Self-reported practices, attitudes and levels of training of practitioners in the English NHS Stop Smoking Services

The Emerging Global Tobacco Treatment Workforce: Characteristics of Tobacco Treatment Specialists Trained in Council-Accredited Training Programs from 2017 to 2019

Tobacco use is projected to kill 1 billion people in the 21st century. Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is one of the most common substance use disorders in the world. Evidence-based treatment of TUD is effective, but treatment accessibility remains very low. A dearth of specially trained clinicians is a significant barrier to treatment accessibility, even within systems of care that implement brief intervention models. The treatment of TUD is becoming more complex and tailoring treatment to address new and traditional tobacco products is needed. The Council for Tobacco Treatment Training Programs (Council) is the accrediting body for Tobacco Treatment Specialist (TTS) training programs. Between 2016 and 2019, n = 7761 trainees completed Council-accredited TTS training programs. Trainees were primarily from North America (92.6%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (6.1%) and were trained via in-person group workshops in medical and academic settings. From 2016 to 2019, the number of Council-accredited training programs increased from 14 to 22 and annual number of trainees increased by 28.5%. Trainees have diverse professional backgrounds and work in diverse settings but were primarily White (69.1%) and female (78.7%) located in North America. Nearly two-thirds intended to implement tobacco treatment services in their setting; two-thirds had been providing tobacco treatment for 1 year or less; and 20% were sent to training by their employers. These findings suggest that the training programs are contributing to the development of a new workforce of TTSs as well as the development of new programmatic tobacco treatment services in diverse settings. Developing strategies to support attendance from demographically and geographically diverse professionals might increase the proportion of trainees from marginalized groups and regions of the world with significant tobacco-related inequities.

Start2quit: a randomised clinical controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS Stop Smoking Services

BACKGROUND

The NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers who want to quit. However, the proportion of smokers attending the SSSs is low and current figures show a continuing downward trend. This research addressed the problem of how to motivate more smokers to accept help to quit.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of an intervention consisting of proactive recruitment by a brief computer-tailored personal risk letter and an invitation to a 'Come and Try it' taster session to provide information about the SSSs, compared with a standard generic letter advertising the service, in terms of attendance at the SSSs of at least one session and validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention with follow-up 6 months after the date of randomisation.

SETTING

SSSs and general practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

All smokers aged ≥ 16 years identified from medical records in participating practices who were motivated to quit and who had not attended the SSS in the previous 12 months. Participants were randomised in the ratio 3 : 2 (intervention to control) by a computer program.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention - brief personalised and tailored letter sent from the general practitioner using information obtained from the screening questionnaire and from medical records, and an invitation to attend a taster session, run by the local SSS. Control - standard generic letter from the general practice advertising the local SSS and the therapies available, and asking the smoker to contact the service to make an appointment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Proportion of people attending the first session of a 6-week course over a period of 6 months from the receipt of the invitation letter, measured by records of attendance at the SSSs; (2) 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up, validated by salivary cotinine analysis; and (3) cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

RESULTS

Eighteen SSSs and 99 practices within the SSS areas participated; 4384 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 2636) or control (n = 1748). One participant withdrew and 4383 were analysed. The proportion of people attending the first session of a SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group [17.4% vs. 9.0%; unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 2.57; p < 0.001]. The validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (9.0% vs. 5.6%; unadjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15; p < 0.001), as was the validated 3-month prolonged abstinence and all other periods of abstinence measured by self-report. Using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention was more cost-effective than the control was up to 27% at 6 months and > 86% over a lifetime horizon.

LIMITATIONS

Participating SSSs may not be representative of all SSSs in England. Recruitment was low, at 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Start2quit trial added to evidence that a proactive approach with an intensive intervention to deliver personalised risk information and offer a no-commitment introductory session can be successful in reaching more smokers and increasing the uptake of the SSS and quit rates. The intervention appears less likely to be cost-effective in the short term, but is highly likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon.

FUTURE WORK

Further research could assess the separate effects of these components.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916.

FUNDING DETAILS

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cessation support for smokers with mental health problems: a survey of resources and training needs

AIMS

Around thirty percent of smokers have a mental health problem. Smoking cessation has been associated with mental health benefits, but smoking prevalence remains high in populations with mental health problems. This study aimed to assess mental health related knowledge, practice, and training needs of practitioners supporting smoking cessation.

METHODS

UK stop smoking practitioners (n=717) recruited via a database of a national provider of smoking cessation training in June 2016 sufficiently completed an online survey about available resources, knowledge, confidence, and training needs related to smoking cessation and mental health. Responses were described and compared between practitioners with a mental health lead and those without such a lead in their service using chi-square statistics and t-tests.

RESULTS

A considerable proportion agreed (37%) or were undecided (28.9%) that smoking helped people with mental health problems feel better and agreed (17.2%) or were undecided (30.2%) that cessation would exacerbate mental health symptoms. Only 11.6% said their service had designated funding for smokers with mental health problems and 26.5% were or had a staff member who was a dedicated lead practitioner for mental health work. Practitioners from services that had a dedicated mental health lead were more confident in supporting smokers with different mental health problems and using different pharmacotherapies (all p<0.001) and were more likely to disagree that cessation was detrimental (p=0.001). A majority of practitioners were interested in training, particularly about smoking cessation effects on psychiatric medication (84.3% of n=632) and how to tailor stop smoking support to clients with mental health problems (82.4%).

CONCLUSION

Practitioners who support smoking cessation have limited knowledge about mental health and smoking but are willing to learn and improve. However, they are hindered by a lack of resources.

Proportion of Time Spent Delivering Support Predicts Stop Smoking Advisor Quit Rate Independently of Training, Experience, and Education

Despite a downwards trend in smoking prevalence, smoking remains the UK's biggest preventable cause of premature mortality. Specialist stop smoking support programmes provided by the NHS have helped to reduce smoking prevalence and whilst there has been a vast amount of research investigating the most effective behavioural and pharmacological support models, little is known about the impact of smoking cessation advisor's smoking status and clinical effectiveness on quit rates. This study aimed to identify factors that contribute to NHS stop smoking advisor performance using a quantitative cross-sectional design via an online survey that was completed by 159 participants in 24 London boroughs. Multiple regression analyses revealed that level of training, years practiced, level of advisor education, number of patients supported in a given year, and smoking status had no significant impact on NHS stop smoking advisor quit rate in this sample. However, the model revealed that proportion of time spent delivering smoking cessation support was significantly associated with quit rate. It is imperative that this finding is considered when recruiting, commissioning, and training new smoking cessation advisors or provider organisations.

Are Nurses and Auxiliary Healthcare Workers Equally Effective in Delivering Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care?

Introduction:

Smoking cessation support is increasingly delivered in primary care by auxiliary healthcare workers in place of healthcare professionals. However, it is unknown whether this shift might affect the quality and impact of the support delivered.

Methods:

Data from the iQuit in Practice randomized control trial of cessation support in General Practice was used (N = 602). Analyses assessed whether cessation advisor type (nurse or healthcare assistant [HCA]) was associated with abstinence (primary outcome: self-reported 2-week point prevalence abstinence at 8 weeks follow-up), the advice delivered during the initial consultation, pharmacotherapies prescribed, patient satisfaction, initial consultation length, and the number and type of interim contacts.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences in abstinence for support delivered by HCAs versus nurses at 8 weeks (HCAs 42.8%, nurses 42.6%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 1.40), or at 4 weeks or 6 months follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in advice delivered, the types of pharmacotherapies prescribed or patient satisfaction. Compared with nurses, HCA consultations were longer on average (HCAs 23.6 minutes, nurses 20.8 minutes; P = .002) and they undertook more interim contacts (HCAs median 2, nurses median 1; P < .001), with contact more likely to be face-to-face than phone call (HCAs 91.2%, nurses 70.9%; OR = 4.23, 95% CI = 2.86 to 6.26).

Conclusions:

HCAs appear equally effective as nurses in supporting smoking cessation, although they do this with greater patient contact. Using auxiliary practitioners to deliver cessation support could free up nurse time and reduce costs.

Implications:

This study found that primary care patients receiving smoking cessation support from auxiliary healthcare workers were just as likely to be abstinent up to 6 months later as those patients seen by nurses. While the auxiliary healthcare workers achieved this with slightly increased patient contact time, the advice delivered, pharmacotherapies provided and patient satisfaction were similar to that of nurses. Expanding the auxiliary healthcare worker role to include smoking cessation support could increase role satisfaction and reduce the costs of cessation support delivery in primary care.

Differences in Longer-Term Smoking Abstinence After Treatment by Specialist or Nonspecialist Advisors: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Relapse Prevention Trial

Introduction:

Smokers receiving support in specialist centers tend to have a higher short-term quit rate, compared with those receiving support in other settings from professionals for whom smoking cessation is only a part of their work. We investigated the difference in longer-term abstinence after short-term smoking cessation treatment from specialist and nonspecialist smoking cessation services.

Methods:

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of self-help booklets for the prevention of smoking relapse. The trial included 1088 short-term quitters from specialist stop smoking clinics and 316 from nonspecialist cessation services (such as general practice, pharmacies, and health trainer services). The difference in prolonged smoking abstinence from months 4 to 12 between specialist and nonspecialist services was compared. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the association between continuous smoking abstinence and the type of smoking cessation services, adjusted for possible confounding factors (including demographic, socioeconomic, and smoking history variables).

Results:

The proportion of continuous abstinence from 4 to 12 months was higher in short-term quitters from specialist services compared with those from nonspecialist services (39% vs. 32%; P = .023). After adjusting for a range of participant characteristics and smoking variables, the specialist service was significantly associated with a higher rate of longer-term smoking abstinence (odds ratio: 1.48, 95% CI = 1.09% to 2.00%; P = .011).

Conclusions:

People who receive support to stop smoking from a specialist appear to be at lower risk of relapse than those receiving support from a nonspecialist advisor.

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.

How stable are stop smoking practitioner success rates over time?

Stop smoking practitioners appear to differ in effectiveness, but the stability of their success rates over time is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of stability of success rates of stop smoking practitioners over several years of practice. Using routinely collected practice data, the success rates of 197 practitioners active between April 2009 and April 2012 in the English stop smoking services were correlated across years before and after adjusting for client and intervention characteristics. Changes in client and intervention characteristics were assessed. Success rates for individual practitioners correlated highly in successive years (r = 0.64 to 0.68, p < 0.001, ICC = 0.56) and moderately over non-successive years (r = 0.39 to 0.51, p < 0.001). There was no evidence for increasing effectiveness over time. Practitioners' effectiveness is moderately stable over time. Research is needed to establish what characterises the practice of the more successful practitioners.

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.

The importance of practitioner smoking status: a survey of NHS Stop Smoking Service practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the smoking status of stop smoking practitioners, the impact of this on their practice, and clients' quit rates.

METHODS

Smoking cessation practitioners in the UK NHS Stop Smoking Service were asked about their smoking status, client quit rates and practitioner-client interaction, using an online survey. Associations between responses were investigated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

51% of the sample (N=484) were ex-smokers. Most practitioners had been questioned about their smoking status by clients, with more never than ex-smokers claiming that this reduced their confidence when advising. Never smokers more frequently reported that clients questioned their ability as a practitioner, but no significant difference in quit rates was reported between never and ex-smokers.

CONCLUSION

Although evidence suggests smokers believe many practitioners are never smokers, this survey found that this is not true. Research investigating how many smokers might not be seeking support to quit because of this could be beneficial.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Raising awareness of the similarity of quit rates achieved by never and former smoker practitioners, and the experience practitioners draw upon when offering advice, might encourage greater use of the NHS SSS. It could also be beneficial to improve training in never smokers to address confidence issues.

Does it matter who you see to help you stop smoking? Short-term quit rates across specialist stop smoking practitioners in England

AIMS

A network of Stop Smoking Services has been set up within the National Health Service (NHS) in England. The services deliver a combination of behavioural support and medication. It is important to establish the degree of variability in quit rates attributable to differences between individual practitioners, to gauge the scope for improvement by training and professional support. The aim of the present analysis was to examine how far short-term quit rates depend on the practitioner delivering the intervention after adjusting for potential confounding variables.

DESIGN

Observational study using routinely collected data.

SETTING

Thirty-one NHS Stop Smoking Services in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from 46,237 one-to-one treatment episodes (supported quit attempts) delivered by specialist practitioners.

MEASUREMENTS

Three-level logistic regression models were fitted for carbon monoxide (CO)-validated short-term (4-week) quit rates. Models adjusted for age, gender, exemption from prescription charges, medication and intervention setting for each treatment episode, number of clients for each practitioner and economic deprivation at the level of the Stop Smoking Service. Secondary analyses included (i) the heaviness-of-smoking index (HSI) as predictor and (ii) 4-week quit rates whether or not confirmed by CO.

FINDINGS

Differences between individual specialist practitioners explained 7.6% of the variance in CO-verified quit rates after adjusting for client demographics, intervention characteristics and practitioner and service variables (P < 0.001). HSI had little impact on this figure; in quits not necessarily validated by CO, practitioners explained less variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual stop smoking practitioners appear to differ to a significant degree in effectiveness. It is important to examine what underlies these differences in order to improve selection, training and professional development.

Health impact of smoking and smoking cessation strategies: current evidence

Smoking continues to be the main preventable cause of death in the UK. Tobacco consumption causes a wide range of diseases and other adverse effects, including multiple types of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, pregnancy complications, cataracts and osteoporosis. The Government's vision to 'make every contact count' emphasises community nurses' responsibility and key potential to promote healthier living and behaviour. This article reviews the latest evidence on supporting smokers in practice and argues that nurses working in the community are ideally placed to record smoking status, give advice, encouragement and support, refer people to local smoking cessation services and offer pharmacological treatment.