TY - JOUR
T1 - A Narrative Review of Intensive Group Tobacco Treatment
T2 - Clinical, Research, and US Policy Recommendations
AU - Kotsen, Chris
AU - Santorelli, Melissa L.
AU - Bloom, Erika Litvin
AU - Goldstein, Adam O.
AU - Ripley-Moffitt, Carol
AU - Steinberg, Michael B.
AU - Burke, Michael V.
AU - Foulds, Jonathan
N1 - Funding Information:
Chris Kotsen has no conflicts of interest to report with respect to this manuscript. He was a consultant to Infusion Pharma Consulting LLC in 2017.At the time of this research, Melissa Santorelli’s salary was funded by the New Jersey Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the US Department of Health and Human Services under Cooperative Agreement Numbers NU58DP004822-03-1 and NU58DP003931-04-00. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the New Jersey Department of Health, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She is currently employed by Merck & Co., Inc. Erika Bloom is supported by a grant from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse (K23DA035288). She has been a consultant for WayBetter, Inc. Adam Goldstein has no conflicts of interest to report. Carol Ripley-Moffitt has no conflicts of interest to report. Michael Steinberg is a consultant for Arena Pharmaceuticals and an on-going consultant to Major League Baseball regarding tobacco policies. Michael Burke has worked on an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer and an advisory board with GSK. He has no conflicts to report with respect to the topic of this manuscript. Jonathan Foulds is primarily funded by grants for the US National Institutes of Health (NIDA). He has done paid consulting work for pharmaceutical companies involved in manufacturing of smoking cessation products (eg, Pfizer, GSK) and has received a grant and study product from Pfizer.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - Clinical practice guidelines recommend comprehensive treatment for tobacco dependence including pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions. Group counseling may deliver unique treatment aspects not available with other modalities. This manuscript provides a narrative review of group treatment outcomes from real-world practice settings and complements recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary goals were to determine whether group treatments delivered in these settings have yielded similar quit rates compared to individual treatment and to provide recommendations for best practices and policy. Methods: Group treatment was defined as occurring in a clinical or workplace setting (ie, not provided as part of a research study), led by a professionally trained clinician, and offered weekly over several weeks. English language PubMed articles from January 2000 to July 2017 were searched to identify studies that included outcomes from both group and individual treatment offered in real-world settings. Additional data sources meeting our criteria were also included. Reports not using pharmacotherapy and research studies (eg, RCTs) were excluded. The primary outcome was short-term, carbon monoxide (CO)-validated point prevalence abstinence (4-week postquit date). Results: The review included data from 11 observational studies. In all cases, group treatment(s) had higher 4-week CO-validated quit rates (range: 35.5%-67.3%) than individual treatment(s) (range: 18.6%-53.3%). Conclusions: Best practice group treatments for tobacco dependence are generalizable from research to clinical settings and likely to be at least as effective as intensive individual treatment. The added advantages of efficiency and cost-effectiveness can be significant. Group treatment is feasible in various settings with good results. Implications: A major barrier to achieving high rates of tobacco abstinence is under-utilization of evidence-based treatment interventions. This review demonstrates the effectiveness and utility of group treatment for tobacco dependence. Based on the available data described in this narrative review in conjunction with existing RCT data, group treatment for tobacco dependence should be established and available in all behavioral health and medical settings. Group tobacco treatment is now one of the mandated reimbursable tobacco treatment formats within the US health care system, creating enormous opportunities for widespread clinical reach. Finally, comprehensive worksite group programs can further extend impact.
AB - Clinical practice guidelines recommend comprehensive treatment for tobacco dependence including pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions. Group counseling may deliver unique treatment aspects not available with other modalities. This manuscript provides a narrative review of group treatment outcomes from real-world practice settings and complements recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary goals were to determine whether group treatments delivered in these settings have yielded similar quit rates compared to individual treatment and to provide recommendations for best practices and policy. Methods: Group treatment was defined as occurring in a clinical or workplace setting (ie, not provided as part of a research study), led by a professionally trained clinician, and offered weekly over several weeks. English language PubMed articles from January 2000 to July 2017 were searched to identify studies that included outcomes from both group and individual treatment offered in real-world settings. Additional data sources meeting our criteria were also included. Reports not using pharmacotherapy and research studies (eg, RCTs) were excluded. The primary outcome was short-term, carbon monoxide (CO)-validated point prevalence abstinence (4-week postquit date). Results: The review included data from 11 observational studies. In all cases, group treatment(s) had higher 4-week CO-validated quit rates (range: 35.5%-67.3%) than individual treatment(s) (range: 18.6%-53.3%). Conclusions: Best practice group treatments for tobacco dependence are generalizable from research to clinical settings and likely to be at least as effective as intensive individual treatment. The added advantages of efficiency and cost-effectiveness can be significant. Group treatment is feasible in various settings with good results. Implications: A major barrier to achieving high rates of tobacco abstinence is under-utilization of evidence-based treatment interventions. This review demonstrates the effectiveness and utility of group treatment for tobacco dependence. Based on the available data described in this narrative review in conjunction with existing RCT data, group treatment for tobacco dependence should be established and available in all behavioral health and medical settings. Group tobacco treatment is now one of the mandated reimbursable tobacco treatment formats within the US health care system, creating enormous opportunities for widespread clinical reach. Finally, comprehensive worksite group programs can further extend impact.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075114352&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075114352&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ntr/nty162
DO - 10.1093/ntr/nty162
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30124924
AN - SCOPUS:85075114352
SN - 1462-2203
VL - 21
SP - 1580
EP - 1589
JO - Nicotine and Tobacco Research
JF - Nicotine and Tobacco Research
IS - 12
ER -