Intervention study to improve smoking cessation during hospitalization

Brief smoking cessation in acute Welsh hospitals: a realist approach

This implementation study sought to determine what works to support brief smoking cessation (BSC) in acute hospital settings, through exploration of organizational delivery and the role of healthcare professionals (HCPs). We used a realist approach, with embedded stakeholder engagement, within a large health organization. We conducted interviews (n = 27), a survey (n = 279) and organization documentation review (n = 44). The final programme theory suggests HCPs implement BSC when they value it as part of their role in contributing to improved patient outcomes; this is due to personal and professional influences, such as knowledge or experience. Organizational support, training and working in an environment where BSC is visible as standard care, positively influences implementation. However, the context exerts a strong influence on whether BSC is implemented, or not. HCPs make nuanced judgements on whether to implement BSC based on their assessment of the patient's responses, the patient's condition and other acute care demands. HCPs are less likely to implement BSC in dynamic and uncertain environments, as they are concerned about adversely impacting on the clinician-patient relationship and prioritize other acute care requirements. Organizations should actively promote BSC as a core function of the acute hospital setting and improve professional practice through leadership, training, feedback and visible indicators of organizational commitment. HCPs can be persuaded that implementing BSC is an acute care priority and an expectation of standard practice for improving patient outcomes.

Physician Characteristics Associated With Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Counseling Practices

PURPOSE

Frequent sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is associated with chronic disease. Although physician counseling can positively affect patient behavior, physicians' personal characteristics may influence counseling practices. We explored SSB-related topics physicians discuss when counseling overweight/obese patients and examined associations between physicians' SSB-related counseling practices and their personal and medical practice characteristics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

DocStyles survey, 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1510 practicing US physicians.

MEASURES

Physician's SSB counseling on calories, added sugars, obesity/weight gain, health effects, consumption frequency, water substitution, and referral.

ANALYSIS

Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated with multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for physician's personal and medical practice characteristics.

RESULTS

Most physicians (98.5%) reported SSB-related counseling. The most reported topic was obesity/weight gain (81.4%); the least reported were added sugars (53.1%) and referral (35.0%). Physicians in adult-focused specialties had lower odds than pediatricians of counseling on several topics (aOR range: 0.26-0.64). Outpatient physicians had higher odds than inpatient physicians of counseling on consumption frequency and water substitution (aOR range: 1.60-2.01). Physicians consuming SSBs ≥1 time/day (15.7%) had lower odds than nonconsumers of counseling on most topics (aOR range: 0.58-0.68).

CONCLUSION

Most physicians reported SSB-related counseling; obesity/weight gain was discussed most frequently. Counseling opportunities remain in other topic areas. Opportunities also exist to strengthen SSB counseling practices in adult-focused specialties, inpatient settings, and among physicians who consume SSBs daily.

Tobacco-Nicotine Education and Training for Health-Care Professional Students and Practitioners: A Systematic Review

Introduction

The objective of this systematic review was to investigate what education and training characteristics prepares and supports health-care professionals (HCPs) in the delivery of competent and effective care to clients who use tobacco-nicotine.

Aims and Methods

A search of eight bibliographic databases for English-language peer-reviewed publications from January 2006 to March 2015. Studies were included if they met the a priori inclusion criteria, which consisted of: (1) quantitative study design and (2) focus on tobacco-nicotine education or training for HCP students and practitioners. All studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data from included studies were extracted for study characteristics and key outcomes then critically appraised for methodological quality.

Results

Fifty-nine studies were included for narrative synthesis. Two categories emerged: (1) curriculum characteristics (n = 10) and (2) education and training interventions (n = 49). Included curriculum studies identified the following themes: content, intensity, competencies evaluation, and barriers. Study findings about education and training interventions were grouped by level of education (prelicensure, post-licensure, and faculty training), teaching modality, health discipline, and the associated HCP and client outcomes.

Conclusions

This comprehensive review suggests that there is a lack of consistency in HCP tobacco-nicotine education and training characteristics. This paper provides valuable categorization of the most frequently utilized components of academic curriculum and discusses the interventions in relation to HCP and client outcomes. Gaps in the literature are highlighted, and the need for standardization of tobacco-nicotine training competencies and evaluation is discussed. Future research investigating the most effective approaches to training is needed.

Implications

This systematic review summarizes existing tobacco-related curriculum components (content, intensity, competency evaluation, and barriers) and training interventions for health-care professionals worldwide and demonstrates that they are associated with positive health-care professional outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills) and client outcomes (quit attempts and smoking abstinence).

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Clinical management of tobacco dependence in inpatient psychiatry: provider practices and patient utilization

OBJECTIVE

This investigation examined predictors of utilization of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during a smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization.

METHODS

Smokers (N=324) were recruited from smoke-free adult inpatient psychiatric units. Exploratory analyses examined correlates of NRT provision and utilization.

RESULTS

The prevalence of NRT use was 51% overall and was greater among patients offered NRT on admission (58%) versus later (34%), among patients with more severe depression and nicotine withdrawal, and among those who reported perceptions that NRT decreases nicotine withdrawal, provides a nicotine substitute, and helps with quitting smoking (p<.05, all comparisons). Although the ratio of nicotine patch dose to usual cigarettes per day was 1.2±.7, the ratio was negatively correlated with time to first cigarette (Spearman's ρ=-.30, p<.01), suggesting potential underdosing of more dependent smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

During smoke-free psychiatric hospitalizations, clinical management of nicotine withdrawal may be enhanced by offering patients NRT directly on admission, educating patients on the benefits of NRT, and increasing the dosage for more dependent smokers.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized Register and CINAHL in June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooling 35 studies (over 17,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention to increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.39). In a subgroup analysis the estimated effect size was similar for the group of seven studies using a particularly low intensity intervention but the confidence interval was wider. There was limited indirect evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized adults also showed evidence of benefit. Eleven studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Six studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence for an effect is weaker when interventions are brief and are provided by nurses whose main role is not health promotion or smoking cessation. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

Training health professionals in smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death world wide. There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase smoking cessation attempts. A number of trials have examined whether skills training for health professionals can lead them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of training health care professionals in the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of training characteristics such as intervention content, delivery method and intensity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, electronic databases and the bibliographies of identified studies were searched and raw data was requested from study authors where needed. Searches were updated in March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which the intervention was training of health care professionals in smoking cessation. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking at least six months after the intervention. Process outcomes needed to be reported, however trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics of each included study for interventions, participants, outcomes and methods were extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were combined in a meta-analysis where possible and reported in narrative synthesis in text and table.

MAIN RESULTS

Of seventeen included studies, thirteen found no evidence of an effect for continuous smoking abstinence following the intervention. Meta-analysis of 14 studies for point prevalence of smoking produced a statistically and clinically significant effect in favour of the intervention (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55, p= 0.004). Meta-analysis of eight studies that reported continuous abstinence was also statistically significant (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.03, p= 0.03).Healthcare professionals who had received training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls, including: asking patients to set a quit date (p< 0.0001), make follow-up appointments (p< 0.00001), counselling of smokers (p< 0.00001), provision of self-help material (p< 0.0001) and prescription of a quit date (p< 0.00001). No evidence of an effect was observed for the provision of nicotine gum/replacement therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions had a measurable effect on the point prevalence of smoking, continuous abstinence and professional performance. The one exception was the provision of nicotine gum or replacement therapy, which did not differ between groups.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.