The use of nicotine replacement therapy during hospitalization

Critical steps in the path to using cessation pharmacotherapy following hospital-initiated tobacco treatment

Background

Hospital-initiated smoking cessation interventions utilizing pharmacotherapy increase post-discharge quit rates. Use of smoking cessation medications following discharge may further increase quit rates. This study aims to identify individual, smoking-related and hospitalization-related predictors of engagement in three different steps in the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy utilization process: 1) receiving medications as inpatient, 2) being discharged with a prescription and 3) using medications at 1-month post-hospitalization, while accounting for associations between these steps.

Methods

Study data come from a clinical trial (N = 1054) of hospitalized smokers interested in quitting who were randomized to recieve referral to a quitline via either warm handoff or fax. Variables were from the electronic health record, the state tobacco quitline, and participant self-report. Relationships among the predictors and the steps in cessation medication utilization were assessed using bivariate analyses and multivariable path analysis.

Results

Twenty-eight percent of patients reported using medication at 1-month post-discharge. Receipt of smoking cessation medications while hospitalized (OR = 2.09, 95%CI [1.39, 3.15], p < .001) and discharge with a script (OR = 4.88, 95%CI [3.34, 7.13], p < .001) were independently associated with medication use at 1-month post-hospitalization. The path analysis also revealed that the likelihood of being discharged with a script was strongly influenced by receipt of medication as an inpatient (OR = 6.61, 95%CI [4.66, 9.38], p < .001). A number of other treatment- and individual-level factors were associated with medication use in the hospital, receipt of a script, and use post-discharge.

Conclusions

To encourage post-discharge smoking cessation medication use, concerted effort should be made to engage smokers in tobacco treatment while in hospital. The individual and hospital-level factors associated with each step in the medication utilization process provide good potential targets for future implementation research to optimize treatment delivery and outcomes.

Trial registration

Number: NCT01305928.

Date registered: February 24, 2011.

Predictors of Pharmacotherapy for Tobacco Use Among Veterans Admitted for COPD: The Role of Disparities and Tobacco Control Processes

BACKGROUND

Many smokers admitted for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not given smoking cessation medications at discharge. The reasons behind this are unclear, and may reflect an interplay of patient characteristics, health disparities, and the receipt of inpatient tobacco control processes.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess potential disparities in treatment for tobacco use following discharge for COPD, examined in the context of inpatient tobacco control processes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 40 years, admitted for treatment of a COPD exacerbation within the VA Veterans Integrated Service Network 20, identified using ICD-9 discharge codes and admission diagnoses from 2005-2012.

MAIN MEASURES

The outcome was any tobacco cessation medication dispensed within 48 hours of discharge. We assessed potential predictors administratively up to 1 year prior to admission. We created the final logistic regression model using manual model building, clustered by site. Variables with p < 0.2 in biviariate models were considered for inclusion in the final model.

RESULTS

We identified 1511 subjects. 16.9 % were dispensed a medication at discharge. In the adjusted model, several predictors were associated with decreased odds of receiving medications: older age (OR per year older 0.96, 95 % CI 0.95-0.98), black race (OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.12-0.97), higher comorbidity score (OR 0.89, 95 % CI 0.82-0.96), history of psychosis (OR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.31-0.52), hypertension (OR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.62-0.90), and treatment with steroids in the past year (OR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.70-0.90). Inpatient tobacco control processes were associated with increased odds of receiving medications: documented brief counseling at discharge (OR 3.08, 95 % CI 2.02-4.68) and receipt of smoking cessation medications while inpatient (OR 5.95, 95 % CI 3.19-11.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Few patients were treated with tobacco cessation medications at discharge. We found evidence for disparities in treatment, but also potentially beneficial effects of inpatient tobacco control measures. Further focus should be on using novel processes of care to improve provision of medications and decrease the observed disparities.

Characterization of long-term users of nicotine replacement therapy: evidence from a national survey

INTRODUCTION

Harm reduction involving partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is likely to benefit smokers by reducing exposure to carcinogens and by increasing the likelihood of permanent cessation. This article aimed to assess the determinants of short- and long-term NRT use for harm reduction in order to inform interventions aimed at helping smokers struggling to quit to switch to complete NRT substitution.

METHODS

Data were used from the Smoking Toolkit Study, a population-based survey of adults in England aged 16 years and older (n = 9,224). Participants were asked about their sociodemographic characteristics and tobacco use. Attitudes toward smoking were also assessed using questions covering 4 factors: motives, identity, evaluations, and plans.

RESULTS

Concurrent short-term (<3 months) and long-term (≥ 3 months) NRT use was uncommon among smokers at 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.1-11.4) and 5.0% (95% CI = 4.6-5.4), respectively. Long-term NRT users had higher odds of being older, in nonmanual occupations, and more addicted than smokers with short-term or no NRT use (all p < .01). They reported lower odds of attempting to stop and higher odds of exhibiting a positive smoker identity than short-term users (p < .001). Conversely, long-term NRT users had higher odds of having made a recent quit attempt, to have plans to stop, and lower odds of a positive smoker identity than smokers not using NRT (all p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

While users of NRT for harm-reduction purposes are a heterogeneous group, it appears they are more critical of smoking than never users and tend to positively modulate their behavior, setting them on a path toward cessation.

Does Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy While Continuing to Smoke Undermine Cessation?: A Systematic Review

Aims: To review population surveys to assess (a) prevalence of the use of NRT for smoking reduction (SR) and temporary abstinence (TA) and (b) how far this is associated with attempts to stop smoking, smoking cessation and reduction in cigarette consumption.

Methods: An electronic search was undertaken of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Articles were selected if they (1) assessed whether smokers had used or were currently using NRT for SR and/or TA; (2) involved smokers who had not taken part in a harm reduction programme; and (3) assessed prevalence and/or association of SR and/or TA with reductions in cigarette consumption and/or attempts to stop smoking and/or with smoking cessation. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and results were extracted independently by two researchers.

Results: Data were available from five countries (US, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Australia). Between 1% and 23% of smokers reported having ever used NRT for smoking reduction and between 2% and 14% during periods of temporary abstinence. Use of NRT for SR and/or TA was associated with little or no reduction in cigarette consumption. There was some evidence that it was positively associated with attempts to stop smoking and smoking cessation.

Conclusion: In smoking populations use of NRT to aid SR and in situations where smoking is not permitted appears to be having little effect on achieving a reduction in cigarette consumption but does not undermine cessation and may promote it.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.

Tobacco dependence treatment for hospitalized smokers: a randomized, controlled, pilot trial using varenicline

OBJECTIVE

The hospital can be an important opportunity for smoking cessation interventions. This is the first randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial utilizing varenicline and post-discharge, in-person behavioral treatment for hospitalized smokers.

METHOD

Seventy-nine smokers admitted to a university-based hospital with various diagnoses were enrolled from 2007 to 2009. The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed abstinence at 24 weeks following discharge. Secondary outcomes included withdrawal symptoms, motivation, utilization of treatment, and medical events.

RESULTS

Overall abstinence at 24 weeks was 27% with no difference between varenicline and placebo treatment groups (23% vs. 31%). There were no significant differences in motivation to stop smoking or withdrawal symptoms. Over 40% of all subjects utilized post-discharge behavioral treatment with significantly higher abstinence rates compared with those who did not (53.1% vs. 8.5%, p<0.01). Overall adverse events were similar in both treatment groups with the only significant difference being more nausea in the varenicline group (25% vs. 5%; p<0.01). Twenty-three subjects were re-hospitalized with no significant differences between treatment groups (13 varenicline vs. 10 placebo).

CONCLUSION

This pilot trial of varenicline in hospitalized smokers demonstrated feasibility of implementation, produced some hypothesis-generating findings, and suggested the potential benefit of face-to-face treatment following discharge.

Nicotine replacement therapy use at home after use during a hospitalization

INTRODUCTION

We assessed whether providing inpatient smokers with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to relieve withdrawal symptoms while hospitalized was associated with self-initiated NRT use soon after hospital discharge.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of 1,895 cigarette smokers admitted to a large hospital over 24 months (July 2007 through June 2009) and seen by a tobacco counselor during hospitalization. Participants were surveyed at 2 weeks after discharge to assess postdischarge NRT use. We calculated adjusted rate ratios (ARRs) for the effect of NRT use in the hospital on the rate of NRT use after discharge, adjusting for gender, age, hospital service, intention to quit, baseline smoking level, length of stay, and counseling duration.

RESULTS

62 percent (1,166/1,895) of enrolled participants received NRT during hospitalization. The survey response rate was 72%. 42 percent (544/1,293) of survey respondents reported initiating postdischarge NRT use within 2 weeks of discharge. NRT use after discharge was more likely to be reported by those who used it in hospital whether they had ever used it prior to hospitalization (ARR: 5.64, 95% CI: 3.95-8.05) or had never used it before (ARR: 4.68, 95% CI: 3.25-6.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers who received NRT during a hospitalization were more likely to use it after discharge compared with those who did not use NRT in hospital. By encouraging use of this effective cessation aid, supplementing counseling with NRT for hospitalized smokers may promote smoking cessation efforts after discharge.

Diretrizes para cessação do tabagismo - 2008

Estas diretrizes constituem uma ferramenta atualizada e abrangente para auxiliar o profissional de saúde na abordagem do tabagista, recomendando atitudes baseadas em evidências clínicas como a melhor forma de conduzir cada caso. De forma reduzida e mais objetiva possível, o texto final foi agrupado em dois grandes itens: Avaliação e Tratamento. Os dois itens apresentam comentários e níveis de recomendação das referências utilizadas, bem como algumas propostas de abordagem, como por exemplo, redução de danos, em situações específicas ainda pouco exploradas, como recaídas, tabagismo passivo, tabagismo na categoria médica e uso de tabaco em ambientes específicos.

Helping hospital patients quit: what the evidence supports and what guidelines recommend

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to critically appraise the extent and strength of systematic review evidence for, and guideline recommendations regarding hospital smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of smoking cessation interventions were identified via an electronic search of the Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews were categorised as those that incorporated only studies of hospital based interventions, and those which incorporated interventions which were not hospital based. Smoking cessation guidelines for hospital health professionals were identified via a search of the World Wide Web.

RESULTS

The review found that evidence from meta-analyses restricted to hospital studies was insufficient to evaluate a number of specific intervention strategies and at times conflicted with the findings of meta-analyses without such restrictions. The majority of guidelines recommended the provision of brief advice, counseling, nicotine replacement therapy despite the absence of clear supporting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Further hospital-based research addressing specific cessation strategies is required. Furthermore, smoking cessation guidelines for hospital based health professionals should more specifically reflect evidence from this setting.

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-provided intervention for hospitalised smokers

OBJECTIVE

Does the provision of a nurse-based intervention lead to smoking cessation in hospital patients?

METHODS

At tertiary teaching hospital in Newcastle, Australia, 4,779 eligible (aged 18-80, admitted for at least 24 hours, and able to provide informed consent) and consenting (73.4%) in-patients were recruited into a larger cross-sectional survey. 1,422 (29.7%) smokers (in the last 12 months) were randomly assigned to control (n = 711) or intervention group (n = 711). The brief nurse-delivered intervention incorporated: tailored information, assessment of withdrawal, offer of nicotine replacement therapy, booklets, and a discharge letter. Self-reported cessation at 12 months was validated with CO and salivary cotinine.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups in self-reported abstinence at three or 12 months post intervention, based on an intention to treat analysis. At three months, self-reported abstinence was 27.3% (I) and 27.5% (C); at 12 months was 18.5% (I) and 20.6% (C). There were no differences in validation of self-report between intervention and control groups at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

This brief nurse-provided in-patient intervention did not significantly increase the smoking cessation rates compared with the control group at either three or 12-month follow-up.

IMPLICATIONS

A systematic total quality improvement model of accountable outcome-focused treatment, incorporating assertive physician-led pharmacotherapy, routine assessment and recording of nicotine dependence (ICD 10 coding), in- and outpatient services and engagement from multidisciplinary teams of health professionals may be required to improve treatment modalities for this chronic addictive disorder.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to make and sustain a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCINFO in January 2007, and CINAHL in August 2006 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 1.90; 17 trials). No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. The one study that tested a single brief (<=15 minutes) in-hospital intervention did not find it to be effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67). Counselling of longer duration during the hospital stay was not associated with a higher quit rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29, eight trials). Even counselling that began in the hospital but had less than one month of supportive contact after discharge did not show significant benefit (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31, six trials). Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over what was achieved by intensive counselling alone (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35, five studies). The one study that tested the effect of adding bupropion to intensive counselling had a similar nonsignificant effect (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.06). A similar pattern of results was observed in smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the odds of smoking cessation (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.15, 11 trials), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. These interventions are effective regardless of the patient's admitting diagnosis. lnterventions of lower intensity or shorter duration have not been shown to be effective in this setting. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding NRT or bupropion to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone, but the evidence of benefit for NRT has strengthened in this update and the point estimates are compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT and bupropion are effective.

Increasing smoking cessation care in a preoperative clinic: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that preoperative clinics, like other hospital outpatient clinics and inpatient wards, fail to systematically provide smoking cessation care to patients having planned surgery.

METHODS

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy, acceptability, and cost of a multifaceted intervention to facilitate the provision of comprehensive smoking cessation care to patients attending a preoperative clinic. Two hundred ten smoking patients attending a preoperative clinic at a major teaching hospital in Australia took part in the study. One hundred twenty-four patients were randomly assigned to an experimental group and 86 patients to a usual cessation care group. A multifaceted intervention was developed that included the use of opinion leaders, consensus processes, computer-delivered cessation care, computer-generated prompts for care provision by clinic staff, staff training, and performance feedback.

RESULTS

Ninety-six percent of experimental group patients received behavioral counseling and tailored self-help material. Experimental group patients were significantly more likely than usual care patients to report receiving brief advice by nursing (79% vs. 47%; P < 0.01) and anaesthetic (60% vs. 39%; P < 0.01) staff. Experimental group patients who were nicotine dependent were also more likely to be offered preoperative nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (82% vs. 8%; P < 0.01) and be prescribed postoperative NRT (86% vs. 0%; P < 0.01). The multifaceted intervention was found to be acceptable by staff.

CONCLUSION

A multifaceted clinical practice change intervention may be effective in improving the delivery of smoking cessation care to preoperative surgical patients.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL and the Smoking and Health database in March 2002 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow-up for at least one month) was associated with a significantly higher quit rate compared to control (Peto Odds Ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.49-2.22, six trials). Interventions with less than a month of follow-up did not show evidence of significant benefit (Peto Odds Ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, seven trials). There was no evidence to judge the effect of very brief (<20 minutes) interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Longer interventions delivered only during the hospital stay were not significantly associated with a higher quit rate (Peto Odds Ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.79-1.44, three trials). Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that include at least one month of follow-up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. The findings of the review were compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT increases quit rates.

Hospital initiatives in promoting smoking cessation: a survey of Internet and hospital-based programs targeted at consumers

STUDY OBJECTIVES

This study assesses how often local US hospitals provide smoking cessation information in the following two ways: via hospital Web sites; and via routing incoming phone calls to their hospital switchboards to an in-house smoking cessation clinic.

DESIGN

Random survey of US hospitals.

SETTING

US hospital Web pages and telephone switchboards.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

One hundred two randomly selected US hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

One hundred two hospital Web sites were randomly selected across the United States. The site was searched for the topic of smoking cessation. In the second phase of the survey, the main switchboard number of the same 102 hospitals was anonymously called and the "stop smoking clinic" was asked for.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The overall results indicate that among the hospital Web sites surveyed, only 30% contained information relating to smoking cessation programs. The phone survey of hospital switchboards showed that 47% had a smoking cessation program available via phone inquiry, while 53% did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the US hospital Web sites visited, only 30% contained information on smoking cessation. The yield of finding the desired information was increased by the presence of an intrasite search option, which is a low-cost enhancement to any complex Web site. The relatively low cost of promoting healthy behaviors such as smoking cessation on a hospital Web site should be used more widely. Surprisingly, the phone survey of hospitals showed that the lower technology route of providing smoking cessation information to patients via a patient-initiated phone call is only available in 47% of hospitals. Both the Internet and phone-based switchboard referrals could be more widely and effectively used. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations guidelines would be one avenue of increasing the availability of smoking cessation information at hospital switchboards and Web sites.

Biobehavioral outcomes following psychological interventions for cancer patients

Psychological interventions for adult cancer patients have primarily focused on reducing stress and enhancing quality of life. However, there has been expanded focus on biobehavioral outcomes--health behaviors, compliance, biologic responses, and disease outcomes--consistent with the Biobehavioral Model of cancer stress and disease course. The author reviewed this expanded focus in quasiexperimental and experimental studies of psychological interventions, provided methodologic detail, summarized findings, and highlighted novel contributions. A final section discussed methodologic issues, research directions, and challenges for the coming decade.

Biobehavioral outcomes following psychological interventions for cancer patients

Psychological interventions for adult cancer patients have primarily focused on reducing stress and enhancing quality of life. However, there has been expanded focus on biobehavioral outcomes--health behaviors, compliance, biologic responses, and disease outcomes--consistent with the Biobehavioral Model of cancer stress and disease course. The author reviewed this expanded focus in quasiexperimental and experimental studies of psychological interventions, provided methodologic detail, summarized findings, and highlighted novel contributions. A final section discussed methodologic issues, research directions, and challenges for the coming decade.

Understanding people who smoke and how they change: a foundation for smoking cessation in primary care, part 1

The purpose of this article is to develop an understanding of people who smoke and how they change as a foundation for the delivery of smoking cessation interventions in primary care. Central to our approach is the transtheoretical model of change (TMC). The TMC is an evidence-based model of behavior change that has been developed and tested during the past 2 decades by Prochaska and his colleagues in the context of smoking cessation. We use a review of the literature, in-depth interviews of people who successfully quit smoking, and our experience applying the TMC in the context of primary care and a smoking cessation clinic to explore the clinical work of smoking cessation. This article on smoking cessation will be presented in 2 issues. Part 1 describes the theoretical information known about smoking cessation: why smoking is a powerful behavior, the scientific background of the TMC, and the building-block constructs of the TMC. The first section of part 2 is a review of the Public Health Service clinical practice guideline, Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence, published in 2000. The second section of part 2 is a discussion of clinical assessments and strategies for working with smokers, which is grounded in the Public Health Service practice guideline, our understanding of people who smoke, and the TMC. Woven throughout are transcripts of interviews with 4 people in which they describe their smoking experiences and their pathways to cessation.