Smoking cessation in homeless populations: a pilot clinical trial

Cancer care and treatment during homelessness

People experiencing homelessness have not yet benefited from the substantial progress made in managing cancers, including advances in chemotherapy and radiotherapy, surgical interventions, multidisciplinary team approaches, and integrated cancer care models. People experiencing homelessness are at higher risks of developing cancers and their mortality due to cancer is twice that of the general population. Potential interventions to improve access to cancer treatment include alliances and active engagement with community organisations and shelters, cancer case management and peer-to-peer support, mHealth and navigation strategies, tailored hospital discharge to adult group homes, well equipped subacute rehabilitation centres, and specialised shelters and respite housing to assure appropriate follow-up care. Other interventions include improving preventive care, expanding data, targeted policy efforts, and broader housing advocacy. In this Personal View, I discuss challenges and opportunities in cancer treatment, with a review of the current evidence on potential interventions, and highlight strategies to improve access to cancer care for homeless populations.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Linked Smoking Cessation Intervention for Adults Experiencing Homelessness

Background: Interventions are needed to increase access to tobacco treatment for people experiencing homelessness. We developed a community pharmacist-linked cessation program for adults experiencing homelessness that included one-time, pharmacist-delivered counseling and furnishing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 3 months. Methods: We conducted a single-arm, uncontrolled trial of the pharmacist-linked intervention among adults experiencing homelessness recruited from three homeless shelters in San Francisco, CA. We asked participants to complete questionnaires at baseline and during 12 weekly follow-up visits. We obtained information on cigarette consumption, use of NRT, and quit attempts at each visit, and reported cumulative proportions during the study interval. We used Poisson regression and logistic regression, respectively, to examine factors associated with weekly cigarette consumption and quit attempts. We conducted in-depth interviews with residents to understand barriers to and facilitators of engagement. Results: Among 51 participants, average daily cigarette consumption reduced 55% from 10 cigarettes per day at baseline to 4.5 cigarettes at 13 wk follow-up, and 56.3% had CO-verified abstinence. Use of medications in the past week was associated with a 29% reduction in weekly consumption (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.74), and increased the odds of a quit attempt (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.37, 95% CI 1.13-4.99). While residents benefited from engaging in the pharmacist-linked program to increase quit attempts, they felt that to sustain abstinence, longitudinal tobacco treatment was needed. Conclusions: A pharmacist-linked smoking cessation program at transitional homeless shelters can reduce structural barriers to cessation care and reduce tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness.

Tobacco use behaviors and views on engaging in clinical trials for tobacco cessation among individuals who experience homelessness

Background

Clinical trials that include contingency management for smoking cessation have shown promising results for short-term quitting, but none have explored this approach for long-term abstinence in people experiencing homelessness. We designed a clinical trial of an extended contingency management intervention for smoking cessation for people experiencing homelessness. This study has two aims: (1) to explore tobacco use behaviors, and views toward smoking cessation, and (2) to explore factors influencing acceptability of engaging in such a trial in a sample of adult smokers experiencing homelessness.

Methods

We administered a questionnaire to obtain information on tobacco use behaviors and conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 26 patients who had experienced homelessness and were patients at a safety net health clinic in San Francisco, California, where we planned to pilot the intervention. We obtained information on triggers for tobacco use, prior cessation experiences, attitudes toward cessation, attitudes toward engaging in a clinical trial for cessation, and factors that might influence participation in our proposed contingency management clinical trial. We analyzed transcripts using content analysis.

Results

Participants described the normative experiences of smoking, co-occurring substance use, and the use of tobacco to relieve stress as barriers to quitting. Despite these barriers, most participants had attempted to quit smoking and most were interested in engaging in a clinical trial as a method to quit smoking. Participants noted that desirable features of the trial include: receiving financial incentives to quit smoking, having a flexible visit schedule, having the study site be easily accessible, and having navigators with lived experiences of homelessness.

Conclusion

A patient-centric clinical trial design that includes incentives, flexible visits and navigators from the community may increase feasibility of engaging in clinical trials among individuals experiencing homelessness.

Contingency management to promote smoking cessation in people experiencing homelessness: Leveraging the electronic health record in a pilot, pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is disproportionately high among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Contingency management (CM) is a strategy that has shown considerable efficacy for smoking cessation and has been used in short-term studies of smoking abstinence in PEH. We describe a pilot, pragmatic randomized controlled trial protocol, which leverages an electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an extended CM intervention to improve long-term abstinence in PEH.

METHODS

We will conduct the study at three safety-net clinics in San Francisco among 90 adults experiencing homelessness who smoke cigarettes currently and have a desire to quit. We will encourage all participants to receive smoking cessation services that include behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy through their clinics. We will randomly assign participants to an extended CM intervention group with escalating incentives contingent on abstinence or to a control group with fixed incentives for attending study visits. We will use the EHR to recruit participants, track receipt of counseling and pharmacotherapy during clinical care, and communicate with providers on participants' progress. CM participants will get escalating incentives for demonstration of carbon monoxide-verified abstinence over 6 months, with a total possible earnings of $475. Control participants will receive a fixed incentive of $5 for attending study visits, totaling $125. We will conduct the carbon-monoxide verified abstinence assessments-which will determine CM incentive amounts-daily during week 1, bi-weekly through week 4, weekly through week 13, and monthly through week 24. Measures of feasibility and acceptability, both quantitative and qualitative, will include assessments of screening and recruitment, adherence to study visits, engagement in smoking cessation clinical care, retention, and participant satisfaction. One of the primary clinical outcomes will be biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months. We will measure secondary outcomes, which will include 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months.

DISCUSSION

This trial will allow us to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a CM cessation intervention among PEH. The protocol's clinical setting and use of EHRs gives it significant potential for scalability. If found to be feasible, acceptable, and subsequently efficacious in a larger trial, the intervention could reduce tobacco-related health disparities by increasing long-term smoking abstinence among this vulnerable population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04982952. Registered on July 29, 2021.

Tobacco use characteristics, treatment preferences, and motivation to quit among adults accessing a day shelter in Oklahoma City

Background

Smoking rates are exceptionally high among adults experiencing homelessness (AEH). Research is needed to inform treatment approaches in this population.

Methods

Participants (n=404) were adults who accessed an urban day shelter and reported current smoking. Participants completed surveys regarding their sociodemographic characteristics, tobacco and substance use, mental health, motivation to quit smoking (MTQS), and smoking cessation treatment preferences. Participant characteristics were described and compared by MTQS.

Results

Participants who reported current smoking (N=404) were primarily male (74.8%); White (41.4%), Black (27.8%), or American Indian/Alaska Native (14.1%) race; and 10.7% Hispanic. Participants reported a mean age of 45.6 (SD=11.2) years, and they smoked an average of 12.6 (SD=9.4) cigarettes per day. Most participants reported moderate or high MTQS (57%) and were interested in receiving free cessation treatment (51%). Participants most frequently selected the following options as among the top 3 treatments that offered the best chance of quitting: Nicotine replacement therapy (25%), money/gift cards for quitting (17%), prescription medications (17%), and switching to e-cigarettes (16%). Craving (55%), stress/mood (40%), habit (39%), and being around other smokers (36%) were frequently identified as the most challenging aspects of quitting. Low MTQS was associated with White race, lack of religious participation, lack of health insurance, lower income, greater cigarettes smoked per day, and higher expired carbon monoxide. Higher MTQS was associated with sleeping unsheltered, cell phone ownership, higher health literacy, more years of smoking, and interest in free treatment.

Discussion

Multi-level, multi-component interventions are needed to address tobacco disparities among AEH.

Implementing a smoking cessation intervention for people experiencing homelessness: Participants’ preferences, feedback, and satisfaction with the ‘power to quit’ program

Background

Smoking rates among populations experiencing homelessness are three times higher than in the general population. Developing smoking cessation interventions for people experiencing homelessness is often challenging. Understanding participant perceptions of such interventions may provide valuable insights for intervention development and implementation. We assessed participants’ satisfaction and preferences for the Power to Quit (PTQ) program.

Methods

PTQ was a 26-week community-based smoking-cessation RCT among people experiencing homelessness. A total of 315 of the 430 enrolled participants completed the 26 week-study feedback survey. Overall program satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale by asking the question “Overall, how satisfied were you with the Power to Quit Program?” Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with overall program satisfaction.

Results

Participants were mostly male (74.9%), African American (59.0%), 40 years and older (78.2%), and not married or living with a partner (94.9%). Visa gift cards were the most preferred incentive followed by bus tokens and Subway restaurant coupons. The patch and counseling were the top-ranked intervention component, 55.3% rated the patch as very helpful; 59.4% felt counseling sessions was very helpful; 48.6% found reminder phone calls or messages most helpful for appointment reminders. Majority (78.7%) said they were very satisfied overall, 80.0% were very satisfied with the program schedule, and 85.4% were very satisfied with program staff. Race and age at smoking initiation were predictors of overall program satisfaction. African American/Black participants were 1.9 times more likely to be satisfied with the program compared to White participants.

Conclusion

Majority of the participants of PTQ were satisfied with the program. This study supports the acceptability of a smoking cessation program implemented in a population experiencing homelessness. The high rate of satisfaction among African American participants may be in part because of race concordance between participants, study staff, and community advisory board. Including staff that have a shared lived experience with participants in a smoking cessation study may improve the participant satisfaction within such studies.

A community-based tobacco cessation program for individuals experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is common among persons experiencing homelessness (PEH), and interventions are needed. We conducted a community-based, single-arm uncontrolled trial of a pharmacy-linked intervention for smoking cessation for PEH.

METHODS

The intervention took place between September 2019 and June 2021 in homeless shelters in San Francisco, CA. We trained shelter staff on how to provide brief cessation counseling, then tested a program among PEH in two shelters that included one-time pharmacist-delivered cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 3 months. We examined factors associated with cigarette consumption and quit attempts.

RESULTS

We trained 69 staff from 8 shelters and selected 2 of those shelters as pilot sites for the program. Of the 52 participants, 71% were male and 49% were Black. The majority of participants reported making a quit attempt (70%) and using NRT (84%). Having an encounter with staff in the past week was associated with a 40% reduction in weekly consumption (Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.67) and using medications in the past week was associated with a 23% reduction in weekly consumption (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75-0.81). Using medications in the past week increased the odds of a quit attempt 2.89 times compared to not using medications (Adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.89, 95% CI 1.45-5.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight a role for leveraging community-based pharmacists to expand smoking cessation services in homeless shelters to reduce tobacco use among PEH.

Personalised multicomponent interventions for tobacco dependence management in low socioeconomic populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There remains a disproportionally high tobacco smoking rate in low-income populations. Multicomponent tobacco dependence interventions in theory are effective. However, which intervention components are necessary to include for low socioeconomic status (SES) populations is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of multicomponent tobacco dependence interventions for low SES and create a checklist tool examining multicomponent interventions.

METHODS

EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published with the primary outcome of tobacco smoking cessation measured at 6 months or post intervention. RCTs that evaluated tobacco dependence management interventions (for reduction or cessation) in low SES (experience of housing insecurity, poverty, low income, unemployment, mental health challenges, illicit substance use and/or food insecurity) were included. Two authors independently abstracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and post hoc sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 33 included studies, the number of intervention components ranged from 1 to 6, with smoking quit rates varying between 1% and 36.6%. Meta-analysis revealed that both the 6-month and 12-month outcome timepoints, multicomponent interventions were successful in achieving higher smoking quit rates than the control (OR 1.64, 95% Cl 1.41 to 1.91; OR 1.74, 95% Cl 1.30 to 2.33). Evidence of low heterogeneity in the effect size was observed at 6-month (I2=26%) and moderate heterogeneity at 12-month (I2=56%) outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Multicomponent tobacco dependence interventions should focus on inclusion of social support, frequency and duration of components. Employing community-based participatory-action research approach is essential to addressing underlying psychosocioeconomic-structural factors, in addition to the proven combination pharmacotherapies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076650.

Addressing smoking in sheltered homelessness with intensive smoking treatment (ASSIST project): A pilot feasibility study of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy and motivational interviewing

BACKGROUND

This pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of providing varenicline in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and motivational interviewing (MI) to adult male smokers attending a clinic in a hostel for homeless people.

METHODS

A single group pre- and post-treatment (12 weeks following intervention commencement) design with embedded process evaluation (at weekly counselling and fortnightly safety check-ins). Participants were 20 male smokers attending a health clinic within a homelessness service in Sydney, Australia, between December 2019 and March 2020. Participants set a target quit date 7-days post intervention commencement. Adverse events, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes per day, treatment adherence and acceptability of the study interventions were assessed 12 weeks post intervention commencement. Abstinence was biochemically verified. Results are complete cases.

RESULTS

Retention was 65% at 12-weeks post-intervention commencement (n = 13). No related adverse events were reported. Three participants (15%) reported continuous abstinence. Two participants self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (10%), confirmed by CO level. Participants who did not quit smoking (n = 10), reported a significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day (19.4 vs 4.7, p < .01). Cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and psychological distress significantly decreased from baseline to 12-week follow-up (all < 0.01). Adherence to the pharmacological interventions was good, most used combination NRT and varenicline. Adherence to the counselling sessions was low, attending three of 12 sessions. Both NRT and MI were rated as highly acceptable. Some participants expressed concerns about the safety of varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was feasible and acceptable and associated with short-term smoking cessation and significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked-per-day.

'Money up in smoke': The financial benefits of smoking cessation may be more motivating to people who are homeless than potential health gains

INTRODUCTION

High rates of tobacco smoking among people who are homeless or living in temporary accommodation exacerbate poor health outcomes and financial disadvantage. There is limited research on this population's perceptions of smoking cessation benefits or support strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 68 male smokers living in a temporary accommodation hostel in Brisbane, Australia. The survey measured smoking and quit attempt history, perceptions of cessation aids and benefits of cessation, and awareness of the Intensive Quit Support program-a free Queensland government-funded program comprising 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy supplemented with weekly calls from Quitline.

RESULTS

Participants (56% aged ≤40 years) spent a high proportion of their income on smoking (median $80/week). Although the most commonly reported perceived benefit of smoking cessation was improved health, more participants were interested in a campaign promoting the financial savings of quitting rather than the health benefits. Twice as many participants reported the high cost of smoking-provoked thoughts of quitting than graphic health warning labels on cigarette packs (70.6% vs. 30.9%). Participants reported a high level of interest in e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. There was a low level of awareness but moderate level of interest in the Intensive Quit Support program.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation campaigns promoting the financial savings of cessation may be more salient than health-focused campaigns among relatively young men who smoke and experience homelessness. There is a clear need for innovative, targeted strategies promoting smoking cessation among this population.

Examining moment to moment affective determinants of smoking rate following a quit attempt among homeless daily smokers

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking disproportionately affects homeless individuals, who have a higher smoking prevalence, fewer resources, and increased stressors compared to domiciled smokers. Little is known about how to facilitate smoking cessation among this population although some findings support focusing efforts on affective variables as well as alternate outcomes in order to optimize interventions for this group.

METHODS

Participants were homeless adults recruited from a Dallas, TX, shelter (N = 57, 61.4% male, M_age = 48.8 ± 9.0) to participate in tobacco cessation classes using an American Cancer Society-based therapy and support group with nicotine replacement therapy. Moment-to-moment changes in affect [e.g., negative affect (NA), positive affect (PA), and stress] were recorded via Ecological Momentary Assessments to assess whether they were associated with concurrent changes in cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) following a specific quit attempt. Separate generalized linear models (GLM) were evaluated for each predictor to examine the associations between affective variables and CPD in covariate-adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

Significant interaction effects of time and affect were found for all variables (NA: p = 0.0011, PA: p = 0.0006, stress: p = 0.0259), whereby the association of affect and CPD were significant in the early part of the week but the effects faded as time progressed. With regard to main effects, only increases in PA during the post-quit week significantly predicted fewer CPD (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.924, SE = 0.027, p = 0.0032).

CONCLUSIONS

Homeless smokers may be more likely to decrease their cigarette consumption during periods of greater PA throughout the post-quit week. Relationship between positive affect and reduction in CPD suggest focus on affective variables with homeless smokers may be an effective avenue for change in smoking behaviors, particularly in the days immediately following a quit attempt. Time effects should be further investigated to determine when these interventions might best be implemented.

Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

Populations experiencing homelessness have high rates of tobacco use and experience substantial barriers to cessation. Tobacco-caused conditions are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among people experiencing homelessness, highlighting an urgent need for interventions to reduce the burden of tobacco use in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions designed to improve access to tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness lead to increased numbers engaging in or receiving treatment, and whether interventions designed to help adults experiencing homelessness to quit tobacco lead to increased tobacco abstinence. To also assess whether tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness affect substance use and mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies using the terms: un-housed*, homeless*, housing instability, smoking cessation, tobacco use disorder, smokeless tobacco. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 06 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that recruited people experiencing homelessness who used tobacco, and investigated interventions focused on the following: 1) improving access to relevant support services; 2) increasing motivation to quit tobacco use; 3) helping people to achieve abstinence, including but not limited to behavioral support, tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies, contingency management, and text- or app-based interventions; or 4) encouraging transitions to long-term nicotine use that did not involve tobacco. Eligible comparators included no intervention, usual care (as defined by the studies), or another form of active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Tobacco cessation was measured at the longest time point for each study, on an intention-to-treat basis, using the most rigorous definition available. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (contingent reinforcement in addition to usual smoking cessation care; more versus less intensive smoking cessation interventions; and multi-issue support versus smoking cessation support only), and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, effects on mental and substance-use severity, and meta-analyzed these outcomes where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies involving 1634 participants who smoked combustible tobacco at enrolment. One of the studies was ongoing. Most of the trials included participants who were recruited from community-based sites such as shelters, and three included participants who were recruited from clinics. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. We identified low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that contingent reinforcement (rewards for successful smoking cessation) plus usual smoking cessation care was not more effective than usual care alone in promoting abstinence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.77; 1 trial, 70 participants). We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that more intensive behavioral smoking cessation support was more effective than brief intervention in promoting abstinence at six-month follow-up (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.69; 3 trials, 657 participants; I² = 0%). There was low-certainty evidence, limited by bias and imprecision, that multi-issue support (cessation support that also encompassed help to deal with other challenges or addictions) was not superior to targeted smoking cessation support in promoting abstinence (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.61; 2 trials, 146 participants; I² = 25%). More data on these types of interventions are likely to change our interpretation of these data. Single studies that examined the effects of text-messaging support, e-cigarettes, or cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation provided inconclusive results. Data on secondary outcomes, including mental health and substance use severity, were too sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions on whether there were clinically-relevant differences. We did not identify any studies that explicitly assessed interventions to increase access to tobacco cessation care; we were therefore unable to assess our secondary outcome 'number of participants receiving treatment'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of any tobacco cessation interventions specifically in people experiencing homelessness. Although there was some evidence to suggest a modest benefit of more intensive behavioral smoking cessation interventions when compared to less intensive interventions, our certainty in this evidence was very low, meaning that further research could either strengthen or weaken this effect. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the provision of tobacco cessation support and its effects on quit attempts has any effect on the mental health or other substance-use outcomes of people experiencing homelessness. Although there is no reason to believe that standard tobacco cessation treatments work any differently in people experiencing homelessness than in the general population, these findings highlight a need for high-quality studies that address additional ways to engage and support people experiencing homelessness, in the context of the daily challenges they face. These studies should have adequate power and put effort into retaining participants for long-term follow-up of at least six months. Studies should also explore interventions that increase access to cessation services, and address the social and environmental influences of tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness. Finally, studies should explore the impact of tobacco cessation on mental health and substance-use outcomes.

Motivation to quit cigarettes and alternative tobacco products: prevalence and correlates among youth experiencing homelessness

Use of alternative tobacco products, as well as regular cigarettes, is widespread among unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness. However, little is known about their level of motivation for quitting use of these products, factors associated with motivation to quit, or how these might vary by type of tobacco product. Unaccompanied homeless youth were sampled from 25 street and service sites in Los Angeles County (N = 469). All participants were past month tobacco users who completed a survey on their tobacco-related behaviors and cognitions, including motivation to quit, as well as background characteristics. Among self-reported users of each product, motivation to quit in the next 30 days was highest for regular cigarettes (33%), followed by e-cigarettes/vaporizers (30%), little cigars/cigarillos (25%), cigars (20%), and natural cigarettes (20%). Between 33 and 49% of youth, depending on product, were not thinking about quitting at all. Correlates of lower motivation to quit differed somewhat by product type, with the most consistent being race, more frequent use, lower perceived riskiness of the product, and using the product because of its good taste or smell. Results from this study identify a set of psychosocial and behavioral factors, some that are common across tobacco products and others that are product-specific, that may be particularly important to address in efforts to reduce tobacco use among youth experiencing homelessness. Future regulations on the sale of flavored tobacco products may also serve to increase motivation to quit in this population.

Smoking amongst adults experiencing homelessness: a systematic review of prevalence rates, interventions and the barriers and facilitators to quitting and staying quit

Background

To date, there has been no review of the research evidence examining smoking cessation among homeless adults. The current review aimed to: (i) estimate smoking prevalence in homeless populations; (ii) explore the efficacy of smoking cessation and smoking reduction interventions for homeless individuals; and (iii) describe the barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation and smoking reduction.

Method

Systematic review of peer-reviewed research. Data sources included electronic academic databases. Search terms: ‘smoking’ AND ‘homeless’ AND ‘tobacco’, including adult (18+ years) smokers accessing homeless support services.

Results

Fifty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 46 USA). Data could not be meta-analysed due to large methodological inconsistencies and the lack of randomised controlled trials. Smoking prevalence ranged from 57% to 82%. Although there was no clear evidence on which cessation methods work best, layered approaches with additions to usual care seemed to offer modest enhancements in quit rates. Key barriers to cessation exist around the priority of smoking, beliefs around negative impact on mental health and substance use, and environmental influences.

Conclusions

Homeless smokers will benefit from layered interventions which support many of their competing needs. To best understand what works, future recommendations include the need for consensus on the reporting of cessation outcomes.

Financial Incentives for Smoking Abstinence in Homeless Smokers: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Three-quarters of homeless people smoke cigarettes. Financial incentives for smoking abstinence have appeared promising in nonexperimental studies of homeless smokers, but randomized controlled trial (RCT) data are lacking.

Methods

We conducted a pilot RCT of financial incentives for homeless smokers. Incentive arm participants (N = 25) could earn escalating $15-$35 rewards for brief smoking abstinence (exhaled carbon monoxide <8 parts per million) assessed 14 times over 8 weeks. Control arm participants (N = 25) were given $10 at each assessment regardless of abstinence. All participants were offered nicotine patches and counseling. The primary outcome was a repeated measure of brief smoking abstinence across 14 assessments. The secondary outcome was brief abstinence at 8 weeks. Exploratory outcomes were self-reported 1-day and 7-day abstinence from (1) any cigarette and (2) any puff of a cigarette. Other outcomes included 24-hour quit attempts, nicotine patch use, counseling attendance, and changes in alcohol and drug use.

Results

Compared to control, incentive arm participants were more likely to achieve brief abstinence overall (odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 2.89 to 18.3) and at 8 weeks (48% vs. 8%, p = .004). Similar effects were seen for 1-day abstinence, but 7-day puff abstinence was negligible in both arms. Incentive arm participants made more quit attempts (p = .03). Nicotine patch use and counseling attendance were not significantly different between the groups. Alcohol and drug use did not change significantly in either group.

Conclusions

Among homeless smokers, financial incentives increased brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts without worsening substance use. This approach merits further development focused on promoting sustained abstinence.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02565381).

Implications

Smoking is common among homeless people, and conventional tobacco treatment strategies have yielded modest results in this population. This pilot RCT suggests that financial incentives may be a safe way to promote brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts in this vulnerable group of smokers. However, further development is necessary to translate this approach into real-world settings and to promote sustained periods of smoking abstinence.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta-analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician-centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Meta-analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate-certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant-centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician-centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864).Five studies assessed short-term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long-term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta-analyses resulted in low-certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self-efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate-certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low-certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer-term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.

Cardiovascular Disease and Homelessness

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death among homeless adults, at rates that exceed those in nonhomeless individuals. A complex set of factors contributes to this disparity. In addition to a high prevalence of cigarette smoking and suboptimal control of traditional CVD risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes, a heavy burden of nontraditional psychosocial risk factors like chronic stress, depression, heavy alcohol use, and cocaine use may confer additional risk for adverse CVD outcomes beyond that predicted by conventional risk estimation methods. Poor health care access and logistical challenges to cardiac testing may lead to delays in presentation and diagnosis. The management of established CVD may be further challenged by barriers to medication adherence, communication, and timely follow-up. The authors present practical, patient-centered strategies for addressing these challenges, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and partnership with homeless-tailored clinical programs to improve CVD outcomes in this population.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. 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. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

The Role of Mental Health and Substance Use in Homeless Adults' Tobacco Use and Cessation Attempts

Objective: Although tobacco use is prevalent among adults experiencing homelessness, research deficits exist regarding the mental health, substance use, and demographic correlates of tobacco use behaviors in this population. This study examined whether correlates of tobacco use among housed adults identified by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) were significant correlates of tobacco use and cessation attempts among a sample of homeless adults. Methods: Participants (N = 421) were adults experiencing homelessness entering permanent supportive housing programs in Los Angeles. Multivariate logistic regression determined associations of lifetime mental health diagnoses, recent substance use, demographic characteristics, and lifetime literal homelessness with daily tobacco use and cessation attempts. Results: Lifetime diagnoses of schizophrenia, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, and illicit substance use were associated with increased odds of daily tobacco use. A lifetime diagnosis of depression was associated with an increased likelihood of a past 3-month tobacco cessation attempt, while illicit substance use was associated with a lower likelihood of a cessation attempt. Conclusions: Findings suggest that demographic and clinical characteristics associated with tobacco use differ among this sample of homeless adults and those identified by the CDC among housed adults. Mental health conditions and substance use appear to be the primary correlates of tobacco use among adults experiencing homelessness and may be critical in efforts aimed at improving cessation.

Harm reduction treatment for smoking (HaRT-S): findings from a single-arm pilot study with smokers experiencing chronic homelessness

Background: Smoking prevalence and mortality is 5 times higher for the chronically homeless versus general population. Unfortunately, traditional smoking cessation treatment does not optimally engage this population. In a preliminary study, smokers experiencing chronic homelessness suggested providers avoid giving advice to quit and instead use a more compassionate, nonjudgmental style to discuss a broader menu of patient-driven options, including safer nicotine use. Most had negative perceptions of smoking cessation medications; however, 76% expressed interest in a switchover to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Methods: Using a community-based participatory research approach, we codeveloped harm-reduction treatment for smoking (HaRT-S) together with people with lived experience of chronic homelessness and smoking and a community-based agency that serves them. In HaRT-S, interventionists embody a compassionate, advocacy-oriented "heart-set" and deliver manualized components: a) participant-led tracking of smoking-related outcomes, b) elicitation of harm-reduction goals and progress made toward them, c) discussion of relative risks of nicotine delivery systems, and d) distribution and instructions on use of safer nicotine products. We then conducted a single-arm, 14-week pilot of HaRT-S (N = 44). Results: Participants rated procedures "totally acceptable/effective," which was reflected in 26% overrecruitment within a 4-month period and 70% retention at the 14-week follow-up. For each week in the study, participants experienced an 18% increase in odds of reporting 7-day, biochemically verified, point-prevalence abstinence. All participants reporting abstinence used ENDS. Participants evinced reductions in cigarette dependence (-45%), frequency (-29%), and intensity (-78%; ps < .05). Participants who used ENDS experienced an additional 44% reduction in smoking intensity and a 1.2-point reduction in dependence compared to participants who did not. Conclusions: Harm-reduction counseling plus ENDS shows promise for smokers experiencing chronic homelessness. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the efficacy of this approach in decreasing smoking-related harm and improving health-related quality of life for this marginalized and disproportionately affected population.

A randomized trial of contingency management for smoking cessation in the homeless

Smoking-cessation services are an unmet need among the homeless, who smoke at rates more than 4 times the national estimate. Successful interventions have high potential for improving tobacco-related health disparities among homeless smokers. Contingency management (CM) is a behavioral intervention with efficacy in a number of substance-use disorder populations, including smokers. However, no randomized studies have evaluated the effect of CM in homeless smokers. We examined smoking-related outcomes in homeless smokers (N = 70) randomized to standard-care (SC) smoking cessation involving transdermal nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT), standard counseling, and carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring or the same SC plus CM for negative CO sample submissions. Participants randomized to CM achieved significantly longer durations of consecutive abstinence and submitted a significantly higher proportion of CO-negative samples relative to standard-care participants. At 4 weeks postquit day, 22% were abstinent in the CM condition and 9% were abstinent in the SC condition. At the 6-month follow-up, about 10% of smokers in both conditions were abstinent. This study demonstrates that CM is an efficacious option to increase initial quit rates in homeless smokers, but methods to extend effects are needed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Content analysis of homeless smokers' perspectives on established and alternative smoking interventions

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is 5 times more prevalent among homeless individuals than in the general population, and homeless individuals are disproportionately affected by smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Homeless smokers report interest in changing their smoking behavior; however, established smoking cessation interventions are neither desirable to nor highly effective for most members of this population. The aim of this study was to document homeless smokers' perceptions of established smoking interventions as well as self-generated, alternative smoking interventions to elucidate points for intervention enhancement.

METHODS

Participants (N=25) were homeless smokers who responded to semistructured interviews regarding smoking and nicotine use as well as experiences with established and alternative smoking interventions. Conventional content analysis was used to organize data and identify themes.

RESULTS

Participants appreciated providers' initiation of conversations about smoking. They did not, however, feel simple advice to quit was a helpful approach. Instead, they suggested providers use a nonjudgmental, compassionate style, offer more support, and discuss a broader menu of options, including nonabstinence-based ways to reduce smoking-related harm and improve health-related quality of life. Most participants preferred engaging in their own self-defined, alternative smoking interventions, including obtaining nicotine more safely (e.g., vaping, using smokeless tobacco) and using behavioral (e.g., engaging in creative activities and hobbies) and cognitive strategies (e.g., reminding themselves about the positive aspects of not smoking and the negative consequences of smoking). Abrupt, unaided quit attempts were largely unsuccessful.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of participants with the lived experience of homelessness and smoking were uninterested in established smoking cessation approaches. They did, however, have creative ideas about alternative smoking interventions that providers may support to reduce smoking-related harm and enhance quality of life. These ideas included providing information about the relative risks of smoking and the relative benefits of alternative strategies to obtaining nicotine and avoiding smoking.

A Learning Collaborative Model for Implementation of Smoking Cessation among Homeless Veterans

We evaluated the feasibility of incorporating integrated care (IC) for smoking cessation into routine care for homeless veterans at seven Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and the utility of the learning collaborative (LC) model in facilitating implementation. The goal of IC is for clinicians to provide smoking cessation concurrent with other clinical duties. The LC model utilises multidisciplinary teams and recognised field experts to develop methods for accelerating the use of evidence-based treatments. Multidisciplinary teams comprising 34 (of about 175) staff members from seven VA homeless provider teams participated. Via self-report questionnaires, we assessed providers’ perceptions of the LC and the number of providers delivering IC. Nineteen of thirty-four providers (54%) reported delivering IC at the end of training and at 10-months. Providers rated the face-to-face trainings and collaborative team trainings as the most helpful LC components. Barriers to the use of the LC included lack of leadership support and the lack of ability to electronically track progress through the electronic medical record. Additional research, quality improvement, and policy changes at higher administrative levels are needed to identify methods to sustain the use of LC among providers serving homeless veterans.

Underestimation of homeless clients' interest in quitting smoking: a case for routine tobacco assessment

Issue addressed In Australia smoking rates among the homeless are extremely high; however, little is known about their interest in quitting and few homeless services offer cessation assistance. In an Australian homeless service, this research examined the clients' smoking from the client, staff and organisational perspectives in order to assess the need for cessation assistance for clients and identify opportunities to increase access to it. Methods Twenty-six nurses completed an anonymous survey describing their attitudes to providing smoking-cessation support, current practices and estimates of client smoking and interest in quitting. Subsequently, nurses administered a survey to 104 clients to determine their smoking prevalence and interest in quitting. Organisation-wide tobacco-related policy and practices were audited. Results Most clients (82%) smoked, half of these (52%) reported wanting to quit and 64% reported trying to quit or reduce their smoking in the previous 3 months. Nurses approximated clients' smoking prevalence (88% vs 82% reported by clients), but underestimated interest in quitting (33% vs 52% reported by clients). Among nurses 93% agreed that cessation support should be part of normal client care. The organisation's client-assessment form contained fields for 'respiratory issues' and 'drug issues', but no specific field for smoking status. The organisation's smoking policy focused on providing a smoke-free work environment. Conclusions Many smokers using homeless services want to quit and are actively trying to reduce and quit smoking. Smoking-cessation assistance that meets the needs of people experiencing homelessness is clearly warranted. So what? Homeless services should develop, and include in their smoking policy and intake processes, a practice of routinely assessing tobacco use, offering brief interventions and referral to appropriately tailored services.

Cessation-related weight concern among homeless male and female smokers

Concern about post-cessation weight gain is a barrier to making attempts to quit smoking; however, its effect on smoking cessation is unclear. In this study we examine cessation-related weight concern among the homeless, which hasn't been studied.

Homeless males (n = 320) and females (n = 110) participating in a smoking cessation RCT in the Twin Cities, Minnesota from 2009 to 2011 completed surveys on cessation-related weight concern, smoking status, and components from the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine baseline predictors of cessation-related weight concern at baseline, the end of treatment, and 26-weeks follow-up. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between cessation-related weight concern and smoking status at the end of treatment and follow-up.

Females had higher cessation-related weight concern than males. Among males, older age, Black race, higher BMI, depression, and having health insurance were associated with higher cessation-related weight concern. Among females, nicotine dependence, greater cigarette consumption, indicating quitting is more important, older age of smoking initiation, and less support to quit from family were associated with higher cessation-related weight concern. In multivariate analyses, cessation-related weight concern decreased over time among females. Cessation-related weight concern wasn't associated with smoking cessation.

Although several types of characteristics predicted cessation-related weight concern among males, only smoking characteristics predicted cessation-related weight concern among females. Given the small proportion of quitters in this study (8% of males and 5% of females), further research on the impact of cessation-related weight concern on smoking cessation among the homeless is warranted.

•

Concern about post-quitting weight gain is higher among homeless females than males.

•

In multivariate analyses, weight concern decreased over time among homeless females.

•

Several types of variables predicted weight concern among homeless males.

•

Only smoking characteristics predicted weight concern among homeless females.

•

Weight concern was not associated with smoking cessation among the homeless.

Evaluation of Tobacco Control Policies in San Francisco Homeless Housing Programs

BACKGROUND

The 2014 Surgeon General's Report noted that high smoking rates in vulnerable populations such as the homeless have been a persistent public health problem; smoking prevalence among individuals experiencing homelessness exceeds 70%. Historically, service providers for the homeless have not enacted comprehensive tobacco control policies.

METHOD

We conducted a qualitative study of homeless housing programs in San Francisco. Administrators representing 9 of the city's 11 homeless service agencies were interviewed to assess institutional smoking-related policies and cessation programs and perceived barriers and receptivity to instituting tobacco control interventions.

RESULTS

Respondents indicated that although most programs had adopted smoke-free grounds and some had eliminated evidence of staff smoking, the smoking status of clients was assessed only when required by funders. None of the programs offered smoking cessation interventions. Most administrators were receptive to adopting policies that would promote a tobacco-free culture; however, they noted that their clients had unique challenges that made traditional smoking cessation programs unfeasible.

CONCLUSIONS

Homeless housing programs in San Francisco have not yet adopted a tobacco-free culture. Existing policies were created in response to external mandates, and smoking cessation programs may need to be modified in order to effectively reach clients.

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I² = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I² = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I² = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.

A health sciences student-run smoking cessation clinic experience within a homeless population

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to describe a professional and graduate student-run approach to smoking cessation education combined with motivational interviewing and pharmacotherapy in regard to the frequency of follow-up with a smoking cessation quitline program in the homeless population. The secondary objective is to assess participants' self-reported level of confidence, knowledge, and willingness to quit before and after participation in the student-run smoking cessation clinic.

SETTING

Homeless shelter in Phoenix, Arizona.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

A previously established professional and graduate student-led clinic focused on providing a wide variety of free health services to homeless populations at a homeless shelter. One service not offered was smoking cessation support; thus, a student-run smoking cessation clinic was established.

PRACTICE INNOVATION

Patients were provided smoking cessation education, motivational interviewing, and pharmacotherapy by health sciences professional and graduate students. Patients were then given a 2-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy and referred to the state's smoking cessation quitline. The impact of multiple concomitant smoking cessation strategies provided by students within a homeless population has not been studied previously.

EVALUATION

A 10-day post-referral status update on the success of contact with patients was provided to study investigators from the smoking cessation quitline. Surveys were also used to assess the patient's self-reported level of perceived benefit with the student-run smoking cessation clinic.

RESULTS

Of the 139 unique patients, 19 (13.7%) successfully contacted the smoking cessation quitline. Patients reported high baseline confidence, knowledge, and willingness related to quit attempts; they reported a small improvement in reported values after participation in the student-run clinics.

CONCLUSION

In the homeless population, smoking cessation education, motivational interviewing, and pharmacotherapy had a low follow-up frequency with a smoking cessation quitline, but slightly increased the patient's confidence, knowledge, and willingness to quit.

Progesterone and Postpartum Smoking Relapse: A Pilot Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy is a strong motivator to quit smoking, yet postpartum relapse rates are high. Growing evidence suggests a role of sex hormones in drug abuse behavior and given the precipitous drop in sex hormones at delivery, they may play a role in postpartum relapse. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility and potential role of exogenous progesterone in postpartum smoking relapse.

METHODS

This 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled randomized pilot trial randomized 46 abstinent postpartum women to active progesterone (PRO; 200mg twice a day) versus placebo (PBO) for 4 weeks. Participants were followed for relapse for 12 weeks. Main study outcomes include abstinence (point prevalence), feasibility (compliance per number of clinic visits attended, pill counts and Electronic Data Capture [EDC] completed) and self-reported acceptability. Safety was also measured by depressive symptom scores, adverse events, and breastfeeding.

RESULTS

Overall retention rate was 87% at week 12. At week 4, abstinence rates were 75% in the PRO group and 68.2% in the PBO group (p = .75). Medication adherence was 68% and clinic visit attendance was 80%, with no differences by randomization. Depressive symptom scores, adverse events, and breastfeeding did not vary by randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the study was not powered to evaluate abstinence rates, we did observe a higher prevalence of abstinence at week 4 in the PRO group. Further, exogenous progesterone was well tolerated and did not adversely affect depressive symptoms or breastfeeding. Thus, the results of this pilot study indicate further investigation into progesterone as a postpartum relapse prevention strategy is warranted.

IMPLICATIONS

This innovative pilot trial determined the feasibility of delivering exogenous progesterone as a potential prevention of postpartum smoking relapse. We observed high retention and moderate adherence rates, as well as high acceptability among participants. Further, though not statistically significant, more women in the treatment group remained abstinent from smoking during follow-up. This project adds to the growing body of literature on the role of sex hormones in smoking relapse and also provides support for a fully powered clinical trial.

Addressing Smoking in Supported Residential Facilities for People with Severe Mental Illness: Has Any Progress Been Achieved?

Background: Smoking rates for people with severe mental illness have remained high despite significant declines in smoking rates in the general population, particularly for residents of community supported residential facilities (SRFs) where smoking has been largely neglected and institutionalized. Methods: Two studies undertaken 10 years apart (2000 and 2010) with SRFs in Adelaide, Australia looked at historical trends to determine whether any progress has been made to address smoking for this population. The first study was ethnographic and involved narrative description and analysis of the social milieu of smoking following multiple observations of smoking behaviours in two SRFs. The second study involved an eight-week smoking cessation group program providing tailored support and free nicotine replacement therapy to residents across six SRFs. Changes in smoking behaviours were measured using pre and post surveys with residents, with outcomes verified by also seeking SRF staff and smoking cessation group facilitator qualitative feedback and reflection on their observations of residents and the setting. Results: The culture of smoking in mental health SRFs is a complex part of the social milieu of these settings. There appears to have been little change in smoking behaviours of residents and attitudes and support responses by staff of SRFs since 2000 despite smoking rates declining in the general community. Tailored smoking cessation group programs for this population were well received and did help SRF residents to quit or cut down their smoking. They did challenge staff negative attitudes to residents’ capacity to smoke less or quit. Conclusions: A more systematic approach that addresses SRF regulations, smoke-free policies, staff attitudes and training, and consistent smoking cessation support to residents is needed.

Impact of group motivational interviewing on enhancing treatment engagement for homeless Veterans with nicotine dependence and other substance use disorders: A pilot investigation

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown that Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI) for dually diagnosed patients holds promise for increasing treatment engagement.

OBJECTIVES

The current study evaluated the impact of a novel GMI protocol that included tobacco-specific components (referred to as "Tobacco GMI or T-GMI") targeting enhanced engagement in smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-seven primary alcohol and nicotine-dependent cigarette smoking homeless Veterans with co-morbid psychiatric conditions were recruited to receive four GMI sessions over 4 consecutive days. The first 16 participants received standard GMI, aimed at enhancing engagement in substance abuse treatment and for reducing substance use, while the remaining 21 participants received a modified "tobacco-specific" GMI protocol (T-GMI) that included additional content specific to cessation of tobacco use and enhancing smoking cessation treatment, in addition to the standard substance abuse content of GMI.

RESULTS

Participants in T-GMI were more likely to attend tobacco cessation programming (p = .05), as well as to attend combined tobacco cessation programming with prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (p = .03), compared to those in standard GMI. Differences between treatment conditions with respect to alcohol and illicit drug use outcomes were not significant, although overall substance use declined over time in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Results suggest that inclusion of tobacco-specific components in the context of GMI for substance abuse may enhance treatment engagement for tobacco cessation behaviors among dually diagnosed nicotine dependent homeless patients, a highly vulnerable population for which interventional resources targeting engagement in smoking cessation treatment has historically been lacking. (Am J Addict 2016;25:533-541).

Depression Symptoms Among Homeless Smokers: Effect of Motivational Interviewing

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is higher among homeless individuals than the general population. Homeless individuals are also more likely to have symptoms of depression. Depression symptoms may add to the burden of homelessness by increasing psychological distress and serve as a barrier to quitting smoking.

OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of this study is to assess the impact of depression symptoms on psychological distress in homeless smokers. The effect of depression symptoms on abstinence and the effect of Motivational Interviewing (MI) on cessation among smokers is also explored.

METHODS

Homeless smokers (N = 430) enrolled in a smoking cessation study were randomized to Motivational Interviewing (MI) or standard care (SC). Participants received nicotine replacement therapy and were followed for 26 weeks. Participants were categorized into a depression symptoms (DS) group or control group using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Between group differences of perceived stress, hopelessness, confidence, craving and abstinence were assessed at weeks 8 and 26. The interaction between depression symptoms (levels: DS and control) and the intervention (levels: MI and SC) was also assessed.

RESULTS

Homeless smokers in the DS group reported higher levels of hopelessness, perceived stress, and craving. There was no effect of DS status on abstinence at week 8 or week 26. There was no significant interaction between depression symptoms (DS vs. Control) and the intervention (MI vs. SC).

CONCLUSION

Despite reporting greater psychological distress, homeless smokers with depression symptoms in this sample had abstinence levels similar to the control group. Future research should explore protective factors among depressed smokers.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.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. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.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. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Perceived cessation treatment effectiveness, medication preferences, and barriers to quitting among light and moderate/heavy homeless smokers

INTRODUCTION

Homeless individuals smoke at disproportionately high rates and quit at disproportionately low rates relative to domiciled smokers. Targeted research is needed to inform future interventions. Socio-demographic characteristics of homeless adults suggest that light smoking may be prevalent, and the relation between smoking level and treatment-related preferences/needs is unknown. The current study addressed these gaps in a sample of homeless smokers.

METHODS

Participants (N=237) were homeless adult daily light (1-10 cigarettes per day) and moderate/heavy (>10 cigarettes per day) smokers recruited from a single shelter that offered cessation treatment. Survey items assessed perceived treatment effectiveness, pharmacological intervention preferences, and barriers to quitting smoking. Logistic regressions were used to assess differences in treatment-related factors by smoking level.

RESULTS

The prevalence of light smoking (44.7%) was higher than in previously studied samples of domiciled smokers. Relative to moderate/heavy smokers, light smokers smoked for fewer years, had more quit attempts in the last year, and were more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes. They were less likely to believe that medications would give them the greatest chance of quitting and more likely to believe that group counseling would be helpful. Light smokers did not differ from moderate/heavy smokers on specific pharmacological intervention preferences or on perceived barriers to quitting smoking, including craving.

CONCLUSIONS

The promotion of pharmacotherapy to address cravings may be necessary for light smokers, who represent a sizeable proportion of homeless smokers and who may make apt intervention targets given their higher rates of purposeful quit attempts relative to heavier smoking counterparts.

Tobacco-, alcohol-, and drug-attributable deaths and their contribution to mortality disparities in a cohort of homeless adults in Boston

OBJECTIVES

We quantified tobacco-, alcohol-, and drug-attributable deaths and their contribution to mortality disparities among homeless adults.

METHODS

We ascertained causes of death among 28 033 adults seen at the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program in 2003 to 2008. We calculated population-attributable fractions to estimate the proportion of deaths attributable to tobacco, alcohol, or drug use. We compared attributable mortality rates with those for Massachusetts adults using rate ratios and differences.

RESULTS

Of 1302 deaths, 236 were tobacco-attributable, 215 were alcohol-attributable, and 286 were drug-attributable. Fifty-two percent of deaths were attributable to any of these substances. In comparison with Massachusetts adults, tobacco-attributable mortality rates were 3 to 5 times higher, alcohol-attributable mortality rates were 6 to 10 times higher, and drug-attributable mortality rates were 8 to 17 times higher. Disparities in substance-attributable deaths accounted for 57% of the all-cause mortality gap between the homeless cohort and Massachusetts adults.

CONCLUSIONS

In this clinic-based cohort of homeless adults, over half of all deaths were substance-attributable, but this did not fully explain the mortality disparity with the general population. Interventions should address both addiction and non-addiction sources of excess mortality.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is therefore important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may include further educating individuals about the value of taking medications and providing additional support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation, such as NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline and varenicline (and combination regimens). This was considered in comparison to a control group, typically representing standard care. Secondary objectives were to i) assess which intervention approaches are most effective; ii) determine the impact of interventions on potential precursors of adherence, such as understanding of the treatment and efficacy perceptions; and iii) evaluate key outcomes influenced by prior adherence, principally smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1946 to July Week 3 2014), EMBASE (OVID SP) (1980 to Week 29 2014), and PsycINFO (OVID SP) (1806 to July Week 4 2014). The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register was searched on 9th July 2014. We conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which participants using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation are allocated to an intervention arm or a control arm. Eligible participants were adult (18+) smokers. Eligible interventions comprised any intervention that differed from standard care, and where the intervention content had a clear principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence. Acceptable comparison groups were those that provided standard care, which depending on setting may comprise minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure of adherence behaviour that allowed some assessment of the degree of adherence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched for studies and independently extracted data for included studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook guidance. For continuous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as relative risks (RRs). We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy retrieved 3165 unique references and we identified 31 studies as potentially eligible for inclusion. Of these, 23 studies were excluded at full-text screening stage or identified as studies awaiting classification subject to further information. We included eight studies involving 3336 randomised participants. The interventions were all additional to standard behavioural support and typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication, and supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.Five studies reported on whether or not participants achieved a specified satisfactory level of adherence to medication. There was evidence that adherence interventions led to modest improvements in adherence, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.28, P = 0.02, n = 1630). Four studies reported continuous measures of adherence to medication. Although the standardised mean difference (SMD) favoured adherence interventions, the effect was small and not statistically significant (SMD 0.07, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.17, n = 1529). Applying the GRADE system, the quality of evidence for these results was assessed as moderate and low, respectively.There was evidence that adherence interventions led to modest improvements in rates of cessation. The relative risk for achieving abstinence was similar to that for improved adherence. It was not significant in meta-analysis of four studies providing short-term abstinence: RR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.21, n = 1755), but there was statistically significant evidence of improved abstinence at six months or more from a different set of four studies: RR = 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.34, P = 0.03, n = 3049). Applying the GRADE system, the quality of evidence for these results was assessed as low for both.As interventions were similar in nature and the number of studies was low, it was not possible to investigate whether different types of intervention approaches were more effective than others. Relevant outcomes other than adherence or cessation were not reported.There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. All included studies were assessed as at high or unclear risk of bias. This was often due to a lack of clarity in reporting - meaning assessments were unclear - rather than clear evidence of failing to sufficiently safeguard against the risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that interventions that devote special attention to improving adherence to smoking cessation medication through providing information and facilitating problem-solving can improve adherence, though the evidence for this is not strong and is limited in both quality and quantity. There is some evidence that such interventions improve the chances of achieving abstinence but again the evidence for this is relatively weak.

Enrolling Smokers from Health Systems into Quitline Services: ‘Results of two enrollment strategies’

Objective: To determine the effects of motivational interviewing (MI) counselling versus a minimal intervention control on the enrollment of smokers in the Minnesota QUITPLAN Helpline.

Study design: Two-group randomized controlled trial of 235 community-dwelling adult smokers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a three-session phone based motivational interviewing intervention (n = 118) or the control (n = 117) consisting of mailed printed materials about the Minnesota QUITPLAN helpline services.

Data collection: Participants completed demographic and smoking-related survey questionnaire at baseline (by mail) and at weeks 4 and 26 (by phone) follow-up. Quitline enrollment status data was provided by the Minnesota QUITPLAN Helpline.

Principal findings: At week 4 follow-up, a higher proportion of participants in the MI group (22.3%) had enroled in the Minnesota QUITPLAN Helpline compared to those in the control arm (13.6%; p = 0.098). At week 26 follow-up, enrollment rates were similar for MI (28.0%) and control (26.5%) arms. Of those who enroled in the Helpline, participants in the MI group reported completing more Helpline sessions than those in control group (4.9 vs. 3.2; p = 0.087).

There was no significant interaction between readiness to quit and intervention for the outcome of enrollment in the Helpline.

Conclusions: A minimal intensity control such as mailing printed materials resulted in quitline enrollment rates similar to a more resource intensive intervention like motivational interviewing and several folds higher than the current state or national averages. We recommend that health plans should consider mailing smoking cessation promotional messages to encourage smokers to enrol in quitlines.

The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations

In the European Union, more than 400,000 individuals are homeless on any one night and more than 600,000 are homeless in the USA. The causes of homelessness are an interaction between individual and structural factors. Individual factors include poverty, family problems, and mental health and substance misuse problems. The availability of low-cost housing is thought to be the most important structural determinant for homelessness. Homeless people have higher rates of premature mortality than the rest of the population, especially from suicide and unintentional injuries, and an increased prevalence of a range of infectious diseases, mental disorders, and substance misuse. High rates of non-communicable diseases have also been described with evidence of accelerated ageing. Although engagement with health services and adherence to treatments is often compromised, homeless people typically attend the emergency department more often than non-homeless people. We discuss several recommendations to improve the surveillance of morbidity and mortality in homeless people. Programmes focused on high-risk groups, such as individuals leaving prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and the child welfare system, and the introduction of national and state-wide plans that target homeless people are likely to improve outcomes.

Retention of Homeless Smokers in the Power to Quit Study

INTRODUCTION

Concerns about retention are a major barrier to conducting studies enrolling homeless individuals. Since smoking is a major problem in homeless communities and research on effective methods of promoting smoking cessation is needed, we describe strategies used to increase retention and participant characteristics associated with retention in smoking cessation study enrolling homeless adults.

METHODS

The parent study was a 2-group randomized controlled trial with 26-week follow-up enrolling 430 homeless smokers from emergency shelters and transitional housing units in Minneapolis/Saint Paul, MN, USA. Multiple strategies were used to increase retention, including conducting visits at convenient locations for participants, collecting several forms of contact information from participants, using a schedule that was flexible and included frequent low-intensity visits, and providing incentives. Participant demographics as well as characteristics related to tobacco and drug use and health status were analyzed for associations with retention using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Overall retention was 75% at 26 weeks. Factors associated with increased retention included greater age; having healthcare coverage; history of multiple homeless episodes, lower stress level; and higher PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) score. A history of excessive drinking and drug use were associated with decreased retention.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to successfully retain homeless individuals in a smoking cessation study if the study is designed with participants' needs in mind.

Small financial incentives increase smoking cessation in homeless smokers: a pilot study

Although over 70% of homeless individuals smoke, few studies have examined the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in this vulnerable population. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of shelter-based smoking cessation clinic usual care (UC) to an adjunctive contingency management (CM) treatment that offered UC plus small financial incentives for smoking abstinence. Sixty-eight homeless individuals in Dallas, Texas (recruited in 2012) were assigned to UC (n=58) or UC plus financial incentives (CM; n=10) groups and were followed for 5 consecutive weeks (1 week pre-quit through 4 weeks post-quit). A generalized linear mixed model regression analysis was conducted to compare biochemically-verified abstinence rates between groups. An additional model examined the interaction between time and treatment group. The participants were primarily male (61.8%) and African American (58.8%), and were 49 years of age on average. There was a significant effect of treatment group on abstinence overall, and effects varied over time. Follow-up logistic regression analyses indicated that CM participants were significantly more likely than UC participants to be abstinent on the quit date (50% vs. 19% abstinent) and at 4 weeks post-quit (30% vs. 1.7% abstinent). Offering small financial incentives for smoking abstinence may be an effective way to facilitate smoking cessation in homeless individuals.

Shelter proximity and affect among homeless smokers making a quit attempt

OBJECTIVES

To explore the associations between shelter proximity and real-time affect during a specific smoking quit attempt among 22 homeless adults.

METHODS

Affect was measured via 485 smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessments randomly administered during the weeks immediately before and after the quit day, and proximity to the shelter was measured via GPS. Adjusted linear mixed model regressions examined associations between shelter proximity and affect.

RESULTS

Closer proximity to the shelter was associated with greater negative affect only during the post-quit attempt week (p = .008). All participants relapsed to smoking by one week post-quit attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

Among homeless smokers trying to quit, the shelter may be associated with unexpected negative affect/stress. Potential intervention applications are suggested.