipt of behavioural support (Table 1).

Table 2 shows the characteristics and responses of the 301 individuals who used NRT in the six-month follow-up window. The large majority of NRT users had a history of quit attempts at the baseline interview (91%), expressed an intention to quit (as baseline intention to quit [61%] or attempt in follow-up [72%]), had used NRT at or before the baseline interview (80%) and reported themselves to be ''very addicted'' (77%). NRT users tended to believe stop-smoking medications made it easier to quit (84%) and that they were readily available (88%), but also that the cost made it difficult to use them (58%).

Table 3 shows the results of simultaneously adjusted log-binomial regression models predicting use of NRT during six-month follow-up among all smokers and among only those who reported attempting to quit during the same follow-up window. Demographic characteristics including age and education were not associated with NRT use after adjustment for smoking behaviour and history.

Among all smokers, history of quit attempts at baseline was unrelated to NRT use. However, respondents were over 6 times more likely to use NRT if they reported a serious attempt to quit smoking over the same six-month follow-up period; they were also more likely to use NRT if they had previously used it. Both a lifetime history of physician advice or behavioural supports for cessation and reported receipt of advice or support during the same follow-up window were statistically significant predictors of NRT use in the fully adjusted model. Consumption-based smoking behaviour measures at baseline (number of cigarettes per day and time to first cigarette) and confidence in ability to quit were not statistically significant after adjustment for history of quitting behaviour.

When the analysis of predictors of NRT use was restricted to smokers who made a serious attempt to quit in the six-month time frame, history of support for cessation was positively associated with NRT use. However, after adjustment for this, behavioural support reported during the same reference period was not related to NRT use. (Additional models, not shown, indicate substitution effect where either past or sametime period history of behavioural supports were positively associated with NRT use, and the two were correlated.) Unlike the associations found among all smokers, among those who made a quit attempt higher number of cigarettes per day at baseline was positively associated with reported use of NRT in the next six months, but not previous quit attempts. A ''don't know'' response to the attitude item about price of NRT was negatively correlated with use. Conversely a ''don't know'' response to the question on ease of access was positively associated with use (p = .048 for the contrast).

Table 2 Characteristics of a population-representative cohort of adult smokers who reported using NRT products ''to quit or cut down'' in a six-month follow-up period, Ontario, Canada
Characteristics of smokers (n = 301) Weighted,
%
95% confidence interval

Source: Ontario Tobacco Survey, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, July 2005 to December 2007 (Cohorts 1 to 4 with six-month follow-up data).

Abbreviation: NRT, nicotine replacement therapy.


Table 2 - Footnote a
Cell size less than 5: estimates have been suppressed to maintain confidentiality.
Demographics
Age, years 18–34 32.2 24.6–39.9
35–54 52.4 44.7–60.1
55+ 15.4 10.7–20.0
Sex Male 51.5 43.8–59.1
Female 48.5 40.9–56.2
Education Some post-secondary 61.8 54.2–69.3
  High school or less 38.2 30.7–45.8
Heaviness of smoking at baseline
Number of cigarettes smoked/day 0–9 29.1 21.5–36.8
10–15 32.8 25.4–40.2
16+ 38.1 31.1–45.2
Time from waking to first cigarette, minutes ≤ 30 56.4 48.5–64.2
> 30 43.6 35.8–51.5
Quit attempts and intentions
Lifetime number of quit attempts at baseline 0 9.3 3.3–15.4
1 16.6 11.1–22.0
2 21.3 14.8–27.8
≥ 3 52.8 45.1–60.5
Intended to quit at baseline Yes 60.8 53.0–68.5
No 39.2 31.5–47.0
Made a serious attempt to quit smoking during the 6-month follow-up period (reported at follow-up) Yes 72.3 65.5–79.0
No 27.7 21.0–34.5
Supports for cessation
Lifetime history of NRT use Yes 79.6 72.4–86.8
No 20.4 13.2–27.6
Lifetime history of any behavioural supports (including physician advice) Yes 33.3 26.2–40.3
No 66.7 59.7–73.8
Physician advice or use of behavioural supports during 6-month follow-up Either 64.6 57.5–71.7
Neither 35.4 28.3–42.5
Attitudes and beliefs
Perceived addiction Not at all SuppressedTable 9 - Footnote a SuppressedTable 9 - Footnote a
Somewhat 21.6 14.8–28.4
Very 76.7 69.6–83.8
Confidence of quitting altogether in the next 6 months Not at all confident 10.3 5.7–15.0
Not very confident 29.1 22.4–35.8
Fairly confident 42.2 34.5–49.9
Very confident 18.3 12.6–24.0
Stop-smoking medications make it easier to quit than trying to quit on your own Agree 83.9 78.5–89.3
Disagree 14.8 9.5–20.1
Don't know 1.4 0.4–2.4
The cost of stop-smoking medications makes it difficult to use them Agree 58.2 50.5–65.9
Disagree 40.2 32.5–47.9
Don't know 1.6 0.3–3.0
Stop-smoking medications are hard to get Agree 9.5 5.3–13.7
Disagree 87.6 82.9–92.2
Don't know 3.0 0.7–5.3
The risk of side effects from stop-smoking medications concerns you Agree 51.5 43.8–59.2
Disagree 47.8 40.1–55.5
Don't know 0.7 0.0–1.4
Combination of indications for NRT use
Intention or attempts to quit plus 10+ cigarettes/day Yes 58.6 50.7–66.4
No 41.4 33.6–49.3
Intention or attempts to quit plus 10+ cigarettes/day plus any support Yes 37.3 29.8–44.7
No 62.7 55.3–70.2
Intention or attempts to quit plus any support Yes 55.0 47.3–62.7
No 45.0 37.3–52.7

Table 3 Results of multiple log-binomial regression models predicting NRT use, in six-month follow-up, for all smokers and for those who attempted to quit over the same six-month period
Characteristic Predicting 6-month prevalent use of NRT in all
smokers (N = 2031)
Predicting NRT use among those who made a quit attempt in 6-month follow-up (N = 439)
PR (95% CI) p value PR (95% CI) p value

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy; PR, prevalence ratio.


Table 3 - Footnote a
Behavioural support considered as either advice from a physician or other forms.
Table 3 - Footnote b
Excludes fewer than 5 observations who said ''Don't know.''
Age (continuous, per 10 years of age) 0.94 (0.84–1.05) .250 1.01 (0.90–1.14) .853
Sex
Female (reference) 1.00 1.00
Male 0.86 (0.65–1.15) .319 0.73 (0.53–1.02) .065
Education
High school or less (reference) 1.00 1.00
More than high school 1.09 (0.80–1.47) .582 1.27 (0.89–1.81) .183
Consumption (continuous, cigarettes/day)
  1.01 (0.99–1.03) .226 1.02 (1.00–1.04) .025
Time from waking to first cigarette, minutes
≤ 30 0.90 (0.65–1.24) .516 0.69 (0.47–1.00) .053
> 30 (reference) 1.00 1.00
Previous number of quit attempts at baseline
≥1 0.69 (0.40–1.22) .201 0.49 (0.27–0.88) .017
0 (reference) 1.00 1.00
History of NRT use at baseline
Yes, ≥ 1 times 3.04 (2.04–4.54) < .001 2.68 (1.69–4.26) < .001
No (reference) 1.00 1.00
History of behavioural support at baselineTable 11 - Footnote a
Yes, ≥ 1 times 1.35 (1.02–1.79) .038 1.40 (1.06–1.87) .020
No (reference) 1.00 1.00
Baseline intention to quit in 6 months .042
Yes 0.68 (0.47–0.99)
No (reference) 1.00
Made a serious attempt to quit smoking during 6-month follow up period
Yes 6.76 (4.72–9.69) < .001
No (reference) 1.00
Use of any behavioural supports during follow-up
Yes 1.53 (1.11–2.11) .009 1.15 (0.82–1.63) .418
No (reference) 1.00 1.00
Confidence in ability to quit
Very confident 0.78 (0.44–1.39) .403 0.90 (0.48–1.70) .751
Fairly confident 1.14 (0.68–1.93) .611 1.30 (0.75–2.24) .345
Not very confident 1.16 (0.68–1.98) .584 1.36 (0.78–2.39) .278
Not at all confident (reference) 1.00 1.00
Stop-smoking medications make it easier to quit than trying to quit on your own Table 11 - Footnote a
Disagree 0.71 (0.44–1.13) .150 0.76 (0.43–1.33) .334
Don't know 0.62 (0.26–1.47) .276 0.57 (0.23–1.41) .221
Agree (reference) 1.00 1.00
The cost of stop-smoking medications makes it difficult to use them
Disagree 1.04 (0.79–1.39) .768 1.09 (0.80–1.50) .579
Don't know 0.27 (0.08–0.97) .045 0.09 (0.02–0.58) .011
Agree (reference) 1.00 1.00
Stop-smoking medications are hard to get
Disagree 1.32 (0.78–2.25) .296 1.18 (0.66–2.13) .574
Don't know 1.98 (0.86–4.59) .110 2.72 (1.01–7.34) .048
Agree (reference) 1.00 1.00
The risk of side effects from stop-smoking medications concerns you
Disagree 1.13 (0.85–1.50) .413 1.25 (0.90–1.73) .181
Don't know 0.26 (0.06–1.14) .073 [excluded]Table 11 - Footnoteb
Agree (reference) 1.00 1.00

 

Discussion

In Ontario, 30% of those making a quit attempt used NRT. This is lower than that found in a study by Reid and HammondEndnote 53 that showed that a fairly stable 50% of smokers making quit attempts over two years used medication. Our study is the first to consider which smokers should be using NRT, based on evidence-based guidelines for NRT effectiveness. Of the 27% of smokers who met guidelines for use in our analysis, just under 25% used NRT. This leaves roughly 20% of all Ontario smokers as, arguably, an ''ideal'' but unreached target population.

Despite the importance of quantitative data on the reach of public health interventions,Endnote 18 few reports have estimated population prevalence of NRT in specific time periods. Population health surveys often lack the precision to quantify NRT conditional on smoking and quit attempts. In 1990, in a sample of Minnesotans with access to NRT through insurance plans with co-payment,Endnote 54 roughly half of those trying to quit used aids, primarily pharmacotherapy; in California between 1999 and 2002, 17% of all smokers used pharmacotherapy in the past year.Endnote 55 In the U.S. in 2003, 32% reported a quit attempt in the past year using medication,Endnote 56 whereas in 2010, 30% of all smokers used medication in the past year.Endnote 57 In the United Kingdom, where NRT is publically funded through the National Health Service, roughly half of smokers used it in recent quit attempts.Endnote 12

Not all smokers feel medications are necessary,Endnote 13,Endnote 14,Endnote 58 and many quit on their own.Endnote 56,Endnote 59 However, Ontario utilization rates may not reflect lack of interest; in 2006, a provincial NRT giveaway attracted 16 000 people in six weeks.Endnote 60 We found no difference in use by education, as anticipated and seen in American data;Endnote 57 however, we did not have access to more direct measures of insurance or ability to pay.Endnote 40

Earlier studies showed that ever users of NRT tend to be more dependent or smoke more cigarettes.Endnote 7,Endnote 45,Endnote 54,Endnote 61–63 In our study, number of cigarettes smoked did not predict NRT use, which contrasts with several retrospective studies;Endnote 7,Endnote 54 however, cigarette consumption was associated with NRT use among smokers trying to quit, as elsewhere.Endnote 12 Among all smokers, lower consumption may follow from efforts to cut down.Endnote 64 American guidelines on NRT cite a minimum number of cigarettes primarily because of a lack of clinical trials data for people who smoke less.Endnote 1–3 Australian practice guidelines, in contrast, state that NRT should be offered with evidence of dependence.Endnote 65 We found that over 90% of respondents who smoked fewer than 10 cigarettes at baseline and who used NRT perceived themselves to be very or somewhat addicted.

Intending or actually trying to quit were significantly associated with NRT use, which was consistent with findings from California.Endnote 63 Just 3% of Ontarians who neither intended nor tried to quit used NRT. This does not suggest widespread use of NRT with no intention to quit, as has been suggested as a negative consequence of NRT availability.Endnote 34–38,Endnote 66,Endnote 67 However, we asked about NRT use ''to quit or reduce smoking'' (to exclude use of services for a different health reason) and may not have captured all NRT use, for example, by people who planned only to reduce, but not discontinue, smoking. Intention to quit may also change or be unreliably measured.Endnote 68 We addressed this by considering intention with and without subsequent attempts to quit.

In our study, smokers who received non-pharmaceutical support were more likely to use NRT, whereas previous studies report mixed findings. NRT users rarely used behavioural supports in Minnesota,Endnote 54 whereas in CaliforniaEndnote 7 and AustraliaEndnote 62 NRT users were more likely to use behavioural supports. Ontario data may reflect consistency of advice from professionals and packaging to use behavioural supports. However, as in most studies,Endnote 69 we have no information on the intensity or quality of the supports received. Our study, like others,Endnote 45,Endnote 61 found that past use of NRT was associated with prospective use, but some use may have started before the baseline interview and continued into follow-up. Not surprisingly, smokers with positive attitudes towards NRT were more likely to use these medications.Endnote 62,Endnote 70–72

Our analysis used data to 2008, after which time NRT manufacturers were permitted to advertise NRT for use while cutting down to quit. Future studies should ask about NRT for use only to cut down or only when one cannot smoke.Endnote 63,Endnote 66,Endnote 67,Endnote 73 Our study will provide baseline data to evaluate the impact of these changes and recent initiatives to publicly fund NRT.

Conclusion

Widely available NRT is a recommended population-based measure to reduce tobacco-related health burden. In this population, where NRT was available over the counter and use of supplemental behavioural supports advocated, most smokers trying to quit were not using NRT. Approximately 20% of Ontario smokers were an ''ideal'' but unreached target population for NRT use. Ontario has recently implemented new initiatives to increase the accessibility of NRT. As such, further surveillance and research are warranted to determine the impact of the reach and benefits of NRT, considering both the general and targeted smoking populations.

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport, and the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

The authors have no conflicts of interest. None of the authors work or have worked in any capacity with, or received remuneration from, the manufacturers or sellers of tobacco products or nicotine replacement therapy products. The lead author was an investigator on The Stop Smoking for Ontario Patients study funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and which received support in kind from manufacturers of nicotine replacement therapy products without intellectual restriction.

References

Endnote 1
Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1:CD000146. doi: 10.1002 /14651858.CD000146.pub3.(2)
Endnote 2
Silagy C, Lancaster T, Stead L, Mant D, Fowler G. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;3:CD000146. doi: 10.1002 /14651858.CD000146.pub3
Endnote 3
Clinical Practice Guideline Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence Update Panel. A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. A U.S. Public Health Service report. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2):158–76.
Endnote 4
World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva (CH): World Health Organization; 2003.
Endnote 5
World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [Fifty-sixth World Health Assembly Resolution WHA56.1. Agenda item 13, 21 May 2003] Resolution WHA56.1. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In: 56th World Health Assembly, Geneva, 19–34 May 2003 [Internet]. Geneva (CH): World Health Organization; 2008 [cited 2010 Jul 1]. Available from: http://apps .who.int/gb/archive/pdf_files/WHA56 /ea56r1.pdf
Endnote 6
World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: guidelines for implementation Article 5.3; Article 8; Articles 9 and 10; Article 11; Article 12; Article 13; Article 14 -2011 edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
Endnote 7
Pierce JP, Gilpin E. Impact of over-the-counter sales on effectiveness of pharmaceutical aids for smoking cessation. JAMA. 2002;288:1260–4.
Endnote 8
Shiffman S, Gitchell J, Pinney JM, Burton SL, Kemper KE, Lara EA. Public health benefit of over-the-counter nicotine medications. Tob Control. 1997;6:306–10.
Endnote 9
Cummings KM, Hyland A. Impact of nicotine replacement therapy on smoking behavior. Ann Rev Public Health. 2005;26:583–99.
Endnote 10
Hyland A, Rezaishiraz H, Giovino G, Bauer JE, Michael Cummings K. Over-the-counter availability of nicotine replacement therapy and smoking cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005;7(4):547–55.
Endnote 11
Shiffman S, Sweeney CT. Ten years after the Rx-to-OTC switch of nicotine replacement therapy: what have we learned about the benefits and risks of non-prescription availability? Health Policy. 2008;86:17–26.
Endnote 12
Kotz D, Fidler J, West R. Factors associated with the use of aids to cessation in English smokers. Addiction. 2009;104(8):1403–10.
Endnote 13
Vogt F, Hall S, Marteau TM. Understanding why smokers do not want to use nicotine dependence medications to stop smoking: qualitative and quantitative studies. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(8):1405–13.
Endnote 14
Ismailov RM, Leatherdale ST. Smoking cessation aids and strategies among former smokers in Canada. Addict Behav. 2010; 35(3):282–5.
Endnote 15
Penz ED, Manns BJ, Hebert PC, Stanbrook MB. Governments, pay for smoking cessation. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E810.
Endnote 16
Smoke-Free Ontario Scientific Advisory Committee. Evidence to guide action: comprehensive tobacco control in Ontario. Toronto (ON): Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion; 2010.
Endnote 17
Schwartz R, O'Connor S, Minian N, Borland T, Babayan A, Ferrence R, et al. Evidence to inform smoking cessation policymaking in Ontario [Internet]. Toronto (ON): Ontario Tobacco Research Unit; 2009 [cited 2012 Jul 18]. Available from: http://www.otru.org/pdf/special /special_CAP_august2010.pdf
Endnote 18
Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow R. Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 34(2):105.
Endnote 19
Chapman S, MacKenzie R. The global research neglect of unassisted smoking cessation: causes and consequences. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000216.
Endnote 20
Zawertailo L, Dragonetti R, Bondy SJ, Fictor JC, Selby PL. Reach and effectiveness of mailed nicotine replacement therapy for smokers: six-month outcomes in a naturalistic, exploratory study. Tob Control. 2012. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050303
Endnote 21
Miller N, Frieden TR, Liu SY, Matte TD, Mostashari F, Deitcher DR, et al. Effectiveness of a large-scale distribution programme of free nicotine patches: a prospective evaluation. Lancet. 2005;365(9474):1849–54.
Endnote 22
Clinical Practice Guideline Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence 2008 Update Panel, Liaisons and Staff. A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update: a U.S. Public Health Service report. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2):158–76.
Endnote 23
Etter JF, Burri M, Stapleton J. The impact of pharmaceutical company funding on results of randomized trials of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2007;102(5):815–22.
Endnote 24
Etter JF, Stapleton J. Nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2006;15:280–5.
Endnote 25
Shiffman S, Rolf CN, Hellebusch SJ, Gorsline J, Gorodetzky CW, Chiang Y-K, et al. Real-world efficacy of prescription and over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy. Addiction. 2002;97(5):505–16.
Endnote 26
Hughes JR, Peters EN, Naud S. Relapse to smoking after 1 year of abstinence: a meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2008;33:1516–20.
Endnote 27
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.
Endnote 28
Hughes JR, Shiffman S, Callas P, Zhang J. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of over-the-counter nicotine replacement. Tob Control. 2003;12:21–7.
Endnote 29
Cummings KM, Hyland A, Fix B, Bauer U, Celestino P, Carlin-Menter S, et al. Free nicotine patch giveaway program 12-month follow-up of participants. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(2):181–4.
Endnote 30
Shiffman S, Gorsline J, Gorodetzky CW. Efficacy of over-the-counter nicotine patch. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4(4):477–83.
Endnote 31
Hays JT, Croghan IT, Schroeder DR, Offord KP, Hurt RD, Wolter TD, et al. Over-the-counter nicotine patch therapy for smoking cessation: results from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and open label trials. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89(11):1701–7.
Endnote 32
Davidson M, Epstein M, Burt R, Schaefer C, Whitworth G, McDonald A. Efficacy and safety of an over-the-counter transdermal nicotine patch as an aid for smoking cessation. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(6):569–74.
Endnote 33
Sonderskov J, Olsen J, Sabroe S, Meillier L, Overvad K. Nicotine patches in smoking cessation: a randomized trial among over-the-counter customers in Denmark. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(4):309–18.
Endnote 34
Levy DE, Thorndike AN, Biener L, Rigotti NA. Use of nicotine replacement therapy to reduce or delay smoking but not to quit: prevalence and association with subsequent cessation efforts. Tob Control. 2007;16:384–9.
Endnote 35
Moore D, Aveyard P, Connock M, Wang D, Fry-Smith A, Barton P. Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2009;338:b1024.
Endnote 36
Hammond D, Reid JL, Driezen P, Cummings KM, Borland R, Fong GT, et al. Smokers' use of nicotine replacement therapy for reasons other than stopping smoking: findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. Addiction. 2008;103(10):1696–703.
Endnote 37
Etter JF, Laszlo E, Zellweger JP, Perrot C, Perneger TV. Nicotine replacement to reduce cigarette consumption in smokers who are unwilling to quit: a randomized trial. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;22:487–95.
Endnote 38
Wang D, Connock M, Barton P, Fry-Smith A, Aveyard P, Moore D. 'Cut down to quit' with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(2):1–135.
Endnote 39
Walsh RA. Over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy: a methodological review of the evidence supporting its effectiveness. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27:529–47.
Endnote 40
Temple NJ. Governments, pay for smoking cessation. CMAJ. 2010;182(16):1761–2.
Endnote 41
Diemert L, Victor JC, Bondy SJ. Ontario Tobacco Survey Technical Report 1: Baseline Data [Internet]. Toronto (ON): Ontario Tobacco Research Unit; 2010 [updated 2010 Apr], Available from: http://www.otru.org/ots_doc.html
Endnote 42
Diemert L, Victor JC, Bondy SJ. Ontario Tobacco Survey Technical Report 2: Six and Twelve Month Data [Internet]. Toronto (ON): Ontario Tobacco Research Unit; 2010 Apr [updated 2010 Apr]. Available at: http://www.otru.org/ots_doc.html
Endnote 43
Bondy SJ, Victor JC, O'Connor S, McDonald PW, Diemert LM, Cohen JE. Predictive validity and measurement issues in documenting quit intentions in population surveillance studies. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(1):43–52.
Endnote 44
Etter JF, Perneger TV. A comparison of two measures of stage of change for smoking cessation. Addiction. 1999;94(12):1881–9.
Endnote 45
Shiffman S, Di Marino ME, Sweeney CT. Characteristics of selectors of nicotine replacement therapy. Tob Control. 2005; 14:346–55.
Endnote 46
Etter JF, Duc TV, Perneger TV. Validity of the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence and of the Heaviness of Smoking Index among relatively light smokers. Addiction. 1999;94(2):269–81.
Endnote 47
Okoli CT, Richardson CG, Ratner PA, Johnson JL. Non-smoking youths' ''perceived'' addiction to tobacco is associated with their susceptibility to future smoking. Addict Behav. 2009;34(12):1010–6.
Endnote 48
Du Plessis V, Beshiri R, Bollman RD, Clemenson H. Definitions of ''rural''. Agriculture and Rural Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 61 [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada; 2002 [cited 2008 Dec 12]. [Statistics Canada, Catalogue No.: 21-601-MIE — No. 061]. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-601-m /2002061/4224867-eng.pdf
Endnote 49
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10 (SE). College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2007.
Endnote 50
Ialomiteanu AR, Adlaf EM. CAMH Monitor Technical Guide 2006. Toronto (ON): Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2007.
Endnote 51
Health Canada. Microdata User Guide: Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS): Annual: February to December 2006. Report. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; 2007.
Endnote 52
Prochaska J, DiClemente C. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983;51:390–5.
Endnote 53
Reid JL, Hammond D. Tobacco use in Canada: patterns and trends, 2011 ed. Waterloo (ON): Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo; 2011.
Endnote 54
Solberg LI, Boyle RG, Davidson G, Magnan S, Link Carlson C, Alesci NL. Aids to quitting tobacco use: how important are they outside controlled trials? Prev Med. 2001;33(1):53–8.
Endnote 55
Gilpin EA, Messer K, Pierce JP. Population effectiveness of pharmaceutical aids for smoking cessation: what is associated with increased success? Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(5):661–9.
Endnote 56
Shiffman S, Brockwell SE, Pillitteri JL, Gitchell JG. Use of smoking-cessation treatments in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):102–11.
Endnote 57
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Quitting smoking among adults—United States, 2001–2010. MMWR. 2011; 60:1513–9.
Endnote 58
Hughes JR, Marcy TW, Naud S. Interest in treatments to stop smoking. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;36(1):18–24.
Endnote 59
Shiffman S, Brockwell SE, Pillitteri JL, Gitchell JG. Individual differences in adoption of treatment for smoking cessation: demographic and smoking history characteristics. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;93(1–2):121–31.
Endnote 60
Selby P, Zawertailo L, Dragonetti R. The STOP Study, Eighth Interim Progress Report to the Ministry of Health Promotion. Toronto (ON): Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2008.
Endnote 61
Alberg AJ, Patnaik JL, May JW, Hoffman SC, Gitchelle J, Comstock GW, et al. Nicotine replacement therapy use among a cohort of smokers. J Addict Dis. 2005; 24(1):101–13.
Endnote 62
Paul CL, Walsh RA, Girgis A. Nicotine replacement therapy products over the counter: real-life use in the Australian community. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(5):491–5.
Endnote 63
Al-Delaimy WK, Gilpin EA, Pierce JP. When California smokers use nicotine replacement therapy, most are trying to quit smoking. Tob Control. 2005;14(5): 359–60.
Endnote 64
Peters EN, Hughes JR. The day-to-day process of stopping or reducing smoking: a prospective study of self-changers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(9):1083–92.
Endnote 65
Department of Health and Ageing. Smoking cessation guidelines for Australian general practice: practice handbook. Canberra (AU): Department of Health and Ageing; 2004.
Endnote 66
Shiffman S, Hughes JR, Di Marino ME, Sweeney CT. Patterns of over-the-counter nicotine gum use: persistent use and concurrent smoking. Addiction. 2003;98(12): 1747–53.
Endnote 67
Shiffman S, Hughes JR, Pillitteri JL, Burton SL. Persistent use of nicotine replacement therapy: an analysis of actual purchase patterns in a population based sample. Tob Control. 2003;12(3):310–6.
Endnote 68
West R, Sohal T. ''Catastrophic'' pathways to smoking cessation: findings from national survey. BMJ. 2006;332(7539): 458–60.
Endnote 69
Walsh RA. The Cochrane review on nicotine replacement therapy: incorrect or uncertain classifications of additional support levels. Tob Control. 2007;16(3): 215–6; author reply 6.
Endnote 70
Bansal MA, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Giovino GA. Stop-smoking medications: who uses them, who misuses them, and who is misinformed about them? Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(Suppl 3):S303–10.
Endnote 71
Mooney ME, Leventhal AM, Hatsukami DK. Attitudes and knowledge about nicotine and nicotine replacement therapy. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8:435–46.
Endnote 72
Shiffman S, Ferguson SG, Rohay J, Gitchell JG. Perceived safety and efficacy of nicotine replacement therapies among US smokers and ex-smokers: relationship with use and compliance. Addiction. 2008;103(8): 1371–8.
Endnote 73
Raw M, McNeill A, West R, Arnott D, Armstrong M. Nicotine Replacement Therapy. Guidance for health professionals on changes in the licensing arrangements for nicotine replacement therapy [Internet]. London (UK): Action on Smoking and Health (ASH);2005 [cited 2012 Jul 18]. Available from: http://www.ash.org.uk /files/documents/ASH_445.pdf