Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Smoking cessation
  1. L Dunn1,
  2. A Ogilvie1
  1. 1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HA, UK
  1. M Pelkonen2,
  2. I-L Notkola2,
  3. H Tukiainen2,
  4. M Tervahauta2,
  5. J Tuomilehto2,
  6. A Nissinen2
  1. 2Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Kuopio University Hospital and Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio, P O Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland; Margit.Pelkonen{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We welcome the study by Pelkonen et al1 as a further contribution to our knowledge base on smoking cessation and its effects on pulmonary function and mortality. We feel, however, that some shortcomings in the methodology may bring into question the magnitude of the results.

Our main concern relates to the difficulties in quantifying levels of tobacco exposure. Since tobacco consumption is a continuous variable, confounding factors may occur within each group when categorised too broadly.2 More information about duration and levels of smoking would help to avoid this problem. No information is given as to whether intermittent quitters returned to original habits or resumed smoking at reduced levels. Beneficial effects described in this group could therefore be due to extended periods of decreased tobacco consumption rather than a period of abstention.

There are no data provided on smoking status from 1974 to 1989. If large numbers of those classed as intermittent quitters had permanently stopped smoking by this time, the value of temporary quitting would be overestimated. Furthermore, no data exist on the duration of periods of abstention among intermittent quitters. If a significant proportion of this group exhibited prolonged periods of smoking cessation, the relevance of this study to short term quitters is debatable.

Even accepting the beneficial effects of intermittent quitting, we question the importance of this finding in a public health setting. Surely the main healthcare message must remain the same: permanent smoking cessation should remain the goal and is superior to intermittent quitting. However, we recognise that this finding could provide encouragement to those who have relapsed following an attempt to quit smoking and reassure them that their efforts have not been in vain. This could provide the motivation needed for a second and possibly successful attempt to quit.


Authors' reply

Lorna Dunn and Aileen Ogilvie make an important point that the confounding effect of tobacco consumption on the decline in pulmonary function may occur when the levels of tobacco exposure are categorised too broadly. They think that the benefit of intermittent quitting on the decline in FEV0.75 in our study might be explained by decreased tobacco consumption after periods of abstention rather than by the periods of abstention per se. They also point out that, if a considerable proportion of intermittent quitters stopped smoking permanently between 1974 and 1989, it would have led to overestimation of the value of temporary quitting. The third question concerns the duration of periods of abstention.

In our study the data on smoking habits were recorded at baseline and in subsequent re-examinations by a standard questionnaire. The interval between examinations was usually 5 years. Intermittent quitters were either baseline past smokers who smoked in at least one of the subsequent re-examinations or baseline smokers who were quitters in one or more re-examinations but relapsed back to smoking later. To be recorded as a quitter in an examination a subject had to have given up smoking more than a year previously. During the first 15 years, 27 of 75 intermittent quitters were recorded as quitters in one examination (corresponding to at least 1 year of abstinence), 32 were recorded as quitters in two examinations (corresponding to at least 2 years of abstinence), and 16 were recorded as quitters in three examinations (corresponding to at least 3 years of abstinence).

During the first 15 years intermittent quitters reduced the number of cigarettes smoked daily compared with continuous smokers, although not significantly. To measure tobacco consumption more precisely, a new variable was constructed by computing the mean reported daily cigarette consumption at each examination point. For intermittent quitters only, the data from the examinations when they reported smoking were used in making up this variable. When we then additionally adjusted our analyses for this new variable, the decline in FEV0.75 during the first 15 years was still significantly less among intermittent quitters than in continuous smokers (data available from the authors on request). The benefit of intermittent quitting on the decline in pulmonary function therefore also seems to be mediated through periods of abstention.

Among both intermittent quitters and continuous smokers there were study subjects who stopped smoking permanently between 1974 and 1989. The proportion of such study subjects was greater among intermittent quitters than among continuous smokers. However, when we made additional adjustments for both the mean daily tobacco consumption during the first half of the follow up period and for quitting smoking during the latter half of the follow up period, intermittent quitters still lost less FEV0.75 during the whole 30 years than continuous smokers (data available from the authors on request).

In conclusion, it seems that some protection may be gained from periods of abstention, although we agree that the main goal should be permanent smoking cessation.