Proactive Tobacco Treatment for Smokers Using Veterans Administration Mental Health Clinics

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.

The effectiveness of a telephone smoking cessation program in mental health clinic patients by level of mental well-being and functioning: a secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the effectiveness of telephone smoking cessation interventions by severity of behavioral health symptoms. Using data from a telephone counseling study, we examined whether abstinence rates varied by level of behavioral health symptoms.

METHODS

The parent study recruited adults who smoke cigarettes (N = 577) referred by mental health providers at six Veterans Health Administration facilities. Participants were randomized to specialized telephone counseling (intervention) or state Quitline referral (control). Participants completed assessments at baseline and 6 months, including the BASIS-24, a self-report measure of behavioral health symptoms and functioning. We used the BASIS-24 median to dichotomize participants as having high or low scores. The primary outcome was 30-day self-reported abstinence at 6 months. We compared groups on outcomes by logistic regression and performed an interaction effect analysis between treatment assignment and groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, those with high behavioral health symptoms scores reported heavier nicotine dependence and more sedative and/or antidepressant use, compared to participants with low behavioral health symptoms. At 6 months, participants with low behavioral health symptoms scores in the intervention reported higher rates of 30-day abstinence compared to those in the control arm (26% vs 13%, OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.8, 2.9). People with high behavioral health symptoms scores reported no difference in 30-day abstinence between the treatment assignments at 6 months (12% vs. 13%, OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.6, 2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Only participants with low behavioral health symptoms scores reported higher abstinence rates in the intervention compared to the state Quitline. Future research can examine alternative approaches for people with worse mental well-being and functioning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The parent study is registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT00724308.

The efficacy of tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults: a systematic review

Despite proliferation of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments, African American adults still suffer higher rates of tobacco-related diseases than White adults. Although tobacco cessation treatment is efficacious, there is a need to reassess the efficacy of tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults. Previous reviews of tobacco cessation treatment studies conducted through 2007 among African American adults highlight the limited research in this area and inconsistent findings on treatment characteristics impacting efficacy. This systematic review examined the efficacy of combined behavioral and pharmacological tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults. Database searches were used to identify studies examining tobacco cessation treatment for predominantly African American samples (>50%). Eligible studies were completed between 2007 and 2021 and (i) involved randomization comparing active combined treatment to a control comparison group and (ii) reported abstinence outcomes at 6 and/or 12 months. Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Active treatment groups typically consisted of a combination of nicotine replacement therapy and behavioral counseling. Abstinence rates for African American adults ranged from 10.0% to 34% in active treatment groups compared to 0.0%-40% in comparison control groups. Our results support the efficacy of combined treatment for tobacco cessation among African American adults. However, cessation rates for African American adults found in this review are lower than those in the general adult population (15%-88%). Additionally, our findings highlight the limited number of studies examining African American tobacco cessation rates and testing of tailored treatment for this population.

Connecting Vietnamese-Speaking Immigrants who Smoke to the Asian Smokers Quitline: A Feasibility Pilot of Proactive Outreach Interventions

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among Asian American immigrant subgroups. Previously, Asian-language telephone Quitline services were only available in California. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the national Asian Smokers' Quitline (ASQ) to expand Asian-language Quitline services nationally. However, there are relatively few calls to the ASQ from outside California.

AIMS AND METHODS

This pilot study assessed the feasibility of two proactive outreach interventions to connect Vietnamese-speaking participants who smoke to the ASQ. Both interventions, (1) proactive telephone outreach with a counselor trained in motivational interviewing (PRO-MI) and (2) proactive telephone outreach with interactive voice response (PRO-IVR), were adapted to be culturally and linguistically appropriate for Vietnamese-speaking participants. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to PRO-IVR versus PRO-MI. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 3 months post-enrollment. Feasibility indicators were the recruitment rate and initiation of ASQ treatment.

RESULTS

Using the HealthPartners electronic health record, a large health system in Minnesota, we identified approximately 343 potentially eligible Vietnamese participants who were mailed invitation letters and baseline surveys with telephone follow-up. We enrolled 86 eligible participants (25% recruitment rate). In the PRO-IVR group 7/58 participants were directly transferred to the ASQ (12% initiation rate) and in the PRO-MI group 8/28 participants were warm transferred to the ASQ (29% initiation rate).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of our recruitment methods and of implementing proactive outreach interventions to promote the initiation of smoking cessation treatment with the ASQ.

IMPLICATIONS

This pilot study contributes novel data on the uptake of Asian Smokers' Quitline (ASQ) services among Vietnamese-speaking people who smoke (PWS) with two proactive outreach interventions: (1) proactive telephone outreach with a counselor trained in motivational interviewing (PRO-MI) and (2) proactive telephone outreach with interactive voice response (PRO-IVR). We found that it is feasible to implement these proactive outreach interventions to promote the initiation of ASQ cessation treatment among Vietnamese-language speaking PWS. Future large trials are needed to rigorously compare PRO-MI and PRO-IVR and conduct budget impact analyses to understand the most efficient strategies for incorporation into health system settings.

Integrating the "Quit and Stay Quit Monday" Model into Smoking Cessation Services for Smokers with Mental Health Conditions: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

People with mental health conditions (MHCs) are less likely to achieve long-term abstinence than people without MHCs. The Quit and Stay Quit Monday (QSQM) model offers a long-term approach to treating tobacco use by encouraging people to quit, requit, or recommit to quit smoking every Monday.

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy, patient satisfaction, and patient engagement with an intervention that integrated the QSQM model into multicomponent smoking cessation services among people with an MHC.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled pilot trial. Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) ≥18 years old, (2) smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days, (3) diagnosis of an ICD-10 MHC, (4) interest in quitting smoking, (5) able to receive services in English, and (5) had an active email and a cell phone. The intervention group (n = 33) received QSQM-focused telephone coaching, a weekly QSQM email newsletter, a SmokefreeTXT anchored around a Monday quit date, and 4 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The control group (n = 36) received information about contacting their state Quitline for usual services. Primary outcomes were self-reported quit attempts, 7-day abstinence, and intervention satisfaction at 3 months.

Results

Twenty-four participants (73%) in the intervention group began telephone coaching, 26 (79%) enrolled in the QSQM email newsletter, 19 (58%) enrolled in SmokefreeTXT, and 15 (46%) used NRT. Using a penalized intent-to-treat approach, quit attempts in the intervention and control groups were 63.6% and 38.9% (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.03-7.30), respectively. Seven-day abstinence in the two groups was 12.1% and 5.6% (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.40-13.74), respectively. Of the 15 intervention group participants who set a quit date during the intervention, 13 (86.7%) selected a Monday quit day. Qualitative interviews revealed positive participant experiences with picking a Monday quit day. On follow-up surveys, 89.5%, 69.3%, and 64.3% of intervention participants reported that the counseling, QSQM email, and text messaging, respectively, were very or somewhat helpful.

Conclusions

The QSQM model was acceptable and potentially efficacious among people with MHCs, but intervention engagement and satisfaction were modest. Future research should adapt or develop new QSQM delivery approaches to improve patient engagement and potential efficacy of the model. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04512248).

Integrating Financial Coaching and Referrals into a Smoking Cessation Program for Low-income Smokers: a Randomized Waitlist Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Financial distress is a barrier to cessation among low-income smokers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an intervention that integrated financial coaching and benefits referrals into a smoking cessation program for low-income smokers.

DESIGN

Randomized waitlist control trial conducted from 2017 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult New York City residents were eligible if they reported past 30-day cigarette smoking, had income below 200% of the federal poverty level, spoke English or Spanish, and managed their own funds. Pregnant or breastfeeding people were excluded. Participants were recruited from two medical centers and from the community.

INTERVENTION

The intervention (n = 208) offered smoking cessation coaching, nicotine replacement therapy, money management coaching, and referral to financial benefits and empowerment services. The waitlist control (n=202) was usual care during a 6-month waiting period.

MAIN MEASURES

Treatment engagement, self-reported 7-day abstinence, and financial stress at 6 months.

KEY RESULTS

At 6 months, intervention participants reported higher abstinence (17% vs. 9%, P=0.03), lower stress about finances (β, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.02), and reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.04). Outcomes were stronger among participants recruited from the medical centers (versus from the community). Among medical center participants, the intervention was associated with higher abstinence (20% vs. 8%, P=0.01), higher satisfaction with present financial situation (β, 1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.01), reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.5], P=0.04), reduced frequency in getting by paycheck-to-paycheck (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.03), and lower stress about finances in general (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P = 0.02). There were no group differences in outcomes among people recruited from the community (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-income smokers recruited from medical centers, the intervention produced higher abstinence rates and reductions in some markers of financial distress than usual care. The intervention was not efficacious with people recruited from the community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03187730.

Implementing Chronic Care Model Treatments for Cigarette Dependence in Community Mental Health Clinics

Objective: Tobacco use is rarely addressed in community mental healthcare settings, despite its high prevalence among people with serious mental illness. The aim of the current study was to gather stakeholder feedback regarding the feasibility of chronic care management strategies for tobacco dependence in community mental health centers (CMHCs). Chronic care strategies evaluated included the 5 As (Ask about tobacco use, Advise users of tobacco to quit, Assess interest in cessation, Assist with cessation, and Arrange for follow-up) and proactive telephone outreach (reaching out to all users of tobacco to offer connection to tobacco cessation treatment). Methods: Using a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with providers, leaders, and clients across two CMHCs. Our objectives were to capture their attitudes toward smoking cessation treatment, two chronic care model interventions (i.e., proactive outreach, the 5 As), and to determine the infrastructure needed to implement such interventions in their CMHCs. Thematic analysis was conducted by two independent coders to uncover pertinent themes. Results: Participants (n = 20) included nine providers, six leaders, and five clients. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes: (1) characteristics of recipients, (2) characteristics of the intervention, and (3) infrastructure needed for implementation and sustainability. Providers, leaders, and clients all reported that tobacco cessation treatment was rarely provided in CMHCs and expressed an interest in such treatments becoming more available. The 5 As and proactive outreach were viewed as feasible and acceptable to deliver and receive. Providers, leaders, and clients wanted support to connect clients with smoking cessation treatment. Providers and leaders requested a range of implementation supports, including didactic trainings, decision aids, performance feedback, and coaching on evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments for people with serious mental illness. Clients requested tobacco cessation resources, such as a cessation counseling provided at the CMHC and prescriptions for cessation medication. Conclusions: CMHC providers, leaders, and clients are interested in making tobacco cessation services more widely accessible and available. The feedback gathered in this study can be used to inform the delivery and implementation of guideline-adherent tobacco dependence care in CMHCs.

Latent Heterogeneity in the Impact of Financial Coaching on Delay Discounting among Low-Income Smokers: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Low-income adults are significantly more likely to smoke, and face more difficulty in quitting, than people with high income. High rates of delay discounting (DD) may be an important factor contributing to the high rates of tobacco use among low-income adults. Future-oriented financial coaching may offer a novel approach in the treatment of smoking cessation among low-income adults. This secondary analysis (N = 251) of data from a randomized controlled trial examined the integration of future-oriented financial coaching into smoking cessation treatment for low-income smokers. Linear regression and finite mixture models (FMM) estimated the overall and the latent heterogeneity of the impact of the intervention versus usual care control on DD rates 6 months after randomization. Though standard linear regression found no overall difference in DD between intervention and control (β = −0.23, p = 0.338), the FMM identified two latent subgroups with different responses to the intervention. Subgroup 1 (79% of the sample) showed no difference in DD between intervention and control (β = 0.25, p = 0.08). Subgroup 2 (21% of the sample) showed significantly lower DD (β = −2.06, p = 0.003) among intervention group participants versus control at 6 months. Participants were more likely to be a member of subgroup 2 if they had lower baseline DD rates, were living at or below 100% of federal poverty, or were married/living with a partner. This study identified a group of low-income adults seeking to quit smoking who responded to financial coaching with decreased DD rates. These results can be used to inform future targeting of the intervention to individuals who may benefit most, as well as inform future treatment adaptations to support the subgroup of low-income smokers, who did not benefit.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The Association Between Smoking Abstinence and Pain Trajectory Among Veterans Engaged in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Mental Health Care

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively examine associations between smoking and nicotine abstinence and pain trajectory over 12 months among smokers with low, moderate, and severe pain and to assess whether these associations differ over time.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of the "Proactive Outreach for Smokers in VA Mental Health" study, a randomized controlled trial of proactive outreach for veteran smokers engaged in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health care.

METHODS

Participants were categorized into "low" (n = 616), "moderate" (n = 479), and "severe" pain (n = 656) groups according to baseline pain score. Associations between self-reported abstinence from smoking and nicotine at 6 and 12 months and pain trajectory, measured via the PEG scale (Pain intensity, Enjoyment of life, General activity) composite score, were assessed through the use of general linear mixed models. Interaction tests assessed whether these associations differed at 6 and 12 months. Analyses were conducted within the overall sample and within the separate pain groups.

RESULTS

There were significant interactions in the overall sample and the low and moderate pain groups, such that 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence was associated with lower pain scores at 6 but not 12 months. In the severe pain group, 7-day abstinence from both smoking and nicotine was associated with lower pain scores across both time points. Six-month prolonged abstinence was not associated with pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective analysis conducted among veteran smokers engaged in mental health services, 7-day abstinence from smoking and nicotine was associated with significantly lower levels of pain. Education efforts could help better inform smokers on the relationship between smoking and pain.

Smoking Treatment: A Report Card on Progress and Challenges

The impact of tobacco smoking treatment is determined by its reach into the smoking population and the effectiveness of its interventions. This review evaluates the reach and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for smoking. Historically, the reach of smoking treatment has been low, and therefore its impact has been limited, but new reach strategies such as digital interventions and health care system changes offer great promise. Pharmacotherapy tends to be more effective than psychosocial intervention when used clinically, and newer pharmacotherapy strategies hold great promise of further enhancing effectiveness. However, new approaches are needed to advance psychosocial interventions; progress has stagnated because research and dissemination efforts have focused too narrowly on skill training despite evidence that its core content may be inconsequential and the fact that its mechanisms are either unknown or inconsistent with supporting theory. Identifying effective psychosocial content and its mechanisms of action could greatly enhance the effectiveness of counseling, digital, and web interventions.

Chronic care treatment for smoking cessation in patients with serious mental illness: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Rates of smoking among those with serious mental illness (SMI) are two to three times higher than for the general population. Smoking is rarely addressed in mental health settings. Innovative outreach and treatment strategies are needed to address these disparities. The current study is a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a chronic care model of tobacco cessation treatment implemented in outpatient psychiatry clinics.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from two outpatient psychiatric clinics and randomly assigned to intervention (counseling and nicotine replacement for 8 weeks, plus ongoing proactive outreach calls inviting reengagement in treatment) or control (brief education and referral to the state quit line). Assessments were conducted at 8 weeks (end of initial treatment block) and 6 months (end of window for retreatment). Feasibility was assessed by enrollment rate, treatment engagement, and completion of follow-up assessments. Acceptability was assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Preliminary efficacy was assessed by 7-day and 30-day abstinence rates, rate of quit attempts, and cigarettes per day. Psychological health was measured to assess for changes related to treatment group or attempts to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants were randomized to intervention and 19 to control. Recruitment proved feasible, and high rates of treatment engagement (mean of 4.5 sessions completed in initial treatment block, 89.5% uptake of nicotine replacement) and retention (94.7% of follow-up assessments completed) were observed. Treatment acceptability was high. As anticipated, there were no significant differences in abstinence between groups, but results generally favored the intervention group, including bio-verified 7-day abstinence rates of 21.1% in intervention vs. 17.6% in control and self-reported 30-day abstinence rates of 16.1% in intervention vs. 5.1% in control at 8 weeks. Significantly more intervention participants made at least one quit attempt (94.7% vs 52.6%; OR = 16.20, 95% CI: 1.79-147.01). Cigarettes per day decreased significantly more in the intervention group at 8 weeks (b = - 13.19, SE = 4.88, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

It was feasible to recruit and retain SMI patients in a smoking cessation trial in the context of outpatient psychiatry. The novel chronic care model treatment was acceptable to patients and showed promise for efficacy. If efficacious, a chronic care model could be effective at reducing smoking among SMI patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov #: NCT03822416 (registered January 30th 2019).

Evaluation of a Proactive Smoking Cessation Electronic Visit to Extend the Reach of Evidence-Based Cessation Treatment via Primary Care

Background: Best practice guidelines for smoking cessation treatment through primary care advise the 5As model. However, compliance with these guidelines is poor, leaving many smokers untreated. The purpose of this study was to develop and preliminarily evaluate an asynchronous smoking cessation electronic visit (e-visit) that could be delivered proactively through the electronic health record (EHR) to adult smokers treated within primary care. The goal of the e-visit is to automate 5As delivery to ensure that all smokers receive evidence-based cessation treatment. As such, the aims of this study were twofold: (1) to examine acceptability, feasibility, and treatment metrics associated with e-visit utilization and (2) to preliminarily examine efficacy relative to treatment as usual (TAU) within primary care. Methods: Participants (n = 51) were recruited from primary care practices between November 2018 and October 2019 and randomized 2:1 to receive either the smoking cessation e-visit or TAU. Participants completed assessments of cessation outcomes 1-month and 3-months postenrollment and e-visit analytics data were gathered from the EHR. Results: Self-report feedback from e-visit participants indicated satisfaction with the intervention and interest in using e-visits again in the future. Nearly all e-visits resulted in prescription of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved smoking cessation medication. In general, smoking cessation outcomes favored the e-visit condition at both 1 (odds ratios [ORs]: 2.10-5.39) and 3 months (ORs: 1.31-4.67). Conclusions: These results preliminarily indicate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of this smoking cessation e-visit within primary care. Future studies should focus on larger scale examination of effectiveness and implementation across settings. The clinicaltrials.gov registration number for this trial is NCT04316260.

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 tobacco treatment for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) smoke at higher rates compared to the general population and experience significant barriers to initiating cessation treatment. Proactive outreach addresses these barriers by directly engaging with smokers and facilitating access to treatment. The objective of the present study was to evaluate a proactive outreach intervention for increasing rates of treatment utilization and abstinence among veteran smokers with and without PTSD.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted from 2013 to 2017 that demonstrated the effectiveness of proactive outreach among veterans using Veterans Affairs mental health care services. Electronic medical record data were used to identify participants with (n = 355) and without (n = 1,583) a diagnosis of PTSD. Logistic regressions modeled cessation treatment utilization (counseling, nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], and combination treatment) and abstinence (7-day point prevalence and 6-month prolonged at 6- and 12-month follow-ups) among participants randomized to proactive outreach versus usual care in the PTSD and non-PTSD subgroups, respectively.

RESULTS

Compared to usual care, proactive outreach increased combined counseling and NRT utilization among participants with PTSD (odds ratio [OR] = 26.25, 95% confidence interval [3.43, 201.17]) and without PTSD (OR = 10.20, [5.21, 19.98]). Proactive outreach also increased 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months among participants with PTSD (OR = 2.62, [1.16, 5.91]) and without PTSD (OR = 1.61, [1.11, 2.34]).

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive outreach increased treatment utilization and abstinence among smokers with and without PTSD. Smokers with PTSD may need additional facilitation to initiate cessation treatment but are receptive when it is offered proactively. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Brief Motivational Interventions: Strategies for Successful Management of Complex, Nonadherent Dental Patients

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based approach to resolving patient ambivalence to change. MI techniques can be effectively used by dentists in assessing and managing substance use risk and may add minimal time to the patient interview. Although MI's greatest utility has been in the area of improving general oral hygiene in order to reduce caries and other preventable conditions, its use in addressing controlled substance risk is well established in other health care disciplines. These techniques do not require special training in mental health assessment and can be effectively used by dentists and dental hygienists.

Serious Mental Illness and Smoking Cessation Treatment Utilization: the Role of Healthcare Providers

Healthcare provider barriers to cessation resources may be undercutting quit rates for smokers with serious mental illness (SMI). The study aim was to examine how providers influence cessation treatment utilization among smokers with SMI. Data were taken from a trial conducted among smokers in Minnesota Health Care Programs. The sample was split into groups of participants with SMI (n = 939) and without SMI (n = 1382). Analyses assessed whether the association between SMI and treatment utilization was mediated by healthcare provider-delivered treatment advice and healthcare provider bias. Results revealed higher rates of treatment utilization among smokers with SMI than those without SMI (45.9% vs 31.7%, p < 0.001); treatment advice and provider bias did not mediate this association. Subsequent individual regression analyses revealed positive associations between treatment advice and treatment utilization (β 0.21-0.25, p < 0.05), independent of SMI status. Strategies to increase low-income smokers' contacts with providers may reduce treatment utilization barriers among these smokers.

Proactive Tobacco Treatment in a Behavioral Health Home

Tobacco use is rarely addressed in community mental healthcare despite high patient smoking prevalence. Community mental health centers have systems in place that could be used to comprehensively address tobacco use. This study tested feasibility of, satisfaction with, and safety of proactive tobacco treatment (tobacco outreach to offer connection to tobacco cessation treatment). Behavioral health home patients who smoke were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; N = 11) or proactive care (PC; N = 9). All participants were called 3-months post-randomization for follow-up. PC patients reported high satisfaction with the program and experienced no adverse events or mental health symptom exacerbation during treatment. PC patients reported greater reductions in cigarettes per day, more quit attempts, and more cessation medication utilization than UC patients. Proactive outreach for tobacco cessation is feasible in a behavioral health home, acceptable to patients, and may reduce smoking heaviness and promote quit attempts.

Exploring the decoy effect to guide tobacco treatment choice: a randomized experiment

Objectives

Guidelines recommend that smokers participate in four or more counseling sessions when trying to quit, but smokers rarely engage in multiple sessions. The “decoy effect” is a cognitive bias that can cause consumer preferences for a “target” product to change when presented with a similar but inferior product (a “decoy”). This study tested the use of a decoy to guide smokers’ selection of a target number of counseling sessions. During an online survey, adult tobacco users (N = 93) were randomized to one of two groups that determined the answer choices they saw in response to a question assessing their interest in multi-session cessation counseling. Group A choose between two sessions or a “target” of five sessions. Group B was given a third “decoy” option of seven sessions. Binary logistic regression was used to compare groups on the proportion of participants selecting the “target.”

Results

Among 90 participants with complete data, a decoy effect was not found. There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of participants selecting the target of five sessions (47% in Group B vs. 53% in Group A; aOR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.48–1.19).

Trial Registration This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov on December 13, 2019 (NCT04200157)

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.

Tobacco Screening and Treatment of Patients With a Psychiatric Diagnosis, 2012-2015

INTRODUCTION

Smoking disproportionately affects individuals with psychiatric diagnoses. Providers can play a role in reducing tobacco-related morbidity among people with a psychiatric diagnosis by routinely screening and treating all patients for tobacco use. This study seeks to identify rates of tobacco screening, counseling, and medication orders during outpatient visits with adults who have a psychiatric diagnosis.

METHODS

Data from the 2012-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were examined to calculate the proportion of visits with people who have a psychiatric diagnosis that included tobacco screening, counseling, or smoking-cessation medications. Logistic regression was used to identify patient and visit factors associated with tobacco screening and treatment. All analyses were conducted in 2018.

RESULTS

Seventy-two percent of visits included tobacco screening, 23% of visits with tobacco users included cessation counseling, and 4% of visits with tobacco users included a cessation medication order. Visits were more likely to include tobacco screening if they were for a nonpsychiatric condition, were >30 minutes, or were with a primary care physician (p<0.05). Visits were less likely to include tobacco screening if they were with a black, non-Hispanic patient or patient with Medicaid (p<0.05). Visits were more likely to include cessation counseling if they were for a nonpsychiatric condition (p<0.05), and were less likely to include counseling if they were with a Hispanic or self-pay patient (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There is still room for improvement in providing equitable treatment for people with psychiatric conditions for smoking, particularly in nonprimary settings.

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.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I² = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I² = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

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.

"Quitlink"-A Randomized Controlled Trial of Peer Worker Facilitated Quitline Support for Smokers Receiving Mental Health Services: Study Protocol

Introduction: Although smokers with severe mental illnesses (SSMI) make quit attempts at comparable levels to other smokers, fewer are successful in achieving smoking cessation. Specialized smoking cessation treatments targeting their needs can be effective but have not been widely disseminated. Telephone delivered interventions, including by quitlines, show promise. However, few SSMI contact quitlines and few are referred to them by health professionals. Mental health peer workers can potentially play an important role in supporting smoking cessation. This study will apply a pragmatic model using peer workers to engage SSMI with a customized quitline service, forming the "Quitlink" intervention. Methods: A multi-center prospective, cluster-randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. Over 3 years, 382 smokers will be recruited from mental health services in Victoria, Australia. Following completion of baseline assessment, a brief intervention will be delivered by a peer worker. Participants will then be randomly allocated either to no further intervention, or to be referred and contacted by the Victorian Quitline and offered a targeted 8-week cognitive behavioral intervention along with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Follow-up measures will be administered at 2-, 5-, and 8-months post-baseline. The primary outcome is 6 months continuous abstinence from end of treatment with biochemical verification. Secondary outcomes include 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking, increased quit attempts, and reductions in cigarettes per day, cravings and withdrawal, mental health symptoms, and other substance use, and improvements in quality of life. We will use a generalized linear mixed model (linear regression for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes) to handle clustering and the repeated measures at baseline, 2-, 5-, and 8-months; individuals will be modeled as random effects, cluster as a random effect, and group assignment as a fixed effect. Discussion: This is the first rigorously designed RCT to evaluate a specialized quitline intervention accompanied by NRT among SSMI. The study will apply a pragmatic model to link SSMI to the Quitline, using peer workers, with the potential for wide dissemination. Clinical Trial Registration: Trial Registry: The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. Trial Sponsor: University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Utility of Using Cancer Registry Data to Identify Patients for Tobacco Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

Many tobacco dependent cancer survivors continue to smoke after diagnosis and treatment. This study investigated the extent to which hospital-based cancer registries could be used to identify smokers in order to offer them assistance in quitting. The concordance of tobacco use coded in the registry was compared with tobacco use as coded in the accompanying Electronic Health Records (EHRs).

METHODS

We gathered data from three hospital-based cancer registries in New York City during June 2014 to December 2016. For each patient identified as a current combustible tobacco user in the cancer registries, we abstracted tobacco use data from their EHR to independently code and corroborate smoking status. We calculated the proportion of current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers as indicated in the EHR for the hospitals, cancer site, cancer stage, and sex. We used a logistic regression model to estimate the log odds of the registry-based smoking status correctly predicting the EHR-based smoking status.

RESULTS

Agreement in current smoking status between the registry-based smoking status and the EHR-based smoking status was 65%, 71%, and 90% at the three participating hospitals. Logistic regression results indicated that agreement in smoking status between the registry and the EHRs varied by hospital, cancer type, and stage, but not by age and sex.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of using tobacco use data in cancer registries for population-based tobacco treatment interventions is dependent on multiple factors including accurate entry into EHR systems, updated data, and consistent smoking status definitions and registry coding protocols. Our study found that accuracy varied across the three hospitals and may not be able to inform interventions at these hospitals at this time. Several changes may be needed to improve the coding of tobacco use status in EHRs and registries.