Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Canadian Respiratory Journal
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 91-96
Original Article

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Smoking Cessation in an Outpatient Respirology Clinic

Smita Pakhale,1,2,3 Justine Baron,2,3 Michael A Armstrong,2,3 Avanti Garde,2,3 Robert D Reid,2,4 Gonzalo Alvarez,1,2,3 Debbie Aitken,4 Kerri-Anne Mullen,2,4 George Wells,2,3,4 and Andrew Pipe2,4

1The Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Canada
2University of Ottawa, Canada
3Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
4University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Copyright © 2015 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and potential effectiveness of a modified version of the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation in an outpatient respirology clinic.

METHODS: Adult tobacco smokers attending the respirology clinic and willing to choose a quit date within one month of enrollment were randomly assigned to receive standard care or the intervention. Standard care participants received smoking cessation advice, a brochure and a prescription for smoking cessation medication if requested. Intervention participants received a $110 voucher to purchase smoking cessation pharmacotherapy and were registered to an automated calling system. Answers to automated calls determined which participants required nurse telephone counselling. Feasibility indicators included recruitment and retention rates, and intervention adherence. The effectiveness indicator was self-reported smoking status at 26 to 52 weeks.

RESULTS: Forty-nine (54.4%) of 90 eligible smokers were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=23) or control (n=26) group. Self-reported smoking status at 26 to 52 weeks was available for 32 (65.3%) participants. The quit rate for intervention participants was 18.2% compared with 7.7% for controls (OR2.36 [95% CI 0.39 to 14.15]).

CONCLUSION: It would be feasible to evaluate this intervention in a larger trial. Alternatives to face-to-face follow-up at the clinic are recommended.