Carbon monoxide feedback in a motivational decision support system for nicotine dependence among smokers with severe mental illnesses

The effectiveness and design of informed choice tools for people with severe mental illness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI) report difficulty in making health-related decisions. Informed choice tools are designed to guide individuals through a decision-making process.

AIMS

To determine the effectiveness of these tools for people with SMI and to identify what methods and processes may contribute to effectiveness.

METHOD

A systematic electronic search was conducted for studies published between 1996 and January 2018. The search was updated in March 2020. Studies of any design reporting the development or evaluation of any informed choice tool for people with SMI were considered. A structured, narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Ten articles describing four tools were identified. Tools were designed to assist with decision-making around bipolar treatment, smoking cessation and disclosure of mental illness in employment situations. Positive changes in decisional conflict, stage of change, knowledge and self-efficacy were reported for two tools, though insufficient data exists for definitive conclusions of effectiveness. Feedback from service users and attention to readability appeared key.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for informed choice tools for people with SMI is limited. Such tools should be developed in stages and include the views of people with SMI at each phase; readability should be considered, and a theoretical framework should be used to facilitate process evaluation.

Decision aids to facilitate decision making around behavior change in the field of health promotion: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed.

METHODS

Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively.

RESULTS

Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking.

Workshop on Implementation Science and Digital Therapeutics for Behavioral Health

Digital therapeutics can overcome many of the barriers to translation of evidence-based treatment for substance use, mental health, and other behavioral health conditions. Delivered via nearly ubiquitous platforms such as the web, smartphone applications, text messaging, and videoconferencing, digital therapeutics can transcend the time and geographic boundaries of traditional clinical settings so that individuals can access care when and where they need it. There is strong empirical support for digital therapeutic approaches for behavioral health, yet implementation science with regard to scaling use of digital therapeutics for behavioral health is still in its early stages. In this paper, we summarize the proceedings of a day-long workshop, "Implementation Science and Digital Therapeutics," sponsored and hosted by the Center for Technology and Behavioral Health at Dartmouth College. The Center for Technology and Behavioral Health is an interdisciplinary P30 Center of Excellence funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, with the mission of promoting state-of-the-technology and state-of-the-science for the development, evaluation, and sustainable implementation of digital therapeutic approaches for substance use and related conditions. Workshop presentations were grounded in current models of implementation science. Directions and opportunities for collaborative implementation science research to promote broad adoption of digital therapeutics for behavioral health are offered.

Brief, Web-Based Interventions to Motivate Smokers With Schizophrenia: Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

In-person motivational interventions increase engagement with evidence-based cessation treatments among smokers with schizophrenia, but access to such interventions can be limited because of workforce shortages and competing demands in mental health clinics. The use of digital technology to deliver interventions can increase access, but cognitive impairments in schizophrenia may impede the use of standard digital interventions. We developed an interactive, multimedia, digital motivational decision support system for smokers with schizophrenia (Let's Talk About Smoking). We also digitalized a standard educational pamphlet from the National Cancer Institute (NCI Education). Both were tailored to reduce cognitive load during use.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a randomized trial of Let's Talk About Smoking versus NCI Education to test whether the interactive motivational intervention was more effective and more appealing than the static educational intervention for increasing use of smoking cessation treatment, quit attempts, and abstinence among smokers with schizophrenia, accounting for the level of cognitive functioning.

METHODS

Adult smokers with schizophrenia (n=162) were enrolled in the study from 2014 to 2015, randomly assigned to intervention condition, and assessed in person at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Interventions were delivered on a laptop computer in a single session. All participants had access to standard, community-delivered cessation treatments during follow-up. Multivariate models were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Treatment initiation outcomes were not different between intervention conditions (27/84 [32%] for Let's Talk About Smoking vs 36/78 [46%] for NCI Education; odds ratio [OR] 0.71 [95% CI 0.37-1.33]); 38.9% (63/162) of participants initiated treatment. Older age (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.00-1.07]; P=.05), higher education (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.04-1.41]; P=.03), and fewer positive symptoms (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.80-0.96]; P=.01) predicted cessation treatment initiation, whereas level of cognition did not. The mean satisfaction and usability index score was higher for Let's Talk About Smoking versus NCI Education (8.9 [SD 1.3] vs 8.3 [SD 2.1]; t120.7=2.0; P=.045). Quit attempts (25/84, 30% vs 36/78, 46%; estimate [Est]=-0.093, SE 0.48; P=.85) and abstinence (1/84, 1% vs 6/78, 7%; χ21=3.4; P=.07) were not significantly different between intervention conditions. Cognitive functioning at baseline (Est=1.47, SE 0.47; P=.002) and use of any behavioral or medication cessation treatment (Est=1.43, SE 0.47; P=.003) predicted quit attempts with self-reported abstinence over the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive, multimedia intervention was not more effective than the static, text-based intervention among smokers with schizophrenia. Both tailored digital interventions resulted in levels of treatment engagement and quit attempts that were similar to findings from previous studies of in-person interventions, confirming the potential role of digital interventions to educate and motivate smokers with schizophrenia to use cessation treatment and to quit smoking. These findings indicate that additional cessation treatment is needed after brief education or motivational interventions, and that cessation treatment should be adjusted for people with cognitive impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02086162; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02086162.

Use of Smartphones, Computers and Social Media Among People with SMI: Opportunity for Intervention

Mobile technology provides a unique opportunity to expand access to evidence-based interventions. The objective of this study was to provide an update regarding use of technology in people with serious mental illness (SMI). In 2017, 403 people in treatment for SMI were surveyed. Technology use was common: 65.8% used a smartphone, 53.6% used the Internet on a computer or tablet in the past 6 months, and over two thirds (67.9%) used social media. Rates of technology and Facebook use were similar to rates among low-income Americans. Approximately three quarters were willing to use a device to access interventions for stress, health and mental health. Younger adults were more likely to use most forms of technology and social media compared to older adults, but willingness to try technology-delivered interventions did not vary by age. This survey supports the rationale for ongoing development and testing of digital interventions for people with SMI.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I² = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I² = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Feasibility of a support person intervention to promote smoking cessation treatment use among smokers with mental illness

Social support may be an effective strategy to increase engagement in cessation treatment for smokers with mental illness. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of a support person intervention linking smokers with mental illness to an online smoking cessation decision aid. We conducted a 12-week pilot study of a one-session telephone coaching intervention ("Care2Quit") to train nonsmoking family members and friends (i.e., support persons) to promote the use of an online cessation decision aid by smokers with mental illness. The primary aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of the support person intervention by examining recruitment, retention, adherence, and participant satisfaction. A secondary aim was to explore changes in the hypothesized mechanism underlying the intervention effect (i.e., cessation support provided) and primary outcome (i.e., smoker use of online cessation decision aid). Seventeen support persons enrolled, of which 94% (n = 16) completed the telephone coaching intervention. Eighty-eight percent of support persons rated the intervention as highly acceptable. Self-reported cessation supportive behaviors by the support person increased significantly by 6 weeks post intervention. Forty-one percent of smokers (n = 7) linked to support persons used the online cessation decision aid by 12 weeks following the support person's telephone coaching session. Preliminary results from this study demonstrate the feasibility of a support person intervention to promote the use of smoking cessation treatment among smokers with mental illness. Future research to evaluate the efficacy of the Care2Quit support partner intervention is warranted.

Helping Smokers with Severe Mental Illness Who Do Not Want to Quit

BACKGROUND

People with a severe and persistent mental illness are far more likely to smoke than others. While a large portion would like to quit, they are less likely to make quit attempts and succeed.

OBJECTIVE

This study used an Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to test an intervention designed to increase engagement in cessation treatment, quit attempts, and quitting in smokers who did not want to quit in the next 30 days. It also compared these smokers with those who were motivated to quit in the next 30 days.

METHODS

Participants (N = 222), were smokers with significant mental illness receiving intensive outpatient care from Wisconsin Community Support Programs who were not interested in quitting in the next 30 days. They were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or an attention control group. The intervention, administered during four weekly sessions, included a motivational element, components designed to prepare the smoker for a quit attempt, and pre-quit nicotine patch. Additionally, 48 smokers motivated to quit in the next 30 days served as a comparison group.

RESULTS

Compared to control participants, smokers receiving the intervention were more likely to be abstinent at the three month follow-up (biochemically verified, intent to treat, 8.5% vs. 1.0%, respectively, p = .01). They were also more likely to accept four more quitting preparation sessions (intent to treat, 50.8% vs 29.2%, respectively, p < .001) but were not more likely to call a telephone tobacco quit line. Conclusion/Importance: Brief motivational interventions increased engagement in cessation treatment and abstinence among smokers with signification mental illness.

Use of Expired Air Carbon Monoxide Testing in Clinical Tobacco Treatment Settings

Carbon monoxide (CO) testing is considered an easy, noninvasive, and objective contribution to the assessment of smoking behavior, as CO is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream when lit cigarettes or cigars are inhaled. CO testing is a medically important billable outpatient service that can contribute to sustainability of face to face tobacco use treatment services by clinicians. This article reviews research on the clinical use of CO testing to provide biomedical feedback in assessing smoking behavior, educating smokers on tobacco health effects, assisting with treatment planning, and as a motivational tool to encourage people to become tobacco free. Further research can focus on how to best incorporate CO testing into clinical practice, including more research on outcomes and methods to ensure that insurers reimburse for testing and improved ways to use CO testing to initiate attempts to quit tobacco use, to maintain cessation, and to prevent relapse.

Correlates of Current Smoking Among Adults Served by the Public Mental Health System

OBJECTIVE

As part of a study of health status among 457 adults with diagnostically heterogeneous serious mental illnesses served by the public mental health system in four U.S. states, we assessed predictors of current cigarette smoking.

METHODS

We examined bivariate relationships between smoking status and risks for drug and alcohol use disorders, residential setting, parental status, and employment. Finally, we used multivariable logistic regression to predict current smoking, controlling for significant confounds.

RESULTS

Of the total sample, 44% of participants reported that they currently smoked and most (62%) were moderately to severely nicotine-dependent. Those at high risk for drug use disorders were more than three times as likely and those at high risk for alcohol use disorders were more than twice as likely to smoke, compared to their counterparts with little or no drug or alcohol use disorder risk. Controlling for all other model variables including drug and alcohol disorder risk, current smokers were less likely to be parents and more likely to reside in supervised settings than nonsmokers. Younger people and those without a college degree were more likely to smoke, controlling for all other model variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high degree of comorbidity of smoking, alcohol disorders, and drug use disorders, the authors highlight the need for integrated interventions that address these issues simultaneously.

Abstinence and Use of Community-Based Cessation Treatment After a Motivational Intervention Among smokers with Severe Mental Illness

Motivational interventions help people with mental illness try to quit smoking, but few studies have evaluated factors associated with this groups' cessation with community treatment. We examined predictors of abstinence after a brief motivational intervention among smokers with severe mental illness. Education, stage of change post intervention, and use of cessation treatment predicted any 1-week period of self-reported abstinence over 6 months (29%). Cessation treatment mediated the relationship between stage of change and abstinence. Because treatment was the key modifiable predictor of abstinence, future research should establish strategies that improve motivation for, access to, and retention in cessation treatment. Clinical Trials Identifier NCT01412866.