Long-term abstinence and predictors of tobacco treatment uptake among hospitalized smokers with serious mental illness enrolled in a smoking cessation trial

A systematic review of factors associated with sustained smoking abstinence in people experiencing severe mental illness following participation in a smoking intervention

OBJECTIVE

People experiencing severe mental illness report higher rates of tobacco smoking than the general population, while rates of quitting and sustaining abstinence are considerably lower. This systematic review aimed to identify factors associated with sustained abstinence in people experiencing severe mental illness following a smoking intervention.

METHOD

Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from the inception of the e-databases until June 2022. Selection criteria included randomised and non-randomised studies of smoking cessation interventions in which most of the participants were experiencing severe mental illness, and reported a follow-up of 3 months or longer. From an initial 1498 unique retrieved records, 26 references were included detailing 17 smoking cessation intervention studies and 3 relapse prevention intervention studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool for randomised study designs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised designs.

RESULTS

Participation in smoking interventions was associated with higher odds of abstinence in the medium-term, but not long-term follow-ups. There was insufficient evidence that any other factors impact sustained abstinence. Most studies were considered to have some risk of bias, largely due to insufficient availability of analysis plans.

CONCLUSION

Despite an abundance of studies investigating smoking cessation in smokers experiencing severe mental illness, there is limited knowledge on the factors associated with staying quit. The inclusion of people experiencing severe mental illness in large-scale randomised control trials, in which predictors of sustained abstinence are measured in the medium and long term are needed to address this important question.

Acceptability and participation predictors for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to test a smoking cessation intervention after discharge from mental health wards

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hospitalization is an ideal time to promote smoking cessation, but interventions are limited for supporting cessation maintenance after discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of participating in a trial that tested the efficacy of an intensive telephone-based intervention for smokers after discharge.

METHODS

Adult smokers admitted to mental health wards of six hospitals were invited to participate in the trial. We studied the study acceptance/decline rates by analyzing the characteristics of participants (e.g., sex, age, psychiatric disorder, smoking pattern) and hospitals (e.g., size, tobacco control implementation). We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) to assess predictors of non-participation.

RESULTS

Of 530 smokers that met the study inclusion criteria, 55.5% (n = 294) agreed to participate. Participant and non-participants were not different in sex, age, or psychiatric diagnosis. Compared to non-participants, participants had made more attempts to quit in the past year (66.1% vs 33.9%; p < 0.001) and reported higher abstinence rates during the hospital stay (66.7% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.05). Participation rates by hospital varied from 30.9% to 82.0% (p < 0.001). Predictors of non-participation were not having attempted to quit in the last year (aOR=2.42; 95%CI: 1.66-3.53) and low level of tobacco control in the hospital (aOR range: 1.79-6.39, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A telephone-based intervention to promote smoking cessation after discharge was accepted by half of the smokers with mental health disorders. Smokers that had attempted to quit previously and those that stayed in hospitals with a strong tobacco control policy were more likely to participate in the trial.

A systematic review of mental health professionals, patients and carers' perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings

Introduction

Evidence-based smoking cessation and temporary abstinence interventions to address smoking in mental health settings are available, but the impact of these interventions is limited.

Aims and Methods

We aimed to identify and synthesize the perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Six databases were searched for articles reporting the investigation of perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Data were extracted and coded using a mixed inductive/deductive method to the theoretical domains framework, key barriers and enablers were identified through the combining of coding frequency, elaboration, and expressed importance.

Results

Of 31 included articles, 56 barriers/enablers were reported from the perspectives of mental healthcare professionals (MHPs), 48 from patient perspectives, 21 from mixed perspectives, and 0 from relatives/carers. Barriers to supporting smoking cessation or temporary abstinence in mental health settings mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, MHPs lack of time); knowledge (eg, interactions around smoking that did occur were ill informed); social influences (eg, smoking norms within social network); and intentions (eg, MHPs lack positive intentions to deliver support). Enablers mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, use of appropriate support materials) and social influences (eg, pro-quitting social norms).

Conclusions

The importance of overcoming competing demands on staff time and resources, the inclusion of tailored, personalized support, the exploitation of patients wider social support networks, and enhancing knowledge and awareness around the benefits smoking cessation is highlighted.

Implications

Identified barriers and enablers represent targets for future interventions to improve the support of smoking cessation in mental health settings. Future research needs to examine the perceptions of the carers and family/friends of patients in relation to the smoking behavior change support delivered to patients.

Enhancing Primary Care Experiences for Homeless Patients with Serious Mental Illness: Results from a National Survey

Objectives:

Patients experiencing homelessness (PEH) with serious mental illness (SMI) have poor satisfaction with primary care. We assessed if primary care teams tailored for homeless patients (Homeless-Patient Aligned Care Teams (H-PACTs)) provide this population with superior experiences than mainstream primary care and explored whether integrated behavioral health and social services were associated with favorable experiences.

Methods:

We surveyed VA PEH with SMI (n = 1095) to capture the valence of their primary care experiences in 4 domains (Access/Coordination, Patient-Clinician Relationships, Cooperation, and Homeless-Specific Needs). We surveyed clinicians (n = 52) from 29 H-PACTs to elucidate if their clinics had embedded mental health, addiction, social work, and/or housing services. We counted these services in each H-PACT (0-4) and classified H-PACTs as having high (3-4) versus low (0-2) service integration. We controlled for demographics, housing history, and needs in comparing H-PACT versus mainstream experiences; and experiences in high versus low integration H-PACTs.

Results:

Among respondents, 969 (91%) had complete data and 626 (62%) were in H-PACTs. After covariate adjustment, compared to mainstream respondents, H-PACT respondents were more likely (P < .01) to report favorable experiences (AORs = 1.7-2.1) and less likely to report unfavorable experiences (AORs = 0.5-0.6) in all 4 domains. Of 29 H-PACTs, 27.6% had high integration. High integration H-PACT respondents were twice as likely as low integration H-PACT respondents to report favorable access/coordination experiences (AOR = 1.7).

Conclusions:

Homeless-tailored clinics with highly-integrated services were associated with better care experiences among PEH with SMI. These observational data suggest that tailored primary care with integrated services may improve care perceptions among complex patients.

Evaluation of long-term quitters: who stays smoke free forever?

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is one of the most powerful health promotion tools in the Western world. Behavioral group therapies are regarded as very promising interventions in this field. Quitting rates are usually evaluated after 6-12 months and lie between 30 and 45%. So far, there are no scientific data on potential protective indicators to remain successfully smoke free after this period. Therefore, the aim of this study was to detect the current smoking status of former participants of a cessation service in an urban German surrounding. We investigated reasons for relapses, quitting strategies, and psychosocial parameters.

METHODS

In 2019, 130 former patients (2011-2017; mean age 54 years; 37 pack/years; Fagerstroem = 5.75; 58.5% male, 41.5% female; 66% physical comorbidities; 35% psychiatric diagnoses) were invited to participate in a mailed survey (including WHO 5, SF 12, self-efficacy scale) and were asked about their current smoking status, personal history of smoking, and individual experiences with stopping after the 1‑year abstinence date.

RESULTS

A total of 53 persons replied (RR 41%), 29 (54%) of whom are currently smoke free; 24 relapsed intermittently or permanently, 9 experimented with e‑cigarettes, and 2 became dual users. Daily hassles as well as physical and mental challenges were the main reasons for relapsing.

CONCLUSION

Due to the low response rate, conclusions are limited; however, the 1‑year abstinence rate might not be as reliable as thought so far; long-term "sober" nicotine addicts remain at risk of relapse.

Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

Populations experiencing homelessness have high rates of tobacco use and experience substantial barriers to cessation. Tobacco-caused conditions are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among people experiencing homelessness, highlighting an urgent need for interventions to reduce the burden of tobacco use in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions designed to improve access to tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness lead to increased numbers engaging in or receiving treatment, and whether interventions designed to help adults experiencing homelessness to quit tobacco lead to increased tobacco abstinence. To also assess whether tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness affect substance use and mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies using the terms: un-housed*, homeless*, housing instability, smoking cessation, tobacco use disorder, smokeless tobacco. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 06 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that recruited people experiencing homelessness who used tobacco, and investigated interventions focused on the following: 1) improving access to relevant support services; 2) increasing motivation to quit tobacco use; 3) helping people to achieve abstinence, including but not limited to behavioral support, tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies, contingency management, and text- or app-based interventions; or 4) encouraging transitions to long-term nicotine use that did not involve tobacco. Eligible comparators included no intervention, usual care (as defined by the studies), or another form of active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Tobacco cessation was measured at the longest time point for each study, on an intention-to-treat basis, using the most rigorous definition available. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (contingent reinforcement in addition to usual smoking cessation care; more versus less intensive smoking cessation interventions; and multi-issue support versus smoking cessation support only), and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, effects on mental and substance-use severity, and meta-analyzed these outcomes where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies involving 1634 participants who smoked combustible tobacco at enrolment. One of the studies was ongoing. Most of the trials included participants who were recruited from community-based sites such as shelters, and three included participants who were recruited from clinics. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. We identified low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that contingent reinforcement (rewards for successful smoking cessation) plus usual smoking cessation care was not more effective than usual care alone in promoting abstinence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.77; 1 trial, 70 participants). We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that more intensive behavioral smoking cessation support was more effective than brief intervention in promoting abstinence at six-month follow-up (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.69; 3 trials, 657 participants; I² = 0%). There was low-certainty evidence, limited by bias and imprecision, that multi-issue support (cessation support that also encompassed help to deal with other challenges or addictions) was not superior to targeted smoking cessation support in promoting abstinence (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.61; 2 trials, 146 participants; I² = 25%). More data on these types of interventions are likely to change our interpretation of these data. Single studies that examined the effects of text-messaging support, e-cigarettes, or cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation provided inconclusive results. Data on secondary outcomes, including mental health and substance use severity, were too sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions on whether there were clinically-relevant differences. We did not identify any studies that explicitly assessed interventions to increase access to tobacco cessation care; we were therefore unable to assess our secondary outcome 'number of participants receiving treatment'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of any tobacco cessation interventions specifically in people experiencing homelessness. Although there was some evidence to suggest a modest benefit of more intensive behavioral smoking cessation interventions when compared to less intensive interventions, our certainty in this evidence was very low, meaning that further research could either strengthen or weaken this effect. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the provision of tobacco cessation support and its effects on quit attempts has any effect on the mental health or other substance-use outcomes of people experiencing homelessness. Although there is no reason to believe that standard tobacco cessation treatments work any differently in people experiencing homelessness than in the general population, these findings highlight a need for high-quality studies that address additional ways to engage and support people experiencing homelessness, in the context of the daily challenges they face. These studies should have adequate power and put effort into retaining participants for long-term follow-up of at least six months. Studies should also explore interventions that increase access to cessation services, and address the social and environmental influences of tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness. Finally, studies should explore the impact of tobacco cessation on mental health and substance-use outcomes.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I² = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I² = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.