Do professional perspectives on evidence-based smoking cessation methods align? A Delphi study among researchers and healthcare professionals

Process and effect evaluation of a referral aid for smoking cessation counselling in primary care: Findings of a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study explored the use and effects of a smoking cessation referral in: 1) practice nurses (PNs), and 2) smokers. The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) can double the likelihood of a successful smoking cessation attempt. A referral aid was developed to aid Dutch PNs in primary care in deciding which smokers are the most suitable for EBSCI.

METHODS

Two different studies were conducted: 1) a randomized controlled trial with a process evaluation (n=82) and effect evaluation (n=285) among smoking patients recruited by PNs (n=73), and 2) a process evaluation among a subgroup of PNs (n=40) from January 2019 to September 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, the response in both groups was low. PNs found the referral aid materials clear and understandable. Smokers had similar but (slightly) less-positive opinions. The smokers in both groups did not differ in the amount of discussion and use of EBSCIs, nor on smoking abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research should assess how to better involve PNs and smokers when recruiting for an RCT and how to foster effective counselling. Additional research should also look deeper into barriers to referral of both PNs and smokers, and how to stimulate referral to EBSCIs best and help smokers to make a decision; for example by implementing a simplified strategy both within the primary care setting and outside, by involving other healthcare professionals or options outside healthcare such as the workplace and social domain.

Trial registration

The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7020).

An overview of facilitators and barriers in the development of eHealth interventions for people of low socioeconomic position: A Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

eHealth interventions can improve the health outcomes of people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) by promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, developing and implementing these interventions among the target group can be challenging for professionals. To facilitate the uptake of effective interventions, this study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced by professionals in the development, reach, adherence, implementation and evaluation phases of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP.

METHOD

We used a Delphi method, consisting of two online questionnaires, to determine the consensus on barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced during eHealth intervention phases and their importance. Participants provided open-ended responses in the first round and rated statements in the second round. The interquartile range was used to calculate consensus, and the (totally) agree ratings were used to assess importance.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven professionals participated in the first round, and 19 (70.4%) completed the second round. We found a consensus for 34.8% of the 46 items related to highly important rated barriers, such as the lack of involvement of low-SEP people in the development phase, lack of knowledge among professionals about reaching the target group, and lack of knowledge among lower-SEP groups about using eHealth interventions. Additionally, we identified a consensus for 80% of the 60 items related to highly important rated facilitators, such as rewarding people with a low SEP for their involvement in the development phase and connecting eHealth interventions to the everyday lives of lower-SEP groups to enhance reach.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators of developing eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP by examining current practices and offering recommendations for future improvements. Strengthening facilitators can help overcome these barriers. To achieve this, we recommend defining the roles of professionals and lower-SEP groups in each phase of eHealth intervention and disseminating this study's findings to professionals to optimize the impact of eHealth interventions for this group.

How to persuade more primary care professionals to adopt a valued smoking cessation referral aid: a cross-sectional study of facilitators and barriers

BACKGROUND

To study the factors associated with the intention of primary care professionals (PCPs) to use or not use a referral aid (RA) for selecting an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention (EBSCI).

METHODS

Participants (n = 85) were recruited from June to September 2020 to complete an online questionnaire based on the I-Change Model to assess the factors associated with the adoption of RA. The differences between PCPs with (n = 37) and without (n = 48) the intention to adopt in terms of demographics, motivational factors, and post-motivational factors were subsequently assessed. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors associated with the intention to adopt.

RESULTS

Both groups indicated that they highly appreciated the RA. However, PCPs without the intention to adopt expressed a more negative attitude towards the RA, experienced less social support, showed low self-efficacy, and encountered barriers such as lack of time and skills. The factors most strongly associated with the intention to adopt were advantages, disadvantages, self-efficacy, less barriers, working in a solo practice and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of RA can be facilitated in two ways. The first one is by increasing the added value of the tool through a second round of co-creation focusing on the adoptability of the RA in practice. The second approach is by communicating the added value of referring to EBSCIS and thereby using the RA by implementing it in smoking cessation training for PCPs, which could also help to improve the attitude, social support, self-efficacy, and perceived skills in terms of RA usage among PCPs.

IMPACT

This study is the first work in the Netherlands to investigate the willingness of PCPs to actively refer patients to other EBSCIs in addition to providing face-to-face counseling themselves.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7020 ).

The Usability of an Online Tool to Promote the Use of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions

To increase usage of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) among smokers, an online decision aid (DA) was developed. The aims of this study were (1) to conduct a usability evaluation; (2) to conduct a program evaluation and evaluate decisional conflict after using the DA and (3) to determine the possible change in the intention to use EBSCIs before and directly after reviewing the DA. A cross-sectional study was carried out in September 2020 by recruiting smokers via the Internet (n = 497). Chi-squared tests and t-tests were conducted to test the differences between smokers who differed in the perceived usability of the DA on the program evaluation and in decisional conflict. The possible changes in intention to use EBSCIs during a cessation attempt before and after reviewing the DA were tested using t-tests, McNemar's test and χ2 analysis. The participants evaluated the usability of the DA as moderate (MU; n = 393, 79.1%) or good (GU; n = 104, 20.9%). GU smokers rated higher on all the elements of the program evaluation and experienced less decisional conflict, but also displayed a higher intention to quit. After reviewing the DA, the participants on average had a significantly higher intention to use more EBSCIs, in particular in the form of eHealth. Recommendations to make the DA more usable could include tailoring, using video-based information and including value clarification methods. Furthermore, a hybrid variant in which smokers can use the DA independently and with the guidance of a primary care professional could aid both groups in choosing a fitting EBSCI option.