The Impact of Family and Social Support during the First Six Months after Attempt for Smoking Cessation

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 52 - 59, 11.03.2019

Bektaş Murat Yalçın , Mustafa Ünal

https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.528022

Öz

Objective: The aim of the present
study was to investigate the effect of family and social support on smoking
cessation during the first six months after the cessation attempt. Methods: The files of 312 patients who
were admitted to the Smoking Cessation Outpatient Clinic of Family Medicine
Department, Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine between January 2011
and January 2012 were reviewed and their socio-demographic data, smoking
characteristics, Fagerström Nicotine Dependence Test (FNDT) score and treatment
methods were recorded. Participants were called in a five-minute structured
interview and their quit rate was investigated. They were also evaluated for
the support they received from the family and social environment during the
cessation period with a ten-point Likeert Scale (0 = Never, 10= Excellent) Findings: Of the cases, 190 (61%) were
male and 122 (39%) were female. While the mean FNBT score of the group was 5.1
± 1.7 , the package / year value was 22.3 ± 18.7. Forty four out of 209
participants (21%) who were started medication (Varenicline or Bupropion) and
23 out of 127 participants (%18%) who were started Nicotine Replacement Therapy
(NRT) had been smoking for six months. There was not a statistically
significant difference between genders with regard to overall social and family
support scores (male = 41,3 ± 15,3, female = 44,4 ± 16,0, t = 1,495, p =
0,136). According to a multivariate binary logistic regression model, overall social and family support score
(OR = 1,044), age (OR= -1,038), and
presence of another smoker family member (OR =0,501) were found as independent
factors on smoking cessation. Conclusion:
Family and social support are important factors for both gender during making a
decision for smoking cessation, during smoking cessation and after smoking
cessation and detailed studies are needed.

Amaç: Bu araştırmada sigara bırakma
denemesine karar verme ve sonraki ilk altı aylık dönemde sigara bırakma üzerine
aile ve sosyal çevreden alınan desteğin etkisinin araştırılması hedeflenmiştir.
Araç ve Yöntem: Ondokuz Mayıs
Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Aile Hekimliği Sigara Bıraktırma Polikliniği’ne Ocak
2011-Ocak 2012 tarihleri arasında başvuran 312 kişinin dosyaları taranarak
kişilerin sosyodemografik verileri, sigara kullanma özellikleri, Fagerstrom
Nikotin Bağımlılık Testi (FNBT) skoru ve aldıkları tedavi yöntemleri not
edilmiştir. Bu kişiler telefonla aranarak beş dakikalık yapılandırılmış bir
görüşme gerçekleştirilmiş ve sigarayı bırakma oranları araştırılmıştır.
Görüşmede ayrıca sigara bırakma aşamasında ve sigarayı bırakırken aileden ve
sosyal çevreden aldıkları destek onlu bir Likert Skala ile değerlendirilmiştir
(0=Hiç, 10=Mükemmel). Bulgular: Çalışmaya
alınanların 190’ı (% 61) erkek, 122’si (%39) kadındı. Grubun ortalama FNBT
skoru 5,1±1,7 iken paket/yıl değeri 22,3±18,7 idi. İlaç (Vareniklin veya
Bupropion) tedavisi başlanan 209 katılımcının 44’ü (%21), Nikotin Replasman
Tedavisi (NRT) başlanan 127 katılımcının 23’ü (%18) altı aydır sigara içmiyordu
(x²=0,283, p=0,868). Her iki cinsiyetin aldığı toplam sosyal destek
ve aile desteği puanları birbirinden istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildi
(erkekler= 41,3±15,3, kadınlar= 44,4±16,0, t=1,495, p=0,136). Multivariate
binary logistic regression modeline göre toplam sosyal ve ailesel destek puanı
(OR= 1,044), yaş (OR= -1,038) ve sigara bağımlısının evinde başka birinin daha
sigara içmemesi (OR= -0,501) sigara bırakma üzerinde bağımsız faktörler olarak
bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Sigara bırakma
kararı alma, bırakma esnasında ve bırakma sonrasında aile desteği ve sosyal
destek her iki cinsiyet için önemli bir faktördür ve bu konuda detaylı
araştırmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Smoking, family support, social support, family, primary care

Kaynakça

• 1. GATS-Global adult tobacco survey. Comparison Fact Sheet Turkey, 2008 and 2012. http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/ survey/gats/gats Turkey 2008v2012 comparison fact sheet.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 10 Nisan 2018).
• 2. Tütün ve Alkol Dairesi başkanlığı, Tütün istatistikleri. http://www.tapdk.gov.tr/tr/piyasa-duzenlemeleri/tutun-mamulleri-piyasasi/tutun-mamulleri-istatistikleri.aspx, (Son erişim tarihi=11/07/2018).
• 3. The Tobacco Atlas; Turkey. https://tobaccoatlas.org/country/turkey/ (Son erişim tarihi=11/07/2018)
• 4. Bilir N. Türkiye’de Tütün Kontrolünün Öyküsü. 1. Baskı.Ankara: Ankara Ofset; 2017.s.30-39.
• 5. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Transtheoretical therapy toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, 1982; 19, 276-288.
• 6. Yalcin BM et al. Effects of an anger management and stress control program on smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014 ;27(5):645-60.
• 7. Kahler et al. Positive psychotherapy for smoking cessation: Treatment development, feasibility and prelimanary results. J. Posit. Psychol. 2014; 9(1):19-29.
• 8. Mermelstein R, Cohen S, Lichtenstein E, Baer JS, Kamarck T. Social support and smoking cessation and maintenance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986; 54:447–453.
• 9. Park EW, Tudiver F, Schultz JK, Campbell T. Does enhancing partner support and interaction improve smoking cessation? A meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2:170–174.
• 10. Cohen S, Lichtenstein E. Partner behaviors that support quitting smoking. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990; 58:304–309.
• 11. Yalçın BM, Unal M. The mid-term effect of grandchildren and children motivation to quit rates of smokers. J. Exp. Clin. Med., 2017; 34(1):73-77.
• 12. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86(9):1119-27.
• 13. Bowes L, Chollet A., Fombonne E, Melchior M. (). Psychological, social and familial factors associated with tobacco cessation among young adults. Europ Addic Res, 2015; 21(3), 153-159.
• 14. Roski J, Schmid LA, Lando HA. (). Long-term associations of helpful and harmful spousal behaviors with smoking cessation. Addic Behav, 1996; 21(2), 173-185.
• 15. Mermelstein R, Lichtenstein E, Mclyntre K. Partner support and relapse in smoking cessation programs.J Consul Clin Phsyc, 1983; 51,456-466.
• 16. Park EW, Schultz JK, Tudiver F, Campbell T, Becker L. Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2004;(3):CD002928.2.
• 17. Park EW, Tudiver FG, Campbell T. Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11;(7):CD002928.
• 18. Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, et al. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database SystRev 2012;11:CD000146.23152200.
• 19. Cahill K, Stead LF, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;4:CD006103.22513936.
• 20. Hughes JR, Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cahill K, Lancaster T. Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;1:CD000031.24402784.
• 21. Bart J, Critchley JA, Bengel J. Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary hearth disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 1: CD006886.
• 22. Stapleton J. Cigarette smoking prevalence, cessation and relapse. Stat Methods Med Res 1998; 7: 187-203. doi:10.1191/096228098671391775.9654641.
• 23. Memon A et al. What factors are important in smoking cessation and relapse in women from deprived communities? A qualitative study in southeast England. Public Health, 2016;134:39-45.
• 24. Aubin HJ et al. The French onservtional cohort of usual smokers (FOCUS) cohort: French smokers perceptions and attidues towards smoking cessation. BMC Public Health 2010;26:10:100.
• 25. Solberg LI et al. Smoking and cessation behaviors among young adults of various educational backgrounds. Am J Public Health 2007;97(8):1421-1426.
• 26. Villanti AC et al. Reasons to quit and barriers to quitting smoking in US yound adults. Family Practice 2016; 33 (2):133-139