Background: High-intensity smoking cessation programs generally lead to more continuous abstinence, however, lower rates of success have been reported among heavy smokers. The aim was to evaluate continuous abstinence among heavy smokers during the intensive 6-week Gold Standard Program (GSP) and to identify modifiable factors associated with continuous abstinence. Methods: In this nationwide clinical study based on 36,550 smokers attending an intensive cessation program in Denmark. Heavy smoking was defined as ≥7 points in the Fagerström Nicotine Dependency Test, smoking ≥20 cigarettes daily or ≥20 pack-years. Results: Overall, 28% had a Fagerström score ≥7 points, 58% smoked ≥20 cigarettes daily and 68% smoked ≥20 pack-years. Continuous abstinence was 33% in responders (6-months response rate: 78%); however, abstinence was approximately 1–6% lower in the heavy smokers than the overall population. Attending GSP with an individual format (vs. group/other, OR 1.23–1.44); in a hospital setting (vs. pharmacy/municipality services, OR 1.05–1.11); and being compliant (attending the planned meetings OR 4.36–4.89) were associated with abstinence. Abstinence decreased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing smoking severity. Conclusions: Abstinence after GSP was 1–6% lower in the heavy smokers than in the overall study population. Modifiable factors may be used for small improvements in continued abstinence. However attempts to improve compliance seemed especially promising.

Objectives We compared the effectiveness of the Gold Standard Programme (a comprehensive smoking cessation intervention commonly used in Denmark) with other face-to-face smoking cessation programmes in Denmark after implementation in real life, and we identified factors associated with successful quitting. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting A total of 423 smoking cessation clinics from different settings reported data from 2001 to 2013. Participants In total, 82 515 patients were registered. Smokers ≥15 years old and attending a programme with planned follow-up were included. Smokers who did not want further contact, who intentionally were not followed up or who lacked information about the intervention they received were excluded. A total of 46 287 smokers were included. Interventions Various real-life smoking cessation interventions were identified and compared: The Gold Standard Programme, Come & Quit, crash courses, health promotion counselling (brief intervention) and other interventions. Main outcome Self-reported continuous abstinence for 6 months. Results Overall, 33% (11 184) were continuously abstinent after 6 months; this value was 24% when non-respondents were considered smokers. The follow-up rate was 74%. Women were less likely to remain abstinent, OR 0.83 (CI 0.79 to 0.87). Short interventions were more effective among men. After adjusting for confounders, the Gold Standard Programme was the only intervention with significant results across sex, increasing the odds of abstinence by 69% for men and 31% for women. In particular, compliance, and to a lesser degree, mild smoking, older age and not being disadvantaged were associated with positive outcomes for both sexes. Compliance increased the odds of abstinence more than 3.5-fold. Conclusions Over time, Danish smoking cessation interventions have been effective in real life. Compliance is the main predictor of successful quitting. Interestingly, short programmes seem to have relatively strong effects among men, but the absolute numbers are very small. Only the comprehensive Gold Standard Programme works across sexes.

Objectives To evaluate the real-life effect of an evidence-based Gold Standard Programme (GSP) for smoking cessation interventions in disadvantaged patients and to identify modifiable factors that consistently produce the highest abstinence rates. Design Observational prospective cohort study. Setting GSPs in pharmacies, hospitals and communities in Denmark, reporting to the national Smoking Cessation Database. Participants Disadvantaged patients, defined as patients with a lower level of education and those receiving unemployment benefits. Interventions 6-week manualised GSP smoking cessation interventions performed by certified staff. Main outcome measures 6 months of continuous abstinence, response rate: 80%. Results Continuous abstinence of the 16 377 responders was 34% (of all 20 588 smokers: 27%). Continuous abstinence was lower in 5738 smokers with a lower educational level (30% of responders and 23% of all) and in 840 unemployed (27% of responders and 19% of all). In respect to modifiable factors, continuous abstinence was found more often after programmes in one-on-one formats (vs group formats) among patients with a lower educational level, 34% (vs 25%, p=0.037), or among unemployed, 35% (vs 24%, p=0.099). The variable ‘format’ stayed in the final model of multivariable analyses in patients with a lower educational level, OR=1.31 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.63). Conclusions Although continuous abstinence was lower among disadvantaged smokers, the absolute difference was small. If the programme had been as effective in disadvantaged as in non-disadvantaged groups, there would have been an extra 46 or 8 quitters annually, respectively. Promoting individual interventions among those with a low education may increase the effectiveness of GSP.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical effect of a clinical pharmacist (CP) intervention upon admission to hospital on inpatient harm and to assess a potential educational bias. Over 16 months, 593 adult patients taking ≥4 medications daily were included from three Danish acute medicine wards. Patients were randomized to either the CP intervention or the usual care (prospective control). To assess a potential educational bias, a retrospective control group was formed by randomization. The CP intervention comprised medication history, medication reconciliation, medication review and entry of proposed prescriptions into the electronic prescribing system. The primary outcome of inpatient harm was identified using triggers from the Institute of Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool. Harms were validated and rated for severity by two independent and blinded outcome panels. Secondary end‐points were harms per patient, length of hospital stay, readmissions and 1‐year mortality. Harm affected 11% of the patients in the intervention group compared to 17% in the combined control group, odds ratio (OR) 0.57 (CI 0.32–1.02, p = 0.06). The incidence of harm was similar in the intervention and prospective control groups, OR 0.80 (CI 0.40–1.59, p = 0.52) but occurred less frequently in the intervention than in the retrospective control group OR 0.46 (CI 0.25–0.85, p = 0.01). An educational bias from the intervention to the control group might have contributed to this negative outcome. In conclusion, the CP intervention at admission to hospital had no statistically significant effect on inpatient harm.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of intensive smoking cessation interventions (ISCIs) directly compared with shorter interventions (SIs), measured as successful quitting.Method: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched on 15 October 2021. Peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult, daily smokers undergoing an ISCI were included. No setting, time or language restrictions were imposed. Risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.Results: 17 550 unique articles were identified and 17 RCTs evaluating 9812 smokers were included. 14 studies were conducted in Europe or the USA. The quality of the evidence was assessed as low or moderate. Continuous abstinence was significantly higher in ISCIs in the long term (risk ratio 2.60, 95% CI 1.71–3.97). Direction and magnitude were similar in the short term; however, they were not statistically significant (risk ratio 2.49, 95% CI: 0.94–6.56). When measured as point prevalence, successful quitting was still statistically significant in favour of ISCIs, but lower (long term: 1.64, 1.08–2.47; short term: 1.68, 1.10–2.56). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results.Conclusion: ISCIs are highly effective compared to SIs. This important knowledge should be used to avoid additional morbidity and mortality caused by smoking.