Evaluation of a smoking cessation patient decision aid that integrates information about e-cigarettes

A qualitative study of using nicotine products for smoking cessation after discharge from residential drug and alcohol treatment in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoking is highly prevalent among alcohol and other drugs (AOD) service clients and, despite interest in quitting, abstinence is rarely sustained. Nicotine products may assist after discharge from residential treatment services, but little is known about client receptivity to them. This study examined AOD withdrawal service clients' experiences of two types of nicotine products for smoking cessation post-discharge, combination nicotine replacement therapy (cNRT) and nicotine vaping products (NVP).

METHODS

We held semi-structured telephone interviews with 31 Australian AOD service clients in a clinical trial of a 12-week smoking cessation intervention using Quitline support plus cNRT or NVP delivered post-discharge from a smoke-free residential service. We asked about health and social factors, nicotine cravings, Quitline experience, and barriers and facilitators to cNRT or NVP, then thematically analysed data.

RESULTS

cNRT and NVP were described by participants as feasible and acceptable for smoking cessation. For most participants, cost limited cNRT access post study, as did difficulty navigating NVP prescription access. Quitline support was valued, but not consistently used, with participants noting low assistance with NVP-facilitated cessation. Participants considered both cessation methods acceptable and socially supported, and sought information on decreasing nicotine use via NVP.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

AOD service clients highly valued receiving cNRT or NVP with behavioural support for smoking reduction or abstinence. Both interventions were acceptable to service clients. Findings suggest a potential need to examine both whether NVP use should be permitted in this context, and guidance on the individual suitability of cNRT or NVP.

Feasibility of a primary care patient decision aid for smoking cessation with information about e-cigarettes

•

Patients had higher confidence and readiness to quit after the decision aids.

•

The decision aid helped prepare patients to make a decision about quitting smoking.

•

Patients expressed satisfaction with the decision aid and clinician consultation.

•

Smoking cessation decision aids are acceptable and may promote behavior change.

Decision aids can promote shared decision making and behavior change and may be effective in helping patients quit smoking. Patients are increasingly using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation; however, little is known about the impact of including e-cigarette information in smoking cessation decision aids. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a smoking cessation decision aid including e-cigarette information. This study was conducted at one family medicine clinic in the United States. We used a pre-post design. In Phase I, the decision aid presented information about approved cessation methods. In Phase II, current e-cigarette users and patients with no intention of quitting received additional information on switching to e-cigarettes. We assessed the impact of the decision aids on quit attempts and abstinence, confidence and readiness to quit, confidence and readiness to switch to e-cigarettes, and patient satisfaction. We enrolled 60 patients in each phase (N = 120). Patients reported higher confidence and readiness to quit after viewing the decision aids and consulting with their physician (p < 0.01). Patients reported the decision aid helped prepare them to make a decision about quitting smoking and expressed satisfaction with the decision aid and clinician consultation. We did not observe an impact of including e-cigarette information. Smoking cessation decision aids are acceptable to patients and may promote behavior change. Future studies should explore the impact of providing patients e-cigarette information using larger sample sizes and rigorous designs. Further research is needed to identify strategies to promote shared decision-making regarding e-cigarettes.

Formative provider testing of a New Encounter Decision Aid for Smoking Cessation (Preprint)

Background

Smoking cessation is an essential part of preventing and reducing the risk of smoking-associated morbidity and mortality. However, there is often little time to discuss smoking cessation in primary care. Decision aids (DAs) designed for clinic visits (encounter DAs) need to be clear, short, and concise to optimize therapeutic education, increase interaction, and improve the therapeutic alliance. Such a DA for smoking cessation could potentially improve counseling and increase the use of pharmacological treatments.

Objective

We aimed to collect feedback on an electronic encounter DA that facilitates physician-patient interaction and shared decision-making for smoking cessation in primary care.

Methods

We developed an electronic, encounter DA (howtoquit.ch) from a paper version created by our team in 2017 following user-centered design principles. The DA is a 1-page interactive website presenting and comparing medications for tobacco cessation and electronic cigarettes. Each smoking cessation medication has a drop down menu that presents additional information, a video demonstration, and prescribing information for physicians. To test the DA, we submitted a questionnaire to approximately 20 general practitioner residents of an academic general medicine department, 5 general practitioners, and 6 experts in the field of smoking cessation. The questionnaire consisted of 4 multiple-choice and 2 free-text questions assessing the usability or acceptability of the DA, the acquisition of new knowledge for practitioners, the perceived utility in supporting shared decision-making, perceived strengths and weaknesses, and whether the participants would recommend the tool to other clinicians.

Results

In all, 6 residents, 3 general practitioners in private practice, and 2 tobacco cessation experts completed the questionnaire (N=11), with 4 additional experts providing open-text feedback. On the 11 questionnaires, the DA was rated as practical and intuitive (mean 4.6/5), and providers felt it supported shared decision-making (mean 4.4/5), as comparisons were readily possible. Inclusion of explanatory videos was seen as a bonus. Several changes were suggested, like grouping together similar medications and adding a landing page to briefly explain the site. Changes were implemented according to end-user comments.

Conclusions

The overall assessment of the encounter DA by a group of physicians and experts was positive. The ultimate objective is to have the tool deployed and easily accessible for all to use.