Offering population-based tobacco treatment in a healthcare setting: a randomized controlled trial

Clinician Views of Proactive Tobacco Treatment Programs: A Qualitative Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Proactive tobacco treatment programs are an evidence-based strategy to recruit patients who smoke to make supported quit attempts. However, such programs are rarely implemented. We performed a qualitative assessment of clinicians to inform the creation of a proactive outreach program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who smoke.

METHODS

Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted semi-structured interviews to assess clinician views of proactive outreach, including barriers, program structure, and the use of technology. Clinicians included primary and specialty care physicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, a psychologist, and relevant members of leadership. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Clinicians in all roles identified that proactive outreach could be an effective use of resources to help patients with COPD who smoke quit with several advantages over the current state. Clinicians disagreed on the priority population (e.g., younger patients, sicker patients), and to some extent on whether proactive outreach is a clinical priority. Though they supported that technology could be part of the outreach program, most advocated for multiple avenues (phone calls, drop-in clinic, texting), as these patients were perceived to be low technology utilizers. The primary implementation barriers were competing priorities and cost, as well as unclear billing and staffing models.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians support proactive outreach for patients with COPD, but the optimal way to structure, staff, and fund such programs remains unclear. Health systems should leverage implementation strategies to speed uptake of these potentially life-saving programs.

Effect of Adding Personalized Instant Messaging Apps to a Brief Smoking Cessation Model in Community Smokers in Hong Kong: Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

While text messaging has proven effective for smoking cessation (SC), engagement in the intervention remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate whether using more interactive and adaptive instant messaging (IM) apps on smartphones, which enable personalization and chatting with SC advisors, can enhance SC outcomes beyond the provision of brief SC advice and active referral (AR) to SC services.

METHODS

From December 2018 to November 2019, we proactively recruited 700 adult Chinese daily cigarette users in Hong Kong. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. At baseline, all participants received face-to-face brief advice on SC. Additionally, they were introduced to local SC services and assisted in selecting one. The intervention group received an additional 26 personalized regular messages and access to interactive chatting through IM apps for 3 months. The regular messages aimed to enhance self-efficacy, social support, and behavioral capacity for quitting, as well as to clarify outcome expectations related to cessation. We developed 3 sets of messages tailored to the planned quit date (within 30 days, 60 days, and undecided). Participants in the intervention group could initiate chatting with SC advisors on IM themselves or through prompts from regular messages or proactive inquiries from SC advisors. The control group received 26 SMS text messages focusing on general health. The primary outcomes were smoking abstinence validated by carbon monoxide levels of <4 parts per million at 6 and 12 months after the start of the intervention.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 505/700 (72.1%) were male, and 450/648 (69.4%) were aged 40 or above. Planning to quit within 30 days was reported by 500/648 (77.2%) participants, with fewer intervention group members (124/332, 37.3%) reporting previous quit attempts compared with the control group (152/335, 45.4%; P=.04). At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups (with retention rates of 456/700, 65.1%, and 446/700, 63.7%, respectively), validated abstinence rates were comparable between the intervention (14/350, 4.0%, and 19/350, 5.4%) and control (11/350, 3.1% and 21/350, 6.0%) groups. Compared with the control group, the intervention group reported greater utilization of SC services at 12 months (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01-1.56). Within the intervention group, engaging in chat sessions with SC advisors predicted better validated abstinence at 6 months (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.13-9.63) and any use of SC services (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.43 at 6 months; RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.26-2.23 at 12 months).

CONCLUSIONS

An IM-based intervention, providing support and assistance alongside brief SC advice and AR, did not yield further increases in quitting rates but did encourage the utilization of SC services. Future research could explore whether enhanced SC service utilization leads to improved long-term SC outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800719; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800719.

MiQuit: A Study Protocol to Link Low-Income Smokers to a State Tobacco Quitline

Purpose

To conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare 3 implementation strategies and the impact of facilitated referrals on linkage of Federally Qualified Health Center patients to the Illinois Tobacco Quitline (ITQL).

Methods

This study will be a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial guided by 2 implementation science frameworks: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance and exploration preparation implementation sustainment. We will evaluate whether sending provider messages through the patient electronic health portal increases patient linkage to the ITQL. We will (1) randomly assign all eligible patients to receive 1 of 3 messages (information about quitting, advice to quit, and advice to quit or cut down), and (2) we will offer a facilitated linkage to the ITQL. For patients who opt into a facilitated referral, we will share their contact information with the ITQL, who will contact them. Four weeks after the initial message, patients who expressed interest in services but were not reached by the ITQL will be rerandomized to 1 of 2 arms, an offer to reconnect to the ITQL or an offer to engage a peer navigator who can help them reconnect to the ITQL. We will assess the implementation strategies' reach, adoption, linkage, and sustainability with the ITQL.

Discussion

This study will provide a new cost-effective and efficient model to link low-income smokers to state tobacco quitlines. Message delivery via patient health portals has important implications for addressing other tobacco-related morbidities.

A Proactive Outreach Strategy Using a Local Area Code to Refer Unassisted Smokers in a Safety Net Health System to a Quitline: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Proactive outreach offering tobacco treatment is a promising strategy outside of clinical settings, but little is known about factors for engagement. The study objective is to examine the impact of caller area code in a proactive, phone-based outreach strategy on consenting low-income smokers to a quitline e-referral.

AIMS AND METHODS

This pragmatic randomized trial included unassisted adult smokers (n = 685), whose preferred language was English or Spanish, in a Los Angeles safety-net health system. Patients were randomized to receive a call from a local or generic toll-free area code. Log-binomial regression was used to examine the association between area code and consent to a quitline e-referral, adjusted for age, gender, language, and year.

RESULTS

Overall, 52.1% of the patients were contacted and, among those contacted, 30% consented to a referral. The contact rate was higher for the local versus generic area code, although not statistically significant (55.6% vs. 48.7%, p = .07). The consent rate was higher in the local versus generic area code group (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.65) and also higher for patients under 61 years old than over (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.07-2.01), and Spanish-speaking than English-speaking patients (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.05-1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive phone-based outreach to unassisted smokers in a safety net health system increased consent to a quitline referral when local (vs. generic) area codes were used to contact patients. While contact rate did not differ by area code, proactive phone-based outreach was effective for engaging younger and Spanish-speaking smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

Population-based proactive phone-based outreach from a caller with a local area code to unassisted smokers in a safety net health system increases consent to an e-referral for quitline services. Findings suggest that a proactive phone-based outreach, a population-based strategy, is an effective strategy to build on the visit-based model and offer services to tobacco users, regardless of the motivational levels to quit.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening settings. We conducted an economic analysis embedded in a national randomized trial of 2 telephone counseling cessation interventions.

METHODS

We used a societal perspective to compare the short-term cost per 6-month bio-verified quit and long-term cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Trial data were used to micro-cost intervention delivery, and the data were extended to a lifetime horizon using an established Cancer Intervention Surveillance and Modeling Network lung cancer model. We modeled the impact of screening accompanied by 8 weeks vs 3 weeks of telephone counseling (plus nicotine replacement) vs screening alone based on 2021 screening eligibility. Lifetime downstream costs (2021 dollars) and effects (life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) saved were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying quit rates and costs; all analyses assumed nonrelapse after quitting.

RESULTS

The costs for delivery of the 8-week vs 3-week protocol were $380.23 vs $144.93 per person, and quit rates were 7.14% vs 5.96%, respectively. The least costly strategy was a 3-week counseling approach. An 8-week (vs 3-week) counseling approach increased costs but gained QALYs for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4029 per QALY. Screening alone cost more and saved fewer QALYs than either counseling strategy. Conclusions were robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone-based cessation interventions with nicotine replacement are considered cost-effective in the lung screening setting. Integrating smoking cessation interventions with lung screening programs has the potential to maximize long-term health benefits at reasonable costs.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.

EXPOSURES

Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).

RESULTS

The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

Concordance Between Electronic Health Record and Tumor Registry Documentation of Smoking Status Among Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer who use tobacco experience reduced treatment effectiveness, increased risk of recurrence and mortality, and diminished quality of life. Accurate tobacco use documentation for patients with cancer is necessary for appropriate clinical decision making and cancer outcomes research. Our aim was to assess agreement between electronic health record (EHR) smoking status data and cancer registry data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all patients with cancer seen at University of Florida Health from 2015 to 2018. Structured EHR smoking status was compared with the tumor registry smoking status for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and Kappa statistics were calculated. We used logistic regression to determine if patient characteristics were associated with odds of agreement in smoking status between EHR and registry data.

RESULTS

We analyzed 11,110 patient records. EHR smoking status was documented for nearly all (98%) patients. Overall kappa (0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79) indicated moderate agreement between the registry and EHR. The sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.84), and the specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.97). The logistic regression results indicated that agreement was more likely among patients who were older and female and if the EHR documentation occurred closer to the date of cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Although documentation of smoking status for patients with cancer is standard practice, we only found moderate agreement between EHR and tumor registry data. Interventions and research using EHR data should prioritize ensuring the validity of smoking status data. Multilevel strategies are needed to achieve consistent and accurate documentation of smoking status in cancer care.

Cost evaluation of tobacco control interventions in clinical settings: A systematic review

Elucidating the cost implications of tobacco control interventions is a prerequisite to their adoption in clinical settings. This review fills a knowledge gap in characterizing the extent to which cost is measured in tobacco control studies. A search of English literature was conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EconLit, PsychINFO, and CINAHL using MeSH terms from 2009 to 2018. Studies were reviewed by two independent reviewers and included if they were conducted in U.S. inpatient or outpatient facilities and reported costs associated with a tobacco control intervention. They were categorized according to evaluation type, clinical setting, target population, cost measures, and stakeholder perspective. Bias risk was evaluated for RCTs. Seventeen publications were included, representing counseling interventions (n = 8) and combination (i.e., counseling and pharmacotherapy) interventions (n = 9). Studies were categorized by evaluation type: cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 10), cost utility analysis (n = 3) and cost identification (n = 4). The selected studies targeted the following populations: general adults (n = 6), hospitalized/inpatient (n = 4), military/veterans (n = 4), individuals with low socioeconomic status (n = 4), mental health or medical comorbidities (n = 2), and pregnant women (n = 2). Intervention costs included personnel, medication, education material, technology, and overhead costs. Stakeholder perspectives included: healthcare organization (n = 10), payer (n = 8), patient (n = 2), and societal (n = 1). Few studies have reported the cost of tobacco control interventions in clinical settings. Cost is a critical outcome that should be consistently measured in evaluations of tobacco control interventions to promote their uptake in clinical settings.

Evaluation of an integrated treatment to address smoking cessation and anxiety/depressive symptoms among people living with HIV: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Interventions that target anxiety/depressive symptoms in the context of smoking treatment have shown promise irrespective of psychiatric diagnosis. Yet, these tailored treatments are largely absent for persons who smoke and are living with HIV (SLWH).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a novel, smoking cessation intervention that addresses anxiety/depression and HIV-related health (QUIT) against a time-matched control (TMC) and a standard of care (SOC) condition.

METHODS

SLWH (N = 180) will be recruited and enrolled from 3 medical clinics in Boston, MA, and Houston, TX. The trial will consist of a baseline assessment, a 10-week intervention/assessment period, and follow-up assessments, accounting for a total study duration of approximately 8 months. All participants will complete a baseline visit and a pre-randomization standardized psychoeducation visit, and will then be randomized to one of three conditions: QUIT, TMC, or SOC. QUIT and TMC will consist of nine 60-min, cognitive behavioral therapy-based, individual weekly counseling sessions using standard smoking cessation counseling; additionally, QUIT will target anxiety and depressive symptoms by addressing underlying mechanisms related to mood and quit difficulty. SOC participants will complete weekly self-report surveys for nine weeks. All participants will be encouraged to quit at Session 7 and will be offered nicotine replacement therapy to help.

CONCLUSIONS

QUIT is designed to improve smoking cessation in SLWH by addressing anxiety and depression and HIV-related health issues. If successful, the QUIT intervention would be ready for implementation and dissemination into "real-world" behavioral health and social service settings consistent with the four objectives outlined in NIDA's Strategic Plan.

Cost-effectiveness of a Smoking Cessation Intervention for Parents in Pediatric Primary Care

IMPORTANCE

Parental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020.

EXPOSURES

The trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

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.

Proactive outreach tobacco treatment for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers with serious mental illness

Smokers with serious mental illness (SMI) face individual, interpersonal, and healthcare provider barriers to cessation treatment utilization and smoking abstinence. Proactive outreach strategies are designed to address these barriers by promoting heightened contact with smokers and facilitating access to evidence-based treatments. The present study examined the effect of proactive outreach among smokers with SMI (n = 939) who were enrolled in the publicly subsidized Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) and compared this effect to that observed among MHCP smokers without SMI (n = 1382). Relative to usual care, the intervention increased treatment utilization among those with SMI (52.1% vs 40.0%, p = 0.002) and without SMI (39.3% vs 25.4%, p < 0.001). The intervention also increased prolonged smoking abstinence among those with SMI (14.9% vs 9.4%, p = 0.010) and without SMI (17.7% vs 13.6%, p = 0.09). Findings suggest that implementation of proactive outreach within publicly subsidized healthcare systems may alleviate the burden of smoking in this vulnerable population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01123967.

Cost-effectiveness of population-level proactive tobacco cessation outreach among socio-economically disadvantaged smokers: evaluation of a randomized control trial

AIMS

To estimate the cost-effectiveness at population-level of the OPT-IN proactive tobacco cessation outreach program for adult smokers enrolled in publicly funded health insurance plans for low-income persons (e.g. Medicaid).

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a state transition model based on data from the Offering Proactive Treatment Intervention (OPT-IN) randomized control trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted in Minnesota, USA, and the economic analysis was conducted from the Medicaid program perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were used from 2406 smokers who were randomized into the intervention or comparator groups.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

The intervention was comprised of proactive outreach (mailed invitation and telephone calls) and free cessation treatment (nicotine replacement therapy and intensive telephone counseling). The comparator was usual care, which comprised access to a primary care physician, insurance coverage of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved smoking cessation medications and the state's telephone quitline.

MEASUREMENTS

Smoking status, quality of life and health-care use at varying times, including at baseline and 1 year.

FINDINGS

The OPT-IN program cost an average of $84 per participant greater than the comparator. One year after randomization, the population-level, 6-month prolonged smoking abstinence rate was 16.5% in the proactive outreach intervention group and 12.1% in the usual care group (P < 0.05). The model projected that the proactive outreach intervention added $78 in life-time cost and generated 0.005 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4231 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that the proactive outreach intervention would be cost-effective against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY approximately 68% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-level proactive tobacco treatment with personal telephone outreach was effective in achieving higher population-level quit rates and was cost-effective at various willingness-to-pay thresholds, compared with usual care (i.e. reactive treatment). Taken together with prior research, population-level proactive tobacco cessation outreach programs are judged to be highly cost-effective over the long term.

Proactive Population Health Strategy to Offer Tobacco Dependence Treatment to Smokers in a Primary Care Practice Network

BACKGROUND

Population-based strategies can expand the reach of tobacco cessation treatment beyond clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of two population-based tobacco cessation strategies, compared with usual care, on providing tobacco treatment outside of clinical encounters.

DESIGN

3-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Current smokers ≥ 18 years old with a primary care provider at one of five community health centers in Massachusetts were identified via the electronic health record (n = 5225) and recruited using automated phone calls.

INTERVENTIONS

One intervention group involved engagement with a health system-based tobacco coach (internal care coordination), and the other connected patients to a national quitline (external community referral).

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of smokers with documentation of any evidence-based cessation treatment in the 6 months after enrollment.

KEY RESULTS

Of 639 individuals who responded to the proactive treatment offer, 233 consented and were randomized 1:1:1 to study arm. At 6-month follow-up, the pooled intervention group, compared with usual care, had higher documentation of any smoking cessation treatment (63% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), cessation medication prescription (52% vs. 30%, p = 0.002), and counseling (47% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Internal care coordination was more effective than external community referral at connecting smokers to any cessation treatment (76% vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and at providing cessation medication (66% vs. 39%, p < 0.001), but comparable at linking smokers to cessation counseling resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers responding to a population-based, proactive outreach strategy had better provision of tobacco cessation treatment when referred to either a health system-based or community-based program compared with usual care. The health system-based strategy outperformed the quitline-based one in several measures. Future work should aim to improve population reach and test the effect on smoking cessation rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03612895.

Recent cessation attempts and receipt of cessation services among a diverse primary care population - A mixed methods study

Smoking rates are high among low-income populations who seek care in safety-net clinics. While most safety-net clinics screen for cigarette smoking, there are substantial disparities in the delivery of smoking cessation counseling in these systems. We conducted a mixed method study between July 2016 and April 2017 to examine receipt of smoking cessation counseling and estimate recent cessation attempts among primary care patients in four safety-net clinics in San Francisco. We used the electronic health record (EHR) to examine receipt of cessation services and estimate cessation attempts, defined as transition from current to former smoking status during the 9-month study period. We conducted interviews with 10 staff and 16 patients to assess barriers to and facilitators of providing cessation services. Of the 3301 smokers identified via EHR, the majority (95.6%) received some type of cessation counseling during at least one clinical encounter, and 17.6% made a recent cessation attempt. Recent smoking cessation attempts and receipt of smoking cessation services differed significantly by clinic after adjusting for demographic factors. We identified patient and staff-level pre-disposing, reinforcing and enabling factors to increase delivery of cessation care, including increasing access to cessation medications and higher intensity counseling using a team-based approach. The EHR presents a useful tool to monitor patients' recent cessation attempts and access to cessation care. Combining EHR data with qualitative methods can help guide and streamline interventions to improve quality of cessation care and promote quit attempts among patients in safety-net settings.

•

Smoking rates are high among low-income populations who seek care in safety-net clinics.

•

The electronic health record (EHR) can be used to estimate recent cessation attempts among patients.

•

EHR data and qualitative methods are useful to evaluate tobacco quality improvement initiatives.

•

We highlighted strategies to increase access to cessation medications and team-based counseling.

Effects of motivation phase intervention components on quit attempts in smokers unwilling to quit: A factorial experiment

BACKGROUND

Smoking reduction treatment is a promising approach to increase abstinence amongst smokers initially unwilling to quit. However, little is known about which reduction treatment elements increase quit attempts and the uptake of cessation treatment amongst such smokers.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of a 4-factor randomized factorial experiment conducted amongst primary care patients (N = 517) presenting for regular healthcare visits in Southern Wisconsin who were unwilling to quit smoking but willing to cut down. We evaluated the main and interactive effects of Motivation-phase intervention components on whether participants: 1) made a quit attempt (intentional abstinence ≥24 h) by 6- and 26-weeks post-study enrollment and, 2) used cessation treatment. We also evaluated the relations of quit attempts with abstinence. The four intervention components evaluated were: 1) Nicotine Patch vs. None; 2) Nicotine Gum vs. None; 3) Motivational Interviewing (MI) vs. None; and 4) Behavioral Reduction Counseling (BR) vs. None. Intervention components were administered over 6 weeks, with an option to repeat treatment; participants could request cessation treatment at any point.

RESULTS

Nicotine gum significantly increased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 6 weeks (23% vs. 15% without gum; p < .05). Conversely, nicotine patch reduced quit attempts when used with BR. Patch also discouraged use of cessation treatment (15.8% vs. 23% without patch; p < .05). Aided vs. unaided quit attempts produced abstinence in 42% vs. 10% of participants, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Nicotine gum is a promising Motivation-phase intervention that may spur quit attempts amongst smokers initially unwilling to quit.

Proactive text messaging (GetReady2Quit) and nicotine replacement therapy to promote smoking cessation among smokers in primary care: A pilot randomized trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Most smokers see a physician each year, but few use any assistance when they try to quit. Text messaging programs improve smoking cessation in community and school settings; however, their efficacy in a primary care setting is unclear. The current trial assesses the feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of text messaging and mailed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) among smokers in primary care.

METHODS

In this single-center pilot randomized trial, eligible smokers in primary care are offered brief advice by phone and randomly assigned to one of four interventions: (1) Brief advice only, (2) text messages targeted to primary care patients and tailored to quit readiness, (3) a 2-week supply of nicotine patches and/or lozenges (NRT), and (4) both text messaging and NRT. Randomization is stratified by practice and intention to quit. The text messages (up to 5/day) encourage those not ready to quit to practice a quit attempt, assist those with a quit date through a quit attempt, and promote NRT use. The 2-week supply of NRT is mailed to patients' homes.

RESULTS

Feasibility outcomes include recruitment rates, study retention, and treatment adherence. Clinical outcomes are assessed at 1, 2, 6, and 12-weeks post-enrollment. The primary outcome is ≥1self-reported quit attempt(s). Secondary clinical outcomes include self-reported past 7- and 30-day abstinence, days not smoked, NRT adherence, and exhaled carbon monoxide.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot assesses text messaging plus NRT, as a proactively offered intervention for smoking cessation support in smokers receiving primary care and will inform full-scale randomized trial planning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT03174158.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Health System-Based Smoking Cessation Program

Introduction

Project CLIQ (Community Link to Quit) was a proactive population-outreach strategy using an electronic health records-based smoker registry and interactive voice recognition technology to connect low- to moderate-income smokers with cessation counseling, medications, and social services. A randomized trial demonstrated that the program increased cessation. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CLIQ from a provider organization's perspective if implemented outside the trial framework.

Methods

We calculated the cost, cost per smoker, incremental cost per additional quit, and, secondarily, incremental cost per additional life year saved of the CLIQ system compared to usual care using data from a 2011-2013 randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of the CLIQ system. Sensitivity analyses considered economies of scale and initial versus ongoing costs.

Results

Over a 20-month period (the duration of the trial) the program cost US $283 027 (95% confidence interval [CI] $209 824-$389 072) more than usual care in a population of 8544 registry-identified smokers, 707 of whom participated in the program. The cost per smoker was $33 (95% CI 28-40), incremental cost per additional quit was $4137 (95% CI $2671-$8460), and incremental cost per additional life year saved was $7301 (95% CI $4545-$15 400). One-time costs constituted 28% of costs over 20 months. Ongoing costs were dominated by personnel costs (71% of ongoing costs). Sensitivity analyses showed sharp gains in cost-effectiveness as the number of identified smokers increased because of the large initial costs.

Conclusions

The CLIQ system has favorable cost-effectiveness compared to other smoking cessation interventions. Cost-effectiveness will be greatest for health systems with high numbers of smokers and with the high smoker participation rates.

Implications

Health information systems capable of establishing registries of patients who are smokers are becoming more prevalent. This economic analysis illustrates the cost implications for health care systems adopting a proactive tobacco treatment outreach strategy for low- and middle-income smokers. We find that under many circumstances, the CLIQ system has a favorable cost-per-quit compared to other population-based tobacco treatment strategies. The strategy could be widely disseminable if health systems leverage economies of scale.

Feasibility of a proactive text messaging intervention for smokers in community health centers

Background

Few smokers receive evidence-based cessation services during primary care visits.

Objective

We aimed to assess the feasibility of a proactive text messaging program for primary care patients who smoke.

Methods

We used electronic health records to identify smokers who had a mobile phone number listed from two community health centers in Massachusetts. Between March 2014 and June 2015, patients were screened by their primary care physician and then sent a proactive text message inviting them to enroll by texting back. Patients who opted in were asked about their readiness to quit. The text message program included messages from the QuitNowTXT library and novel content for smokers who were not ready to quit.

Results

Among 949 eligible smokers, 88 (9.3%) enrolled after receiving a single proactive text message. Compared with those who did not enroll, enrollees were more often female (54/88, 61% vs 413/861, 48.0%, P=.02), but otherwise did not differ in age, race, insurance status, or comorbidities. In all, 28% (19/67) of enrollees reported they were not ready to quit in the next 30 days, 61% (41/67) were ready to quit, and 11% (7/67) already quit. The median time in the program was 9 days (interquartile range 2-32 days). Of current smokers, 25% (15/60) sent one or more keyword requests to the server. These did not differ by readiness to quit.

Conclusions

A proactively delivered text messaging program targeting primary care patients who smoke was feasible and engaged both smokers ready to quit and those not ready to quit. This method shows promise as part of a population health model for addressing tobacco use outside of the primary care office.

Intervention With Brief Cessation Advice Plus Active Referral for Proactively Recruited Community Smokers: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Most smoking cessation (SC) clinics are costly, passive, and underused.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the SC effect of a combined intervention involving brief, model-guided SC advice plus active referral to SC services (active referral group) with those of brief, model-guided SC advice only (brief advice group) and general SC advice only (control group).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-blind, 3-arm, pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted including 1226 adult daily smokers in the general Hong Kong community proactively recruited to participate in the Quit-to-Win Contest held in 2015. The study was conducted from June 20 to September 24, 2015. Participants were randomly allocated to the active referral (n = 402), brief advice (n = 416), and control (n = 408) groups. Intention-to-treat analysis was used.

INTERVENTIONS

Brief telephone counseling was offered to the active referral and brief advice groups at 1 and 2 months. Interventions were delivered by SC ambassadors who had undergone a short training period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the self-reported past 7-day point prevalence of abstinence (PPA) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide level-validated abstinence, smoking reduction, and SC service use.

RESULTS

Participants included 991 (80.8%) men; mean (SD) age was 42.0 (14.8) years. The response rate was 68.2% at 3 and 72.3% at 6 months. The corresponding PPAs were 18.9% and 17.2% in the active referral group-higher than in the brief advice (8.9% and 9.4%; both P ≤ .001) or control (14.0% and 11.5%; P = .03 at 6 months) groups. Compared with the other 2 groups, the active referral group had significantly higher validated abstinence rates (10.2% at 3 months and 9.0% at 6 months, all P < .05) with odds ratios of 2.84 (95% CI, 1.57-5.15) and 2.61 (95% CI, 1.46-4.68) at 3 months, and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.06-3.23) and 1.81 (95% CI, 1.04-3.16) at 6 months in the brief advice and control groups, respectively. The SC service use rate was significantly higher in the active referral group (25.1%) than in either brief advice (2.4%) or control (3.4%) groups at 6 months (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

An intervention involving brief advice and active referral delivered to smokers in the community by volunteers can increase quitting in places where SC services are available but underused.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02539875.

Proactive tobacco treatment offering free nicotine replacement therapy and telephone counselling for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers: a randomised clinical trial

Background

Evidenced-based tobacco cessation treatments are underused, especially by socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. This contributes to widening socioeconomic disparities in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.

Methods

The Offering Proactive Treatment Intervention trial tested the effects of a proactive outreach tobacco treatment intervention on population-level smoking abstinence and tobacco treatment use among a population-based sample of socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. Current smokers (n=2406), regardless of interest in quitting, who were enrolled in the Minnesota Health Care Programs, the state's publicly funded healthcare programmes for low-income populations, were randomly assigned to proactive outreach or usual care. The intervention comprised proactive outreach (tailored mailings and telephone calls) and free cessation treatment (nicotine replacement therapy and intensive, telephone counselling). Usual care comprised access to a primary care physician, insurance coverage of Food and Drug Administration-approved smoking cessation medications, and the state's telephone quitline. The primary outcome was self-reported 6-month prolonged smoking abstinence at 1 year and was assessed by follow-up survey.

Findings

The proactive intervention group had a higher prolonged abstinence rate at 1 year than usual care (16.5% vs 12.1%, OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.93). The effect of the proactive intervention on prolonged abstinence persisted in selection models accounting for non-response. In analysis of secondary outcomes, use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments were significantly greater among proactive outreach participants compared with usual care, particularly combination counselling and medications (17.4% vs 3.6%, OR 5.69, 95% CI 3.85 to 8.40).

Interpretation

Population-based proactive tobacco treatment increases engagement in evidence-based treatment and is effective in long-term smoking cessation among socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. Findings suggest that dissemination of population-based proactive treatment approaches is an effective strategy to reduce the prevalence of smoking and socioeconomic disparities in tobacco use.

Trial registration number

NCT01123967.

Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2008. Smoking increases the risk of developing atherosclerosis but also acute thrombotic events. Quitting smoking is potentially the most effective secondary prevention measure and improves prognosis after a cardiac event, but more than half of the patients continue to smoke, and improved cessation aids are urgently required.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease in short-term (6 to 12 month follow-up) and long-term (more than 12 months). Moderators of treatment effects (i.e. intervention types, treatment dose, methodological criteria) were used for stratification.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX were searched from the start of the database to January 2013. This is an update of the initial search in 2003. Results were supplemented by cross-checking references, and handsearches in selected journals and systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CHD with a minimum follow-up of 6 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Abstinence rates were computed according to an intention to treat analysis if possible, or if not according to completer analysis results only. Subgroups of specific intervention strategies were analysed separately. The impact of study quality on efficacy was studied in a moderator analysis. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 40 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria in total (21 trials were new in this update, 5 new trials contributed to long-term results (more than 12 months)). Interventions consist of behavioural therapeutic approaches, telephone support and self-help material and were either focused on smoking cessation alone or addressed several risk factors (eg. obesity, inactivity and smoking). The trials mostly included older male patients with CHD, predominantly myocardial infarction (MI). After an initial selection of studies three trials with implausible large effects of RR > 5 which contributed to substantial heterogeneity were excluded. Overall there was a positive effect of interventions on abstinence after 6 to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.32, I² 54%; abstinence rate treatment group = 46%, abstinence rate control group 37.4%), but heterogeneity between trials was substantial. Studies with validated assessment of smoking status at follow-up had similar efficacy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39) to non-validated trials (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Studies were stratified by intervention strategy and intensity of the intervention. Clustering reduced heterogeneity, although many trials used more than one type of intervention. The RRs for different strategies were similar (behavioural therapies RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.34, I² 40%; telephone support RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30, I² 44%; self-help RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33, I² 40%). More intense interventions (any initial contact plus follow-up over one month) showed increased quit rates (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.40, I² 58%) whereas brief interventions (either one single initial contact lasting less than an hour with no follow-up, one or more contacts in total over an hour with no follow-up or any initial contact plus follow-up of less than one months) did not appear effective (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12, I² 0%). Seven trials had long-term follow-up (over 12 months), and did not show any benefits. Adverse side effects were not reported in any trial. These findings are based on studies with rather low risk of selection bias but high risk of detection bias (namely unblinded or non validated assessment of smoking status).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial smoking cessation interventions are effective in promoting abstinence up to 1 year, provided they are of sufficient duration. After one year, the studies showed favourable effects of smoking cessation intervention, but more studies including cost-effectiveness analyses are needed. Further studies should also analyse the additional benefit of a psychosocial intervention strategy to pharmacological therapy (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy) compared with pharmacological treatment alone and investigate economic outcomes.

Clinicians' panel management self-efficacy to support their patients' smoking cessation and hypertension control needs

Panel management, a set of tools and processes for proactively caring for patient populations, has potential to reduce morbidity and improve outcomes between office visits. We examined primary care staff's self-efficacy in implementing panel management, its correlates, and an intervention's impact on this self-efficacy. Primary care teams at two Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals were assigned to control or intervention conditions. Staff were surveyed at baseline and post-intervention, with a random subset interviewed post-intervention. Panel management self-efficacy was higher among staff participating in the panel management intervention. Self-efficacy was significantly correlated with sufficient training, aspects of team member interaction, and frequency of panel management use. Panel management self-efficacy was modest among primary care staff at two VA hospitals. Team level interventions may improve primary care staff's confidence in practicing panel management, with this greater confidence related to greater team involvement with, and use of panel management.

Proactive tobacco cessation outreach to smokers of low socioeconomic status: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

Widening socioeconomic disparities in mortality in the United States are largely explained by slower declines in tobacco use among smokers of low socioeconomic status (SES) than among those of higher SES, which points to the need for targeted tobacco cessation interventions. Documentation of smoking status in electronic health records (EHRs) provides the tools for health systems to proactively offer tobacco treatment to socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a proactive tobacco cessation strategy that addresses sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use for low-SES smokers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, randomized clinical trial included low-SES adult smokers who described their race and/or ethnicity as black, Hispanic, or white and received primary care at 1 of 13 practices in the greater Boston area (intervention group, n = 399; control group, n = 308).

INTERVENTIONS

We analyzed EHRs to identify potentially eligible participants and then used interactive voice response (IVR) techniques to reach out to them. Consenting patients were randomized to either receive usual care from their own health care team or enter an intervention program that included (1) telephone-based motivational counseling, (2) free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 6 weeks, (3) access to community-based referrals to address sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use, and (4) integration of all these components into their normal health care through the EHR system.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported past-7-day tobacco abstinence 9 months after randomization ("quitting"), assessed by automated caller or blinded study staff.

RESULTS

The intervention group had a higher quit rate than the usual care group (17.8% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0; number needed to treat, 10). We examined whether use of intervention components was associated with quitting among individuals in the intervention group: individuals who participated in the telephone counseling were more likely to quit than those who did not (21.2% vs 10.4%; P < .001). There was no difference in quitting by use of NRT. Quitting did not differ by a request for a community referral, but individuals who used their referral were more likely to quit than those who did not (43.6% vs 15.3%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Proactive, IVR-facilitated outreach enables engagement with low-SES smokers. Providing counseling, NRT, and access to community-based resources to address sociocontextual mediators among smokers reached in this setting is effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01156610.

Technology-based support via telephone or web: a systematic review of the effects on smoking, alcohol use and gambling

A systematic review of the literature on telephone or internet-based support for smoking, alcohol use or gambling was performed. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: The design being a randomized control trail (RCT), focused on effects of telephone or web based interventions, focused on pure telephone or internet-based self-help, provided information on alcohol or tobacco consumption, or gambling behavior, as an outcome, had a follow-up period of at least 3months, and included adults. Seventy-four relevant studies were found; 36 addressed the effect of internet interventions on alcohol consumption, 21 on smoking and 1 on gambling, 12 the effect of helplines on smoking, 2 on alcohol consumption, and 2 on gambling. Telephone helplines can have an effect on tobacco smoking, but there is no evidence of the effects for alcohol use or gambling. There are some positive findings regarding internet-based support for heavy alcohol use among U.S. college students. However, evidence on the effects of internet-based support for smoking, alcohol use or gambling are to a large extent inconsistent.

"Tobacco dependence treatment makes no sense because"…: rebuttal of commonly-heard arguments against providing tobacco dependence treatment in the hospital setting

BACKGROUND

The provision of tobacco dependence treatment in health care settings, particularly in countries lacking a history of strong tobacco control policy implementation, is limited by continued misconceptions on the part of health professionals and decision-makers regarding its worth and efficacy. In this paper, we rebut 9 arguments against the provision of tobacco dependence treatment that we have encountered in our experiences implementing and maintaining a dedicated smoking cessation service at a large university hospital in southern Germany.

DISCUSSION

Broadly, the arguments relate to the nature of addiction, the efficacy and safety of stop-smoking medication and behavioural support, and the benefits and challenges of quitting. They include: (a) If smokers really want to quit, they will be able to do it alone (without help); (b) You can't forbid patients from doing what they want; (c) Patients will be upset if you talk to them about their smoking; (d) Stop-smoking medication has side effects that are more dangerous than smoking; (e) You have to be well trained to help smokers to quit (otherwise you can do more harm than good); (f) If you smoke yourself, you lack credibility; (g) If you have cancer, it is too late to quit; (h) Nicotine withdrawal is dangerous for heavy smokers; and (i) Smokers die earlier, thus reducing costs to the health system.

SUMMARY

It is hoped that the counter-arguments presented here arm tobacco control advocates and practitioners working in health care settings, particularly in countries which have not prioritised tobacco control, to respond appropriately and convincingly to those opposed to the provision of tobacco dependence treatment.

Are primary care physicians prepared to assist patients for smoking cessation? Results of a national Italian cross-sectional web survey

OBJECTIVE

The primary purpose of this study is to explore primary care physicians' (PCPs') knowledge, attitudes and self-reported activities provided to patients for smoking cessation. The secondary purpose is to identify the relationships between physician-related characteristics and knowledge, attitudes and self-reported activities for smoking cessation.

METHOD

A national cross-sectional web survey was conducted in Italy from April through September 2012.

RESULTS

722 PCPs completed the questionnaire. The great majority indicated the correct proportion of smokers among patients with lung cancer, the smoking abstention required for risk reduction after smoking cessation, and tobacco as a known major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), whereas 28.7% knew the Fagerstrom test for the assessment of nicotine dependence. Almost all PCPs reported that they ask all patients if they smoke, inform about the dangers of smoking and recommend to quit smoking, whereas prescription of recommended drugs for smoking cessation varied from 37.7% for nicotine replacement therapy to 4.9% for varenicline.

CONCLUSION

Despite a positive attitude, Italian PCPs are not prepared to deliver effective interventions for smoking cessation in their patients.

Recruiting and engaging smokers in treatment in a primary care setting: developing a chronic care model implemented through a modified electronic health record

Almost 35 million U.S. smokers visit primary care clinics annually, creating a need and opportunity to identify such smokers and engage them in evidence-based smoking treatment. The purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of a chronic care model of treating tobacco dependence when it is integrated into primary care systems using electronic health records (EHRs). The EHR prompted primary care clinic staff to invite patients who smoked to participate in a tobacco treatment program. Patients who accepted and were eligible were offered smoking reduction or cessation treatment. More than 65 % of smokers were invited to participate, and 12.4 % of all smokers enrolled in treatment-30 % in smoking reduction and 70 % in cessation treatment. The chronic care model developed for treating tobacco dependence, integrated into the primary care system through the EHR, has the potential to engage up to 4.3 million smokers in treatment a year.

Cigarette quitlines, taxes, and other tobacco control policies: a state-level analysis

This paper estimates monthly quitline calls using panel data at the state level from January 2005 to June 2010. Calls to state quitline numbers (or 1-800-QUITNOW) were measured per million adult smokers in each state. The policies considered include excise taxes, workplace and public smoking bans, and a Peter Jennings television-based program warning of the health risks of smoking. We found that people anticipating increases in prices begin attempting to quit by calling quitlines. Finally, the Peter Jennings media campaign was highly correlated with quitline calls.

Office-based randomized controlled trial to reduce screen time in preschool children

OBJECTIVE

To determine if an intervention for preschool-aged children in primary care is effective in reducing screen time, meals in front of the television, and BMI.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a primary care pediatric group practice in Toronto, Canada. Three-year-old children and their parents were randomly assigned to receive a short behavioral counseling intervention on strategies to decrease screen time. The primary outcome 1 year later was parent reported screen time. Secondary outcomes included television in the child's bedroom, number of meals in front of the television, and BMI.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis at 1 year, there were no significant differences in mean total weekday minutes of screen time (60, interquartile range [IQR]: 35-120 vs 65, IQR: 35-120; P = .68) or mean total weekend day minutes of screen time (80, IQR: 45-130 vs 90, IQR: 60-120; P = .33) between the intervention and control group. Adjusting for baseline BMI, there was a reduction in the number of weekday meals in front of the television (1.6 ± 1.0 vs 1.9 ± 1.2; P = .03) but no differences in BMI or number of televisions in the bedroom.

CONCLUSIONS

This pragmatic trial was not effective in reducing screen time or BMI but was effective in reducing meals in front of the screen. Short interventions focused solely on reducing screen time implemented in the primary care practice setting may not be effective in this age group.

Strategies to help a smoker who is struggling to quit

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide. Stopping tobacco use benefits virtually every smoker. Most of the 19% of US residents who smoke want to quit and have tried to do so. Most individual quit attempts fail, but two-thirds of smokers use no treatment when trying to quit. Treating tobacco dependence is one of the most cost-effective actions in health care. With a brief intervention, physicians can prompt smokers to attempt to quit and connect them to evidence-based treatment that includes pharmacotherapy and behavioral support (ie, counseling). Physicians can link smokers to effective counseling support offered by a free national network of telephone quit lines. Smokers who use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, or varenicline when trying to quit double their odds of success. The most effective way to use NRT is to combine the long-acting nicotine patch with a shorter-acting product (lozenge, gum, inhaler, or nasal spray) and extend treatment beyond 12 weeks. Observational studies have not confirmed case reports of behavior changes associated with varenicline and bupropion, and these drugs' benefits outweigh potential risks. A chronic disease management model is effective for treating tobacco dependence, which deserves as high a priority in health care systems as treating other chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension.