ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2026
Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of Behavioral Support and Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokeless Tobacco Cessation in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterventions for quitting smokeless tobacco are lacking in South Asia. In a pilot trial, we explored the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a culturally adapted behavioral intervention and/or nicotine replacement therapy in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. This article presents the process evaluation.
methodsMixed methods consisted of interviews with 46 participants and five cessation advisors, a questionnaire completed by 236 trial participants, fidelity assessment of intervention delivery for 38 participants and intervention logs. Data were triangulated across three process evaluation functions (implementation, mechanisms of impact, context) and self-reported abstinence outcomes.
resultsAfter everyone attending the pre-quit behavioral session, attendance dropped to 86.3% (quit session) and 65.9% (>1 post-quit sessions). Abstainers attended more sessions. Advisors were confident in delivering the intervention, favoring face-to-face over remote, yet fidelity scores showed room for improvement. Attendance and fidelity scores were consistently best in Bangladesh. There was high acceptability and perceived usefulness of the behavioral intervention with an important role for the advisor especially among abstainers. Two-thirds perceived nicotine replacement therapy as useful, higher among abstainers. Taste and side effects were barriers; adherence was highest in India. Perceived drivers to cessation were new knowledge leading to positive attitudes, beliefs in capability to quit, and family support. Perceived barriers were nicotine addiction, social pressure, and easy access to smokeless tobacco.
conclusionsThis process evaluation affirms the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Behavioral Intervention to support Smokeless Tobacco Cessation in Adults and nicotine replacement therapy interventions while identifying important areas for improvement prior to a full effectiveness trial. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides detailed insights on the feasibility and acceptability of a culturally adapted behavioral intervention and of nicotine replacement therapy for smokeless tobacco cessation in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. They identify important implications for the design and delivery of future effectiveness trials of smokeless tobacco cessation interventions that are lacking in this region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.