Acceptability and Cultural Appropriateness of Self-Help Booklets for Relapse Prevention in Puerto Rico

Ask-Advise-Connect: Differential Enrollment and Smoking Cessation Outcomes Between Primary Care Patients Who Received Quitline-Delivered Treatment in Spanish vs English

PURPOSE

This study examined differences in Quitline treatment enrollment, engagement, and smoking cessation outcomes among primary care patients preferring Spanish and English using the evidence-based tobacco treatment Ask-Advise-Connect.

METHODS

Ask-Advise-Connect was implemented April 2013 through February 2016 in a large safety-net health system to connect smokers with treatment via a link in the electronic health record. Rates of treatment enrollment, engagement, acceptance of nicotine replacement therapy, and smoking abstinence (self-reported and biochemically confirmed) were compared at 6 months among patients who received treatment in Spanish and English using χ 2 tests. Logistic regression examined language and nicotine replacement therapy and their interaction as predictors of abstinence.

RESULTS

The smoking status of 218,915 patients was assessed and recorded in the electronic health record. Smoking prevalence was 8.4% among patients preferring Spanish and 27.0% among those preferring English. Spanish-preferring patients were less likely to enroll in treatment (10.7% vs 12.0%, χ 2 = 12.06, P = .001) yet completed more counseling calls when enrolled (median = 2 vs 1, P <.001). Patients who received treatment in Spanish (vs English) were twice as likely to be abstinent at 6 months (self-reported: 25.1% vs 14.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.98, 95% CI, 1.62-2.40; biochemically confirmed: 7.6% vs 3.7%, OR = 2.13, 95% CI, 1.52-2.97). Receipt of nicotine replacement therapy increased abstinence for all patients and language did not interact with nicotine replacement therapy to predict abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated point-of-care approaches such as Ask-Advise-Connect have great potential to reach Spanish-preferring smokers. Those who received tobacco treatment in Spanish (vs English) demonstrated better engagement and cessation outcomes.

Collins J, Jones T, Brache M, Toro M, Tumanyan S, Walters C, White S, Elias-Boneta A. The SmoCar Study: A Caribbean-Based Multicenter Study on the Prevalence and Disparities Linked to Smoking and Gingival Health

The aim of the SmoCar (Smoking in the Caribbean) study was to estimate the prevalence of smoking and the disparities in the smoking practices of three regions in the Caribbean: Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. The secondary objective was to assess the prevalence and severity of gingivitis in relation to the smoking practices. The study population comprised 1,847 (weighted N = 1,830) individuals (18 years and older) who were volunteer participants from the capitals of Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. A structured interview was used to assess the participants’ smoking behaviors. The gingival index was used to determine the extent of gingival inflammation. Polytomous regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for smoking status (current, past, or never), according to risk factors (sex, age-group, education, marital status, tooth-brushing frequency, and city of residence). Logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between different smoking status variables and mild to moderate/severe gingivitis. The majority of the participants were never-smokers, with current smokers being found most commonly in Kingston (33.22%), followed by San Juan (12.76%) and Santo Domingo (8.8%). Both current (aOR = 2.22, 95% confidence interval [1.45, 3.40]) and past (aOR = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [1.19, 2.93]) smoking (vs. never smoking) was strongly associated with severe gingivitis. Smoking was the most prevalent in Jamaicans and the least prevalent in Dominicans. The study population of current smokers was found to have a fourfold increased risk of severe gingivitis and a twofold increased risk of moderate gingivitis.

Pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at vulnerable populations: A review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

We reviewed research literature on pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns targeting eight vulnerable populations to determine key findings and research gaps. Results can inform tobacco policy and control efforts and the design of public education campaigns for these groups.

METHODS

Five journal databases in medicine, communication, and science, were used to identify 8875 peer-reviewed, original articles in English, published in the period 2004-2018. There were 144 articles that met inclusion criteria on pro-tobacco marketing or anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at eight US groups: women of reproductive age, racial/ethnic minority groups (African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native), Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) populations, groups with low socioeconomic status, rural/inner city residents, military/veterans, and people with mental health or medical co-morbidities. We summarized the number of articles for each population, type of tobacco, and pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus. Narrative summaries were organized by population and by pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco focus, with key strategies and gaps by group.

RESULTS

There were more studies on pro-tobacco marketing rather than anti-tobacco campaigns, and on cigarettes rather than other tobacco products. Major gaps included studies on Asian Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, pregnant women, LGBT populations, and those with mental health or medical co-morbidities. Gaps related to tobacco products were found for hookah, snus, and pipe/roll-your-own tobacco in the pro-tobacco studies, and for all products except cigarettes in anti-tobacco studies. Common tobacco industry methods used were tailoring of product and package design and messages that were used to reach and appeal to different sociodemographic groups. Studies varied by research design making it difficult to compare results.

CONCLUSIONS

We found major research gaps for specific groups and tobacco products. Public education campaigns need a stronger foundation in empirical studies focused on these populations. Research and practice would benefit from studies that permit comparisons across studies.