Does Motivation Matter? Analysis of a Randomized Trial of Proactive Outreach to VA Smokers

Proposing a Model of Proactive Outreach to Advance Clinical Research and Care Delivery for Patients Who Use Tobacco

There are evidence-based treatments for tobacco dependence, but inequities exist in the access to and reach of these treatments. Traditional models of tobacco treatment delivery are "reactive" and typically provide treatment only to patients who are highly motivated to quit and seek out tobacco treatment. Newer models involve "proactive" outreach, with benefits that include increasing access to tobacco treatment, prompting quit attempts among patients with low motivation, addressing health disparities, and improving population-level quit rates. However, the definition of "proactive" is not clear, and adoption has been slow. This commentary introduces a comprehensive yet flexible model of proactive outreach and describes how proactive outreach can optimize clinical research and care delivery in these domains: (1) identifying the population, (2) offering treatment, and (3) delivering treatment. Dimensions relevant to each domain are the intensity of proactive outreach (low to high) and the extent to which proactive outreach activities rely on human interaction or are facilitated by information technology (IT). Adoption of the proposed proactive outreach model could improve the precision and rigor with which tobacco cessation research and tobacco treatment programs report data, which could have a positive effect on care delivery and patient outcomes.

Pain and smoking study (PASS): A comparative effectiveness trial of smoking cessation counseling for veterans with chronic pain

Introduction

Smoking is associated with greater pain intensity and pain-related functional interference in people with chronic pain. Interventions that teach smokers with chronic pain how to apply adaptive coping strategies to promote both smoking cessation and pain self-management may be effective.

Methods

The Pain and Smoking Study (PASS) is a randomized clinical trial of a telephone-delivered, cognitive behavioral intervention among Veterans with chronic pain who smoke cigarettes. PASS participants are randomized to a standard telephone counseling intervention that includes five sessions focusing on motivational interviewing, craving and relapse management, rewards, and nicotine replacement therapy versus the same components with the addition of a cognitive behavioral intervention for pain management. Participants are assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome is smoking cessation.

Results

The 371 participants are 88% male, a median age of 60 years old (range 24–82), and smoke a median of 15 cigarettes per day. Participants are mainly white (61%), unemployed (70%), 33% had a high school degree or less, and report their overall health as “Fair” (40%) to “Poor” (11%). Overall, pain was moderately high (mean pain intensity in past week = 5.2 (Standard Deviation (SD) = 1.6) and mean pain interference = 5.5 (SD = 2.2)). Pain-related anxiety was high (mean = 47.0 (SD = 22.2)) and self-efficacy was low (mean = 3.8 (SD = 1.6)).

Conclusions

PASS utilizes an innovative smoking and pain intervention to promote smoking cessation among Veterans with chronic pain. Baseline characteristics reflect a socioeconomically vulnerable population with a high burden of mental health comorbidities.

Tobacco use disorder and the lungs

This narrative review provides a summary of the impact of tobacco smoking on the respiratory system and the benefits of smoking cessation. Tobacco smoking is one of the leading preventable causes of death world-wide and a major risk factor for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Smoking is also associated with an increased risk of respiratory infections and appears to be related to poorer outcomes among those with COVID-19. Non-smokers with second-hand smoke exposure also experience significant adverse respiratory effects. Smoking imposes enormous health- and non-health-related costs to societies. The benefits of smoking cessation, in both prevention and management of respiratory disease, have been known for decades and, to this day, cessation support remains one of the most important cost-effective interventions that health professionals can provide to people who smoke. Cessation at any age confers substantial health benefits, even in smokers with established morbidities. As other treatments for chronic respiratory disease advance and survival rates increase, smoking cessation treatment will become even more relevant. While smoking cessation interventions are available, the offer of these by clinicians and uptake by patients remain limited.

Proactively Offered Text Messages and Mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokers in Primary Care Practices: A Pilot Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Proactive, population health cessation programs can guide efforts to reach smokers outside of the clinic to encourage quit attempts and treatment use.

AIMS AND METHODS

This study aimed to measure trial feasibility and preliminary effects of a proactive intervention offering text messages (TM) and/or mailed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers in primary care clinics. From 2017 to 2019 we performed a pilot randomized trial comparing brief telephone advice (control: BA), TM, 2 weeks of mailed NRT, or both interventions (TM + NRT). Patients were identified using electronic health records and contacted proactively by telephone to assess interest in the study. We compared quit attempts, treatment use, and cessation in the intervention arms with BA.

RESULTS

Of 986 patients contacted, 153 (16%) enrolled (mean age 53 years, 57% female, 76% white, 11% black, 8% Hispanic, 52% insured by Medicaid) and 144 (94%) completed the 12-week assessment. On average, patients in the TM arms received 159 messages (99.4% sent, 0.6% failed), sent 19 messages, and stayed in the program for 61 days. In all groups, a majority of patients reported quit attempts (BA 67% vs. TM 86% [p = .07], NRT 81% [p = .18], TM + NRT 79% [p = .21]) and NRT use (BA 51% vs. NRT 83% [p = .007], TM 65% [p = .25], TM + NRT 76% [p = .03]). Effect estimates for reported 7-day abstinence were BA 10% versus TM 26% (p = .09), NRT 28% (p = .06), and TM + NRT 23% (p = .14).

CONCLUSIONS

Proactively offering TM or mailed nicotine medications was feasible among primary care smokers and a promising approach to promote quit attempts and short-term abstinence.

IMPLICATIONS

Proactive intervention programs to promote quit attempts outside of office visits among smokers enrolled in primary care practices are needed. TM have potential to engage smokers not planning to quit or to support smokers to make a planned quit attempt. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of testing a proactive treatment model including TM and/or mailed NRT to promote quit attempts, treatment use, and cessation among nontreatment-seeking smokers in primary care.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03174158.

Piloting a clinical laboratory method to evaluate the influence of potential modified risk tobacco products on smokers' quit-related motivation, choice, and behavior

Research methods are needed that can predict whether the availability of potential modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs) may influence smokers' quit-related motivation, choice, and behavior. This pilot study assessed the primary outcomes of feasibility and adherence to address this need using an electronic cigarette (ECIG) as a model MRTP. Cigarette smokers were randomly assigned to use only their own brand of cigarettes (OB-only) or a second-generation ECIG (18 ng/ml nicotine) plus their OB cigarettes (ECIG+OB) ad libitum for four weeks. Participants logged products using a mobile device, collected used cigarette filters, and provided saliva samples every day for analysis of cotinine. They returned to the lab once per week to provide a breath sample and accept or decline a choice to quit all tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes and/or ECIGs). They also returned for a one-month follow-up visit. Of those participants randomized (n = 60), 56.7% completed the 4-week intervention and 40.0% completed the follow-up visit. The primary reason for withdrawal was poor adherence with mobile device use. Comparable numbers of participants in each group chose to make a quit attempt, although more OB-only participants chose to quit during the first two weeks and more ECIG+OB participants during the last two weeks. With protocol modifications to reduce participation burden, the current method might ultimately be used by regulators to predict how smokers' quit-related motivation, choice, and behavior are influenced by current and future MRTPs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Proactive Tobacco Treatment among Smokers with and without Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease

RATIONALE

Adults with chronic lower respiratory disease differ in their barriers to smoking cessation but also suffer from tobacco-related health concerns, which may motivate quit attempts. Few studies have examined differences in tobacco treatment response between smokers with and without chronic lower respiratory disease.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effectiveness of a proactive outreach program for cessation among smokers with and without chronic lower respiratory disease.

METHODS

Subgroup analysis of the Veterans Victory over Tobacco Study, a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of proactive outreach and the choice of tobacco treatments compared with usual care. Smokers identified via the electronic medical record were proactively offered phone-based counseling and care coordination to receive medication from their Veterans Affairs providers or in-person care. We compared the response among those with and without an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnosis of a chronic lower respiratory disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma). We used stratification by propensity scores to adjust for imbalanced covariates between groups with and without chronic lower respiratory disease within each treatment arm, using complete case analysis accounting for the stratified sampling by site.

RESULTS

The study participants were predominantly older, white, male smokers. Overall, 19.6% had chronic lower respiratory disease. A total of 3,307 had outcome data with the following assignments to the intervention: proactive care: n = 1,272 without chronic lower respiratory disease, n = 301 with chronic lower respiratory disease; usual care: n = 1,387 without chronic lower respiratory disease, n = 347 with chronic lower respiratory disease. A total of 1,888 had both complete baseline and outcome data and were included in the primary analysis. In unadjusted analyses (n = 3,307), among individuals with chronic lower respiratory disease, 13.1% in the proactive group reported 6-month prolonged abstinence compared with 8.7% of those in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-2.65). Among individuals without chronic lower respiratory disease, 13.1% quit in the proactive group compared with 11.0% in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.55). In adjusted analyses (n = 1,888), the association between treatment arm and quit rate varied by the presence of chronic lower respiratory disease, with a stronger association between allocation to the proactive group and quit rate among those with chronic lower respiratory disease (odds ratio, 3.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-7.47) than those without chronic lower respiratory disease (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.88; P for interaction with chronic lower respiratory disease = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with chronic lower respiratory disease may be more likely to respond to a proactive outreach intervention for tobacco cessation treatment than those without chronic lower respiratory disease. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00608426).

Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration

National recommendations for lung cancer screening for former and current smokers aged 55-80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history create demand to implement efficient and effective systems to offer smoking cessation on a large scale. These older, high-risk smokers differ from participants in past clinical trials of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for tobacco dependence. There is a gap in knowledge about how best to design systems to extend reach and treatments to maximize smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. Eight clinical trials, seven funded by the National Cancer Institute and one by the Veterans Health Administration, address this gap and form the SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. This paper describes methodological issues related to the design of these clinical trials: clinical workflow, participant eligibility criteria, screening indication (baseline or annual repeat screen), assessment content, interest in stopping smoking, and treatment delivery method and dose, all of which will affect tobacco treatment outcomes. Tobacco interventions consider the "teachable moment" offered by lung cancer screening, how to incorporate positive and negative screening results, and coordination of smoking cessation treatment with clinical events associated with lung cancer screening. Unique data elements, such as perceived risk of lung cancer and costs of tobacco treatment, are of interest. Lung cancer screening presents a new and promising opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from lung cancer that can be amplified by effective smoking cessation treatment. SCALE teamwork and collaboration promise to maximize knowledge gained from the clinical trials.

Smoking Cessation for Smokers Not Ready to Quit: Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

CONTEXT

To provide a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis on smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit, a population that makes up approximately 32% of current smokers.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Twenty-two studies on pharmacological, behavioral, and combination smoking-cessation interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit (defined as those who reported they were not ready to quit at the time of the study) published between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. The effectiveness (measured by the number needed to treat) and cost effectiveness (measured by costs per quit) of interventions were calculated. All data collection and analyses were performed in 2017.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit can be as effective as similar interventions for smokers ready to quit; however, costs of intervening on this group may be higher for some intervention types. The most cost-effective interventions identified for this group were those using varenicline and those using behavioral interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Updating clinical recommendations to provide cessation interventions for this group is recommended. Further research on development of cost-effective treatments and effective strategies for recruitment and outreach for this group are needed. Additional studies may allow for more nuanced comparisons of treatment types among this group.

Predicting Engagement in Smoking Cessation Treatment Following a Brief Telephone Evaluation and Referral Session

Introduction: Smoking cessation treatment combining medication and counselling yields the best outcomes; however, few smokers employ both modalities.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine variables predicting treatment attendance.

Methods: This was a chart review of US military Veterans (N = 340; 89% male, 59% non-Hispanic white) referred for smoking cessation, who completed a telephone call to encourage treatment utilization. Treatment engagement was defined as attending a smoking cessation session within 30 days following telephone contact. A logistic regression analysis examined predictors (demographics, smoking variables, and psychiatric diagnoses) of treatment engagement.

Results/Findings: Greater age (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.06), more cigarettes (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00–1.06), and higher perceived importance of quitting (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.00–1.23) predicted engaging in treatment within 30 days (all p values < 0.05).

Conclusion: Veterans who attended treatment were older, smoked more cigarettes, and perceived quitting as more important than those who did not attend. These findings are consistent with prior studies examining factors associated with treatment utilization. Results highlight the need to identify strategies for engaging into treatment smokers who are younger, smoke fewer cigarettes, and view quitting as less important.

Smokers who are unmotivated to quit and have a child with asthma are more likely to quit with intensive motivational interviewing and repeated biomarker feedback

OBJECTIVE

Smokers who are not motivated to quit are an important group for intervention, particularly if they have children with asthma. Research indicates that unmotivated smokers are less responsive to intensive interventions, although motivation-by-treatment interactions have not been tested. This study examines whether motivation to quit moderates the effect of a cessation induction intervention.

METHOD

Parents had an asthmatic child requiring urgent care, and did not have to want to quit smoking to be eligible for the study. Two home visits included asthma education, motivational interviewing (MI) for cessation, and feedback on child's secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe). Participants were then randomized (n = 339, 79.6% female) to receive Enhanced-PAM (Precaution Adoption Model; 6 MI calls including SHSe feedback) or PAM (6 contact control calls). Motivation to quit was assessed at baseline and point-prevalence abstinence (ppa) and SHSe outcomes were objectively measured.

RESULTS

At baseline, 38.9% were not motivated to quit. Those who were not motivated to quit were 3 to 4 times more likely to be abstinent at 6 months in Enhanced-PAM versus PAM (7-day ppa: OR = 3.71, 95% CI = [1.06, 12.99]; 30-day: OR = 4.15, 95% CI [1.20, 14.35]); those receiving Enhanced-PAM achieved quit rates comparable to motivated smokers. Those who were not motivated to quit were more than 4 times as likely to have very low/undetectable SHSe at follow-up in Enhanced-PAM versus PAM (OR = 4.46, 95% CI [1.31, 15.15]). Among motivated smokers, neither outcome significantly differed by treatment arm.

CONCLUSION

It cannot be assumed that smokers who are unmotivated to quit will not be responsive to intensive interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Association of the Affordable Care Act With Smoking and Tobacco Treatment Utilization Among Adults Newly Enrolled in Health Care

OBJECTIVES

To examine rates of smoking and tobacco treatment utilization by insurance coverage status (Medicaid, commercial, exchange) among newly enrolled patients in the post Affordable Care Act (ACA) era.

METHODS

We examined new members who enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Northern California through Medicaid, the California exchange, or nonexchange commercial plans (N=122,298) in the first 6 months of 2014 following ACA implementation. We compared these groups on smoking prevalence and tested whether smokers in each group differed on sociodemographic characteristics and in their utilization of tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and counseling) in 2014.

RESULTS

Smoking prevalence was higher among Medicaid (22%) than exchange (13%) or commercial (12%) patients (P<0.0001). Controlling for key sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, Medicaid (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.73) smokers had greater odds of tobacco treatment use than commercial smokers. Other groups at risk for underuse included men, younger patients, Asians, and Latinos.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of newly enrolled patients after ACA implementation, Medicaid patients were more likely to be smokers compared with exchange and commercial patients, but they were also more likely to use tobacco treatment. Low tobacco treatment use among exchange and commercial plan smokers, as well as younger men, Asians and Latinos poses a significant obstacle to improving public health and additional targeted outreach strategies may be needed to engage these patients with available health services.

Design Considerations for mHealth Programs Targeting Smokers Not Yet Ready to Quit: Results of a Sequential Mixed-Methods Study

Background

Mobile health (mHealth) smoking cessation programs are typically designed for smokers who are ready to quit smoking. In contrast, most smokers want to quit someday but are not yet ready to quit. If mHealth apps were designed for these smokers, they could potentially encourage and assist more people to quit smoking. No prior studies have specifically examined the design considerations of mHealth apps targeting smokers who are not yet ready to quit.

Objective

To inform the user-centered design of mHealth apps for smokers who were not yet ready to quit by assessing (1) whether these smokers were interested in using mHealth tools to change their smoking behavior; (2) their preferred features, functionality, and content of mHealth programs addressing smoking; and (3) considerations for marketing or distributing these programs to promote their uptake.

Methods

We conducted a sequential exploratory, mixed-methods study. Qualitative interviews (phase 1, n=15) were completed with a demographically diverse group of smokers who were smartphone owners and wanted to quit smoking someday, but not yet. Findings informed a Web-based survey of smokers from across the United States (phase 2, n=116). Data were collected from April to September, 2016.

Results

Findings confirmed that although smokers not yet ready to quit are not actively seeking treatment or using cessation apps, most would be interested in using these programs to help them reduce or change their smoking behavior. Among phase 2 survey respondents, the app features, functions, and content rated most highly were (1) security of personal information; (2) the ability to track smoking, spending, and savings; (3) content that adaptively changes with one’s needs; (4) the ability to request support as needed; (5) the ability to earn and redeem awards for program use; (6) guidance on how to quit smoking; and (7) content specifically addressing management of nicotine withdrawal, stress, depression, and anxiety. Results generally did not vary by stage of change for quitting smoking (precontemplation vs contemplation). The least popular feature was the ability to share progress via social media. Relevant to future marketing or distribution considerations, smokers were price-sensitive and valued empirically validated programs. Program source, expert recommendations, and user ratings were also important considerations.

Conclusions

Smokers who are not yet ready to quit represent an important target group for intervention. Study findings suggest that many of these individuals are receptive to using mHealth tools to reduce or quit smoking, despite not having made a commitment to quit yet. The preferences for specific mHealth intervention features, functionality, and content outlined in this paper can aid addiction treatment experts, design specialists, and software developers interested in creating engaging interventions for smokers who want to quit in the future but are not yet committed to this important health goal.