ORCID Profile
0000-0001-7411-4260
Current Organisations
The University of Edinburgh
,
CRUK/BUPA
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: E.U. European Publishing
Date: 11-10-2021
DOI: 10.18332/TID/140826
Publisher: E.U. European Publishing
Date: 14-12-2021
DOI: 10.18332/TID/143179
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 08-09-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-11-2022
Publisher: Royal College of General Practitioners
Date: 07-08-2023
Abstract: Alcohol and smoking brief interventions (BI) in general practice have been shown to be effective in lowering alcohol- and smoking-related harm. Assess prevalence of self-reported BI receipt among increasing/higher risk drinkers and past-year smokers in Great Britain (GB) and associations between intervention receipt and socioeconomic position. Monthly population-based survey in England, Scotland, and Wales. The study comprised 47,799 participants (15,573 increasing/higher risk drinkers (AUDIT-C score ≥5), 7791 past-year smokers) surveyed via telephone in 2020-2022 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). All data were self-reported. Prevalence of self-reported BI receipt was assessed descriptively associations between receipt and socioeconomic position were analysed using logistic regression. Among adults in GB, 32.2% (95% CI 31.8–32.7) reported increasing/higher risk drinking and 17.7% (95% CI 17.3–18.1) past-year smoking. Among increasing/higher risk drinkers, 58.0% (95% CI 57.1–58.9) consulted with a general practitioner in the past year, and of these, 4.1% (95% CI 3.6–4.6) reported receiving BIs. Among past-year smokers, 55.8% (95% CI 54.5–57.1) attended general practice in the past year. Of these, 41.0% (95% CI 39.4–42.7) stated receiving BIs. There was a tendency for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients to receive more alcohol (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.38 95% CI 1.10–1.73) or smoking BIs (aOR 1.11 95% CI 0.98–1.26), but for the latter the results were statistically non-significant. Results did not differ notably by nation within GB. BIs in general practice are more common for smoking than for alcohol, but for alcohol a greater proportion is delivered to socioeconomically disadvantaged increasing/higher risk drinkers.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 07-2023
DOI: 10.3310/AGTH6901
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 03-2023
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-065021
Abstract: To explore the acceptability of regular asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a university c us using saliva s ling for PCR analysis and the barriers and facilitators to participation. Cross-sectional surveys and qualitative semistructured interviews. Edinburgh, Scotland. University staff and students who had registered for the testing programme (TestEd) and provided at least one s le. 522 participants completed a pilot survey in April 2021 and 1750 completed the main survey (November 2021). 48 staff and students who consented to be contacted for interview took part in the qualitative research. Participants were positive about their experience with TestEd with 94% describing it as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Facilitators to participation included multiple testing sites on c us, ease of providing saliva s les compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, perceived accuracy compared with lateral flow devices (LFDs) and reassurance of test availability while working or studying on c us. Barriers included concerns about privacy while testing, time to and methods of receiving results compared with LFDs and concerns about insufficient uptake in the university community. There was little evidence that the availability of testing on c us changed the behaviour of participants during a period when COVID-19 restrictions were in place. The provision of free asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 on a university c us was welcomed by participants and the use of saliva-based PCR testing was regarded as more comfortable and accurate than LFDs. Convenience is a key facilitator of participation in regular asymptomatic testing programmes. Availability of testing did not appear to undermine engagement with public health guidelines.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 05-2022
DOI: 10.1038/S41591-022-01808-0
Abstract: Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes ( n = 569) or nicotine patches ( n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95–2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6% RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14–3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight ( ,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6% RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47–0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 12-2020
DOI: 10.3310/HTA24680
Abstract: Relapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic ‘emergency’ use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions. A randomised controlled trial. English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC. Ex-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned s le size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited. Participants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages ( n = 60), (2) the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol and interactive text messages ( n = 57), (3) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes plus the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol with interactive text messages ( n = 58) or (4) usual care plus static text messages ( n = 59). Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete. The 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively ( p = 0.11). Sustained abstinence rates were 41.7%, 54.8% and 50.9%, respectively ( p = 0.17). Electronic cigarettes were chosen more frequently than nicotine replacement treatment in Australia (71.1% vs. 29.0% p = 0.001), but not in England (54.0% vs. 46.0% p = 0.57). Of participants allocated to nicotine products, 23.1% were using them daily at 6 months. The online intervention received positive ratings from 63% of participants at 6 months, but the majority of participants (72%) completed one assessment only. Coping strategies taught in the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol were used with similar frequency in all study arms, suggesting that these are strategies people had already acquired. Only one participant used the interactive texting, and interactive and static messages received virtually identical ratings. The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention. Recruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution. Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 24, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia (NHMRC APP1095880). Public Health England provided the funds to purchase the nicotine products in England.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Linda Bauld.