Cessation assistance reported by smokers in 15 countries participating in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) policy evaluation surveys

Abstract

Aims: To describe some of the variability across the world in levels of quit smoking attempts and use of various forms of cessation support.

Design: Use of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project surveys of smokers, using the 2007 survey wave (or later, where necessary).

Settings: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay and United States.

Participants: Samples of smokers from 15 countries.

Measurements: Self-report on use of cessation aids and on visits to health professionals and provision of cessation advice during the visits.

Findings: Prevalence of quit attempts in the last year varied from less than 20% to more than 50% across countries. Similarly, smokers varied greatly in reporting visiting health professionals in the last year (<20% to over 70%), and among those who did, provision of advice to quit also varied greatly. There was also marked variability in the levels and types of help reported. Use of medication was generally more common than use of behavioural support, except where medications are not readily available.

Conclusions: There is wide variation across countries in rates of attempts to stop smoking and use of assistance with higher overall use of medication than behavioural support. There is also wide variation in the provision of brief advice to stop by health professionals.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No author has any conflict of interest, although some have associations with organisations that deliver smoking cessation services.

© 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction.

Figures

Figure 1

Reported history of quit attempts by country. Note: The total height of the bars refers to ever quit and the bottom part to those where there was an attempt in the last year. 95% confidence intervals (of the total height) are presented on the top of the bars.

Figure 2

Reported visits to doctors or other healthcare professionals and of advice to quit on any such visit by country. Interval is last year (or between waves), except where indicated with an asterisk *, where it is 6 months. 95% confidence intervals (of the total height) are presented on the top of the bars.

Figure 3

Reported use of quit smoking medications in the last year, or between survey waves. Reported only among those reporting making quit attempts in the previous year. Notes: France did not ask for recent use. 95% confidence intervals are presented on the top of the bars. #The bar indicated is based on very small numbers of “yes” answers (

Figure 4

Reported use of quitlines (or related services) for assistance in smoking cessation (in the last year (previous survey), except where indicated by an asterisk, where it was for the last 6 months) by country, among those reporting making quit attempts in the previous year. Notes: Question not asked in Uruguay or Mexico because quitline did not exist at survey administration. 95% confidence intervals are presented on the top of the bars. #The bar indicated is based on very small numbers of “yes” answers (

Figure 5

Reported use of the internet as a source of smoking cessation advice (in the previous year except where indicated by an asterisk, where it is 6 months) by country among those reporting making quit attempts in the previous year. Notes: Countries not listed here were not asked.95% confidence intervals are presented on the top of the bars. #The bars indicated are based on very small numbers of “yes” answers.

Figure 6

Reported use of specialist cessation services (eg, clinics) in the past year (or where *, 6 months) among those reporting quit attempts in the previous year. Notes: this question was not asked in the other countries or a non-comparable question was used. 95% confidence intervals are presented on the top of the bars. #The bar indicated is based on very small numbers of “yes” answers.