Clinical psychologists and smoking cessation: treatment practices and perceptions

Behavioral health care provider's beliefs, confidence, and knowledge in treating cigarette smoking in relation to their use of the 5A's intervention

Introduction

Evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are underused settings where behavioral health treatment is provided, contributing to smoking-related health disparities in this patient group. This study assessed the relationship of provider's beliefs about patients' smoking, perceptions of treatment capability, and knowledge of referral options and their use of the 5A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) intervention for smoking cessation.

Methods

Surveys were collected from providers in healthcare settings in Texas where patients receive behavioral health care (N = 86; 9 federally qualified health centers, 16 Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs), 6 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 55 stand-alone substance use treatment centers). Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between provider's beliefs about patients' concern and desire to quit smoking; perceptions of their confidence, skills, and effectiveness in treating smoking; their knowledge of referral options; and their use of the 5A's with patients who smoked.

Results

Providers who believed that patients were concerned about smoking and wanted to quit; who perceived themselves as confident in providing cessation care, having the required skills, and being effective in providing advice; and/or who had greater referral knowledge were more likely to use the 5A's with patients who smoked than their (respective) provider counterparts (ps < 0.05).

Conclusion

Provider-level constructs affect their 5A's provision for patients with behavioral health needs. Future work should train providers to correct misconceptions about patients' interest in quitting, bolster their confidence, and provide referral options to support tobacco provision efforts.

Prevalence of tobacco use in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate tobacco use prevalence in healthcare workers (HCW) by country income level, occupation and sex, and compare the estimates with the prevalence in the general population.

METHODS

We systematically searched five databases; Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL Plus, CAB Abstracts, and LILACS for original studies published between 2000 and March 2016 without language restriction. All primary studies that reported tobacco use in any category of HCW were included. Study extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by three reviewers, using a standardised data extraction and quality appraisal form. We performed random effect meta-analyses to obtain prevalence estimates by World Bank (WB) country income level, sex, and occupation. Data on prevalence of tobacco use in the general population were obtained from the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Health Observatory website. The review protocol registration number on PROSPERO is CRD42016041231.

RESULTS

229 studies met our inclusion criteria, representing 457,415 HCW and 63 countries: 29 high-income countries (HIC), 21 upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 lower-middle-and-low-income countries (LMLIC). The overall pooled prevalence of tobacco use in HCW was 21%, 31% in males and 17% in females. Highest estimates were in male doctors in UMIC and LMLIC, 35% and 45%, and female nurses in HIC and UMIC, 21% and 25%. Heterogeneity was high (I2 > 90%). Country level comparison suggest that in HIC male HCW tend to have lower prevalence compared with males in the general population while in females the estimates were similar. Male and female HCW in UMIC and LMLIC tend to have similar or higher prevalence rates relative to their counterparts in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

HCW continue to use tobacco at high rates. Tackling HCW tobacco use requires urgent action as they are at the front line for tackling tobacco use in their patients.

A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health professionals' attitudes toward smoking and smoking cessation among people with mental illnesses

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

People with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders are important targets for smoking cessation interventions. Mental health professionals (MHPs) are ideally placed to deliver interventions, but their attitudes may prevent this. This systematic review therefore aimed to identify and estimate quantitatively MHPs attitudes towards smoking and main barriers for providing smoking cessation support and to explore these attitudes in-depth through qualitative synthesis.

METHODS

The online databases AMED, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, HMIC and CINAHL were searched in March 2015 using terms relating to three concepts: 'attitudes', 'mental health professionals' and 'smoking cessation'. Quantitative or qualitative studies of any type were included. Proportions of MHPs' attitudes towards smoking and smoking cessation were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Qualitative findings were evaluated using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies including 16 369 participants were eligible for inclusion. Pooled proportions revealed that 42.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 35.7-48.8] of MHPs reported perceived barriers to smoking cessation interventions, 40.5% (95% CI = 30.4-51.0) negative attitudes towards smoking cessation and 45.0% (95% CI = 31.9-58.4) permissive attitudes towards smoking. The most commonly held beliefs were that patients are not interested in quitting (51.4%, 95% CI = 33.4-69.2) and that quitting smoking is too much for patients to take on (38%, 95% CI = 16.4-62.6). Qualitative findings were consistent with quantitative results, revealing a culture of smoking as 'the norm' and a perception of cigarettes as a useful tool for patients and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of mental health professionals hold attitudes and misconceptions that may undermine the delivery of smoking cessation interventions; many report a lack of time, training and confidence as main barriers to addressing smoking in their patients.

Smoking and environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and associations with quitting behaviour and motivation; a cross sectional study

Background

Persons with a mental illness are less likely to be successful in attempts to quit smoking. A number of smoking and environmental characteristics have been shown to be related to quitting behaviour and motivation of smokers generally, however have been less studied among smokers with a mental illness. This study aimed to report the prevalence of smoking characteristics and a variety of physical and social environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and explore their association with quitting behaviour and motivation.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken of 754 smokers admitted to four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to explore the association between smoking and environmental characteristics and recent quitting behaviour and motivation.

Results

Participants were primarily daily smokers (93 %), consumed >10 cigarettes per day (74 %), and highly nicotine dependent (51 %). A third (32 %) lived in a house in which smoking was permitted, and 44 % lived with other smokers. The majority of participants believed that significant others (68–82 %) and health care providers (80–91 %) would be supportive of their quitting smoking. Reflecting previous research, the smoking characteristics examined were variously associated with quitting behaviour and motivation. Additionally, participants not living with other smokers were more likely to have quit for a longer duration (OR 2.02), and those perceiving their psychiatrist to be supportive of a quit attempt were more likely to have had more quit attempts in the past six months (OR 2.83).

Conclusions

Modifiable characteristics of the physical and social environment, and of smoking, should be considered in smoking cessation interventions for persons with a mental illness.

Systematic review of interventions to increase the delivery of preventive care by primary care nurses and allied health clinicians

Background

Primary care nurses and allied health clinicians are potential providers of opportunistic preventive care. This systematic review aimed to summarise evidence for the effectiveness of practice change interventions in increasing nurse or allied health professional provision of any of five preventive care elements (ask, assess, advise, assist, and/or arrange) for any of four behavioural risks (smoking, inadequate nutrition, alcohol overconsumption, physical inactivity) within a primary care setting.

Methods

A search of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was undertaken to locate controlled intervention trials published between 1992 and May 2014 that provided practice change interventions to primary care nurses and/or allied health professionals to increase preventive care. The effect of interventions aimed at increasing the provision of any of the five care elements for any of the four behavioural risks was examined. A narrative synthesis was utilised.

Results

From 8109 articles, seven trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials bar one, assessed multi-strategic practice change interventions (three to five strategies) focused on care by nurses (six trials) or mixed nursing/allied health clinicians. One trial examined care provision for all four risks, five trials examined care for smoking only, and one trial examined care for alcohol consumption only. For the six trials reporting significance testing (excludes one smoking care trial), significant effects favouring the intervention group were reported in at least one trial for smoking risk assessment (2/4 trials reported an effect for at least one analysis of an assessment outcome), brief advice (2/3), assistance (2/2), and arranging referral (2/3); alcohol risk assessment (1/2) and brief advice (1/2); inadequate nutrition risk assessment (1/1); and physical inactivity risk assessment and brief advice (1/1). When the number of analyses undertaken within trials focusing on smoking care was considered, the results were less promising (e.g. of the 15 analyses conducted on brief advice variables across three trials, four showed a positive effect).

Conclusions

Evidence for the effect of practice change interventions on preventive care by primary care nurses or allied health providers is inconclusive given the small number of trials and inconsistency of results between and within trials.

Systematic review registration number

None

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0409-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Increasing preventive care by primary care nursing and allied health clinicians: a non-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although primary care nurse and allied health clinician consultations represent key opportunities for the provision of preventive care, it is provided suboptimally.

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of a practice change intervention in increasing primary care nursing and allied health clinician provision of preventive care for four health risks.

DESIGN

Two-group (intervention versus control), non-randomized controlled study assessing the effectiveness of the intervention in increasing clinician provision of preventive care.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Randomly selected clients from 17 primary healthcare facilities participated in telephone surveys that assessed their receipt of preventive care prior to (September 2009-2010, n=876) and following intervention (October 2011-2012, n=1,113).

INTERVENTION

The intervention involved local leadership and consensus processes, electronic medical record system modification, educational meetings and outreach, provision of practice change resources and support, and performance monitoring and feedback.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was differential change in client-reported receipt of three elements of preventive care (assessment, brief advice, referral/follow-up) for each of four behavioral risks individually (smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol overconsumption, physical inactivity) and combined. Logistic regression assessed intervention effectiveness.

RESULTS

Analyses conducted in 2013 indicated significant improvements in preventive care delivery in the intervention compared to the control group from baseline to follow-up for assessment of fruit and vegetable consumption (+23.8% vs -1.5%); physical activity (+11.1% vs -0.3%); all four risks combined (+16.9% vs -1.0%) and for brief advice for inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption (+19.3% vs -2.0%); alcohol overconsumption (+14.5% vs -8.9%); and all four risks combined (+14.3% vs +2.2%). The intervention was ineffective in increasing the provision of the remaining forms of preventive care.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention's impact on the provision of preventive care varied by both care element and risk type. Further intervention is required to increase the consistent provision of preventive care, particularly referral/follow-up.

Clinician assessment, advice and referral for multiple health risk behaviors: prevalence and predictors of delivery by primary health care nurses and allied health professionals

OBJECTIVE

Primary care clinicians have considerable potential to provide preventive care. This study describes their preventive care delivery.

METHODS

A survey of 384 community health nurses and allied health clinicians from in New South Wales, Australia was undertaken (2010-11) to examine the assessment of client risk, provision of brief advice and referral/follow-up regarding smoking inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol misuse, and physical inactivity; the existence of preventive care support strategies; and the association between supports and preventive care provision.

RESULTS

Preventive care to 80% or more clients was least often provided for referral/follow-up (24.7-45.6% of clinicians for individual risks, and 24.2% for all risks) and most often for assessment (34.4-69.3% of clinicians for individual risks, and 24.4% for all risks). Approximately 75% reported having 9 or fewer of 17 supports. Provision of care was associated with: availability of a paper screening tool; training; GP referral letter; and number of supports.

CONCLUSION

The delivery of preventive care was limited, and varied according to type of care and risk. Supports were variably associated with elements of preventive care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further research is required to increase routine preventive care delivery and the availability of supports.

Psychologists and Smoking Cessation Intervention: Unrealised Potential

Smoking cessation interventions during routine clinical encounters by health professionals have the potential to reach smokers and facilitate cessation. Although psychologists might appear to be ideal providers of such interventions, international research suggests that their provision is limited. This paper reports the results of a survey conducted in NSW, Australia, of psychologists’ (n = 72) smoking intervention practices, attitudes, and barriers to providing such care. Less than half of the respondents reported assessing smoking status for ‘all or nearly all’ of their clients. Across a range of smoking cessation intervention types, the most frequent response given indicated provision to ‘none or almost none’ of clients who smoked. Only 13% of respondents indicated even ‘advising cessation’ to ‘all or nearly all’ of their smoking clients. Barriers included concern about negative influence on the therapeutic relationship, inadequacy of training and lack of confidence to intervene. Respondents were less likely to provide intervention for smoking than for cannabis, methamphetamine ‘ice’, and alcohol. The study suggests that the potential of Australian psychologists to assist smokers to quit is not being realised, and that there is a need to address the barriers to care provision.