Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

[Smoking cessation in hospitalised patients - Initiate among inpatients, continue when outpatients - A Position Paper by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) Taskforce for Smoking Cessation]

Tobacco smoking is the greatest preventable health risk. The effects are serious, both individually and societal. Nevertheless, the current prevalence of tobacco smokers in Germany is still high at around 35 %. A recent strong increase in actively smoking adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 16 %) and young adults (18- to 24-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 41 %) is also a cause for concern. About a third of all inpatients continue smoking while being treated. The hospitalization of active smokers in acute and rehabilitation hospitals serves as a "teachable moment" for initiation of cessation offers. An intervention that begins in hospital and continues for at least a month after discharge results in about 40 % additional smokefree patients. It is scientifically well-researched, effective and cost-efficient. After initiation in hospital these measures can be continued via ambulatory cessation programs, rehabilitation facilities, an Internet or telephone service. In Germany, there are structured and quality-assured cessation offers, both for the inpatient and for the outpatient area. The biggest obstacle to broad establishment of such offers is the lack of reimbursement. Two feasible ways to change this would be the remuneration of the existing OPS 9-501 "Multimodal inpatient treatment for smoking cessation" and the establishment of quality contracts according to § 110a SGB V. An expansion of tobacco cessation measures in healthcare facilities would reduce smoking prevalence, associated burden of disease and consecutive costs.

Impact of smoking bans and other smoking cessation interventions in prisons, mental health and substance use treatment settings: A systematic review of the evidence

ISSUES

We conducted a systematic review to examine whether smoking bans alone are effective in achieving smoking cessation in people released from prison, and patients discharged from mental health or substance use settings.

APPROACH

We searched health, criminology and social science databases. Detailed search strings were used to combine terms related to smoking bans and cessation interventions in prison, mental health and substance use treatment settings. We used backward and forward snowballing and manual hand searching to find additional studies. Studies were included if they: were published between 1 January 2000 and 25 February 2022; included a complete smoking ban; measured people released from prison and/or mental health and/or substance use patients smoking post-release/discharge from a smoke-free facility; and reported smoking cessation intervention and/or smoking ban outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and reviewed by two authors.

KEY FINDINGS

People released from prison, mental health and substance use in-patients who experience a smoking ban while incarcerated or in in-patient settings often relapse to smoking shortly after release or discharge. We found that although smoking bans alone do not promote cessation, multi-component interventions in combination with smoking bans can significantly increase cessation rates post-release/discharge provided they support participants during this time.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to suggest tobacco bans alone in prison, mental health and substance use treatment settings are effective in achieving long-term smoking cessation. This review suggests that combining smoking bans and cessation interventions including pre- and post-release/discharge support can be effective in achieving smoking cessation.

Nurses’ Perspectives on Smoking Policies, Safety and Cessation Support in Psychiatric Wards: A Cross-Sectional Survey

A high prevalence of smoking and low rates of smoking cessation interventions can be observed in psychiatric wards. A questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study was performed in five hospitals among 107 psychiatric ward nurses. The aim was to investigate nurses’ views on patients’ smoking practices and their influence on the safety of both the patients and medical personnel. In addition, we asked about the availability of smoking cessation support. Most of the respondents noticed the negative impacts of smoking on patients and medical personnel. Nearly a third of our respondents (29.0%) recalled smoking-related accidents in their facilities. In 45.2% of these accidents, a patient set someone else on fire. Around one fifth of nurses had rather permissive attitudes towards tobacco use in hospital wards. Significant associations were identified between respondents’ smoking status and their opinions on amending smoking policies and on unsupervised smoking. Regarding professional help available to smoking patients, 88.8% of participants reported that interventions to address smoking were available in their wards. Psychiatric hospitalisation can be an opportunity to offer tobacco treatment to patients with mental health conditions. To make use of this opportunity, smoke-free policies need to be put in place and hospital personnel, particularly nurses, should be trained and equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to assist in the smoking care of psychiatric ward patients.

Acceptability and participation predictors for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to test a smoking cessation intervention after discharge from mental health wards

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hospitalization is an ideal time to promote smoking cessation, but interventions are limited for supporting cessation maintenance after discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of participating in a trial that tested the efficacy of an intensive telephone-based intervention for smokers after discharge.

METHODS

Adult smokers admitted to mental health wards of six hospitals were invited to participate in the trial. We studied the study acceptance/decline rates by analyzing the characteristics of participants (e.g., sex, age, psychiatric disorder, smoking pattern) and hospitals (e.g., size, tobacco control implementation). We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) to assess predictors of non-participation.

RESULTS

Of 530 smokers that met the study inclusion criteria, 55.5% (n = 294) agreed to participate. Participant and non-participants were not different in sex, age, or psychiatric diagnosis. Compared to non-participants, participants had made more attempts to quit in the past year (66.1% vs 33.9%; p < 0.001) and reported higher abstinence rates during the hospital stay (66.7% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.05). Participation rates by hospital varied from 30.9% to 82.0% (p < 0.001). Predictors of non-participation were not having attempted to quit in the last year (aOR=2.42; 95%CI: 1.66-3.53) and low level of tobacco control in the hospital (aOR range: 1.79-6.39, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A telephone-based intervention to promote smoking cessation after discharge was accepted by half of the smokers with mental health disorders. Smokers that had attempted to quit previously and those that stayed in hospitals with a strong tobacco control policy were more likely to participate in the trial.

Adapting Peer Researcher Facilitated Strategies to Recruit People Receiving Mental Health Services to a Tobacco Treatment Trial

INTRODUCTION

One of the most challenging aspects of conducting intervention trials among people who experience severe mental illness (SMI) and who smoke tobacco, is recruitment. In our parent "QuitLink" randomized controlled trial (RCT), slower than expected peer researcher facilitated recruitment, along with the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, necessitated an adaptive recruitment response. The objectives of the present study were to: (i) describe adaptive peer researcher facilitated recruitment strategies; (ii) explore the effectiveness of these strategies; (iii) investigate whether recruitment strategies reached different subgroups of participants; and (iv) examine the costs and resources required for implementing these strategies. Finally, we offer experience-based lessons in a Peer Researcher Commentary.

METHODS

People were included in the RCT if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day and were accessing mental health support from the project's two partnering mental health organizations in Victoria, Australia. The majority of people accessing these services will have been diagnosed with SMI. Recruitment occurred over 2 years. We began with peer facilitated recruitment strategies delivered face-to-face, then replaced this with direct mail postcards followed by telephone contact. In the final 4 months of the study, we began online recruitment, broadening it to people who smoked and were accessing support or treatment (including from general practitioners) for mental health and/or alcohol or other drug problems, anywhere in the state of Victoria. Differences between recruitment strategies on key participant variables were assessed. We calculated the average cost per enrolee of the different recruitment approaches.

RESULTS

Only 109 people were recruited from a target of 382: 29 via face-to-face (March 2019 to April 2020), 66 from postcards (May 2020 to November 2020), and 14 from online (November to December 2020 and January to March 2021) strategies. Reflecting our initial focus on recruiting from supported independent living accommodation facilities, participants recruited face-to-face were significantly more likely to be living in partially or fully supported independent living (n = 29, <0.001), but the samples were otherwise similar. After the initial investment in training and equipping peer researchers, the average cost of recruitment was AU$1,182 per participant-~US$850. Face-to-face recruitment was the most expensive approach and postcard recruitment the least (AU$1,648 and AU$928 per participant).

DISCUSSION

Peer researcher facilitated recruitment into a tobacco treatment trial was difficult and expensive. Widely dispersed services and COVID-19 restrictions necessitated non-face-to-face recruitment strategies, such as direct mail postcards, which improved recruitment and may be worthy of further research.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. The trial sponsor was the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Monitoring changes in smoking and quitting behaviours among Australians with and without mental illness over 15 years

OBJECTIVE

This study examines smoking prevalence and quitting behaviours among Australians with and without mental illness.

METHODS

Analysis of data from Australia's triennial National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 2004-2019. The prevalence of regular smokers, never smokers, the quit proportion, cigarette consumption, and use of cessation aids were examined for those with and without mental illness.

RESULTS

Among Australians with mental illness, there was a significant decrease in regular smokers and significant increases in never smokers and in the proportion of ever smokers who had quit between 2004 and 2019. Smokers with mental illness were generally as likely to attempt to quit and more likely to use cessation support; however, they were also more likely to report unsuccessful quit attempts. Smokers with mental illness who had quit reported lower levels of psychological distress than those still smoking.

CONCLUSION

Since 2004, there have been some encouraging trends in reducing tobacco use among people with mental illness; however, smoking rates remain substantially higher than among those without mental illness. Implications for public health: Findings highlight the importance of routinely identifying smokers with mental illness and improving access and adherence to best practice smoking cessation treatment.

There's no smoke without fire: Smoking in smoke-free acute mental health wards

BACKGROUND

People who smoke with serious mental illness carry disproportionate costs from smoking, including poor health and premature death from tobacco-related illnesses. Hospitals in New Zealand are ostensibly smoke-free; however, some mental health wards have resisted implementing this policy.

AIM

This study explored smoking in acute metal health wards using data emerging from a large sociological study on modern acute psychiatric units.

METHODS

Eighty-five in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff and service users from four units. Data were analysed using a social constructionist problem representation approach.

RESULTS

Although high-level smoke-free policies were mandatory, most participants disregarded these policies and smoking occurred in internal courtyards. Staff reasoned that acute admissions were not the time to quit smoking, citing the sceptres of distress and possibly violence; further, they found smoking challenging to combat. Inconsistent enforcement of smoke-free policies was common and problematic. Many service users also rejected smoke-free policies; they considered smoking facilitated social connections, alleviated boredom, and helped them feel calm in a distressing environment - some started or increased smoking following admission. A minority viewed smoking as a problem; a fire hazard, or pollutant. No one mentioned its health risks.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric wards remain overlooked corners where hospital smoke-free policies are inconsistently applied or ignored. Well-meaning staff hold strong but anachronistic views about smoking. To neglect smoking cessation support for people with serious mental illness is discriminatory and perpetuates health and socioeconomic inequities. However, blanket applications of generic policy are unlikely to succeed. Solutions may include myth-busting education for service users and staff, local champions, and strong managerial support and leadership, with additional resourcing during transition phases. Smoke-free policies need consistent application with non-judgemental NRT and, potentially, other treatments. Smoking cessation would be supported by better designed facilities with more options for alleviating boredom, expressing autonomy, facilitating social connections, and reducing distress.

Supporting smoking cessation and preventing relapse following a stay in a smoke-free setting: a meta-analysis and investigation of effective behaviour change techniques

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Admission to a smoke-free setting presents a unique opportunity to encourage smokers to quit. However, risk of relapse post-discharge is high, and little is known about effective strategies to support smoking cessation following discharge. We aimed to identify interventions that maintain abstinence following a smoke-free stay and determine their effectiveness, as well as the probable effectiveness of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies of adult smokers aged ≥ 18 years who were temporarily or fully abstinent from smoking to comply with institutional smoke-free policies. Institutions included prison, inpatient mental health, substance misuse or acute hospital settings. A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using biochemically verified abstinence (7-day point prevalence or continuous abstinence). BCTs were defined as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness (if BCT was present in two or more long-term effective interventions) and feasibility (if BCT was also delivered in ≥ 25% of all interventions).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies (intervention n = 9041, control n = 6195) were included: 23 RCTs (intervention n = 6593, control n = 5801); three non-randomized trials (intervention n = 845, control n = 394) and 11 cohort studies (n = 1603). Meta-analysis of biochemically verified abstinence at longest follow-up (4 weeks-18 months) found an overall effect in favour of intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.49, I²  = 42%]. Nine BCTs (including 'pharmacological support', 'goal-setting (behaviour)' and 'social support') were characterized as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness and feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that behavioural and pharmacological support is effective in maintaining smoking abstinence following a stay in a smoke-free institution. Several behaviour change techniques may help to maintain smoking abstinence up to 18 months post-discharge.

Multidisciplinary barriers to addressing tobacco cessation during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

Tobacco use and resultant health complications disproportionately impact individuals with psychiatric disorders. Inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations provide an opportunity to initiate tobacco treatment. In this study, electronic medical record review identified demographic and clinical information, smoking status, and tobacco cessation treatment offered for adults hospitalized on two acute, non-smoking psychiatric units in Massachusetts from January 2016 to March 2018. We additionally conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 inpatient nursing, psychiatry, psychology and social work providers regarding their tobacco cessation treatment practices and perceived facilitators and barriers to addressing tobacco use on psychiatric inpatient units. Chart review identified 1099 of 3140 (35%) people admitted reporting daily tobacco smoking. On discharge, 5 (0.005%) of inpatient smokers received a prescription for varenicline, 43 (0.04%) for dual-nicotine replacement therapy, 211 (19.2%) for nicotine patch, and 5 (0.005%) for bupropion. Barriers to inpatient smoking cessation treatment initiation identified in qualitative interviews included: 1) smoking cessation as low priority, 2) smoking cessation as the responsibility of outpatient providers, 3) lack of education about tobacco treatment, and 4) treatment discussions framed as preventing withdrawal. Given the potential to impact a large percentage of psychiatric tobacco users, future interventions should investigate provision of tobacco cessation counseling and pharmacotherapy in inpatient settings, with interventions that take into account the barriers and opportunities presented in this study.

Systematic Review of Psychosocial Smoking Cessation Interventions for People with Serious Mental Illness

Tobacco smoking is a major driver of premature mortality in people with serious mental illness (SMI; e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder). This systematic literature review described randomized control trials of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions for people with SMI, rated their methodological rigor, evaluated the inclusion of racial/ethnic and sexual/gender minorities, and examined smoking cessation outcomes. Methods: Eligible studies included peer-reviewed articles published between 2009 and 2020 that examined psychosocial smoking cessation interventions in people with SMI. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines to conduct our review and the Methodological Quality Rating Scale to evaluate methodological rigor. Results: Eighteen studies were included. Ten were categorized as high methodological rigor given their study characteristics (e.g., longer follow-up) and eight as lower methodological rigor based on their characteristics (e.g., not intent-to-treat). Racial/ethnic and sexual/gender minorities were under-represented in these studies. A range of psychosocial interventions were examined including motivational enhancements, smoking cessation education, cognitive behavioral strategies, and contingency management. Most studies also provided smoking cessation medications (e.g., NRT, bupropion), although provision was not always uniform across treatment conditions. Three studies found the intervention condition achieved significantly higher abstinence from smoking compared to the comparison group. Seven studies found the intervention condition achieved significantly higher reductions in smoking compared to the comparison group. Conclusions: Studies finding significant differences between the intervention and comparison groups shared common evidenced-based components, including providing smoking cessation medications (e.g., NRT, bupropion), motivational enhancement techniques, and cessation education and skills training, but differed in intensity (e.g., number and frequency of sessions), duration, and modality (e.g., group, individual, technology). Methodological limitations and a small number of studies finding significant between-group differences prevent the identification of the most effective psychosocial smoking cessation interventions. Clinical trial designs (e.g., SMART, factorial) that control for the provision of psychosocial medications and allow for the identification of optimal psychosocial treatments are needed. Future studies should also ensure greater inclusion of racial/ethnic and sexual/gender minorities and should be culturally/linguistically adapted to improve treatment engagement and study outcomes.

Prevalence and determinants of tobacco use amongst South African adults with mental illness in the Eastern Cape

Background

Given the physical and mental health consequences of tobacco use amongst individuals with mental illness, it was imperative to assess the burden of tobacco use in this population.

Aim

This study examined the patterns and factors associated with tobacco use in individuals attending the outpatient unit.

Setting

Cecilia Makiwane Hospital Mental Health Department in Eastern Cape province, South Africa.

Methods

Lifetime (ever use) use and current use of any tobacco products were examined in a cross-sectional study of 390 individuals between March and June 2020. A logistic regression was fitted to determine the correlates of lifetime and current use of any tobacco products.

Results

The rates of ever use and current use of tobacco products were 59.4% and 44.6%, respectively. Of the participants interviewed, lifetime tobacco use was more prevalent amongst individuals with schizophrenia (67.9%) and cannabis-induced disorders (97.3%) and lower in those with major depressive disorders (36.1%) and bipolar and related disorders (43.5%). Men were six times more likely to have ever used or currently use tobacco products in comparison to women. Also, those who had a salaried job or owned a business were over three times more likely to have ever used or currently use tobacco products compared with those receiving government social grants.

Conclusions

The prevalence of tobacco use in this study was significantly higher than the general population in the Eastern Cape. Therefore, smoking prevention and cessation interventions targeted at the general population should target this often neglected sub-population in the region.

Chronic care treatment for smoking cessation in patients with serious mental illness: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Rates of smoking among those with serious mental illness (SMI) are two to three times higher than for the general population. Smoking is rarely addressed in mental health settings. Innovative outreach and treatment strategies are needed to address these disparities. The current study is a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a chronic care model of tobacco cessation treatment implemented in outpatient psychiatry clinics.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from two outpatient psychiatric clinics and randomly assigned to intervention (counseling and nicotine replacement for 8 weeks, plus ongoing proactive outreach calls inviting reengagement in treatment) or control (brief education and referral to the state quit line). Assessments were conducted at 8 weeks (end of initial treatment block) and 6 months (end of window for retreatment). Feasibility was assessed by enrollment rate, treatment engagement, and completion of follow-up assessments. Acceptability was assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Preliminary efficacy was assessed by 7-day and 30-day abstinence rates, rate of quit attempts, and cigarettes per day. Psychological health was measured to assess for changes related to treatment group or attempts to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants were randomized to intervention and 19 to control. Recruitment proved feasible, and high rates of treatment engagement (mean of 4.5 sessions completed in initial treatment block, 89.5% uptake of nicotine replacement) and retention (94.7% of follow-up assessments completed) were observed. Treatment acceptability was high. As anticipated, there were no significant differences in abstinence between groups, but results generally favored the intervention group, including bio-verified 7-day abstinence rates of 21.1% in intervention vs. 17.6% in control and self-reported 30-day abstinence rates of 16.1% in intervention vs. 5.1% in control at 8 weeks. Significantly more intervention participants made at least one quit attempt (94.7% vs 52.6%; OR = 16.20, 95% CI: 1.79-147.01). Cigarettes per day decreased significantly more in the intervention group at 8 weeks (b = - 13.19, SE = 4.88, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

It was feasible to recruit and retain SMI patients in a smoking cessation trial in the context of outpatient psychiatry. The novel chronic care model treatment was acceptable to patients and showed promise for efficacy. If efficacious, a chronic care model could be effective at reducing smoking among SMI patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov #: NCT03822416 (registered January 30th 2019).

Feasibility of a Consumer Centred Tobacco Management intervention in Community Mental Health Services in Australia

This study tested a new program for helping smokers with severe mental illness to reduce their tobacco use, together with determining the feasibility of such research in community mental health settings in Australia. Five Neami National sites trialled a Consumer Centred Tobacco Management program called Kick the Habit (n = 34). The intervention included two weeks of free Nicotine Replacement Therapy (patches only) but participants also used a variety of self-funded delivery types in addition or as an alternative to the subsidised nicotine patch. At the 3-month follow-up, Kick the Habit participants had reduced their number of daily cigarettes, dependency levels and average weekly expenditure on tobacco. Although a larger study is required, Kick the Habit represents a promising intervention for tobacco management in community mental health services. The challenges and lessons learnt for scaling up to a larger trial and integration into business-as-usual practice across multiple sites are discussed.

Proactive outreach tobacco treatment for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers with serious mental illness

Smokers with serious mental illness (SMI) face individual, interpersonal, and healthcare provider barriers to cessation treatment utilization and smoking abstinence. Proactive outreach strategies are designed to address these barriers by promoting heightened contact with smokers and facilitating access to evidence-based treatments. The present study examined the effect of proactive outreach among smokers with SMI (n = 939) who were enrolled in the publicly subsidized Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) and compared this effect to that observed among MHCP smokers without SMI (n = 1382). Relative to usual care, the intervention increased treatment utilization among those with SMI (52.1% vs 40.0%, p = 0.002) and without SMI (39.3% vs 25.4%, p < 0.001). The intervention also increased prolonged smoking abstinence among those with SMI (14.9% vs 9.4%, p = 0.010) and without SMI (17.7% vs 13.6%, p = 0.09). Findings suggest that implementation of proactive outreach within publicly subsidized healthcare systems may alleviate the burden of smoking in this vulnerable population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01123967.

Smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry treatment facilities: A review

•

Smoking rates are high among people with psychiatric illness.

•

Smoking cessation interventions are rarely available in inpatient psychiatry settings.

•

Smokers with psychiatric illness are just as interested in quitting smoking.

Background

Tobacco-related diseases are a leading cause of death among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), yet interventions to address tobacco cessation are rare in inpatient settings where persons with SMI are hospitalized. While cigarette smoking rates have declined in the general population, they remain high in persons with SMI. Inpatient settings would be a prime location to intervene on tobacco consumption among persons with SMI. The objective of this review was to examine evidence of smoking cessation interventions in psychiatric inpatient facilities.

Method

Using narrative overview guidelines, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for smoking cessation RCT studies published between 1950 and 2018. Studies included had to have at least started in inpatient psychiatry settings. Examples of search terms included: smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry, smoking cessation in inpatient mental health treatment facilities, and smoking cessation and mental health.

Results

Following the inclusion criteria, eight RCT studies were reviewed. One study was among adolescent psychiatric inpatient smokers ages 13–17, and 7 were among adult psychiatric inpatients with mean age 41 years. Treatment periods lasting 8 to 12 weeks started in inpatient settings and continued post discharge. A combination of behavioral and pharmacological interventions were used. Pharmacological interventions were nicotine replacement therapies, and at least one study used varenicline. At baseline, participants smoked an average of 18.1 cigarettes per day.

Conclusion

Smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry settings is rare or delayed. There is a need for more tailored treatments among this population to help them quit smoking.

An examination of factors associated with tobacco smoking amongst patients presenting with deliberate self-poisoning

BACKGROUND

Understand factors related to related to tobacco smoking amongst individuals who present with deliberate self-harm is important. This article explores the relationship between tobacco use with mental health diagnoses and substance use in a cohort of overdose admissions.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of an existing health service database with 7133 patients admitted for deliberate self-poisonings from 1997 to 2013 was conducted. A data collection form was used on admission to capture information on patient demographics, drugs ingested, use of drugs of misuse, regular medications and management and complications of poisoning. The data was analysed using a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Within a deliberate self-poisoning population, those diagnosed with: an amphetamine substance use disorder (OR = 1.84, p < .001), alcohol use disorder (OR = 1.68, p < .001), other substance use disorder (OR = 1.77, p < .001), psychotic diagnoses (OR = 1.17, p = .032), or had a history of self-harm (OR = 1.15, p = .011) were more likely to be a current tobacco smoker. Those who were older (OR = 0.99, p < .001) or diagnosed with a mood disorder (OR = 0.87, p = .018) were less likely to smoke tobacco.

LIMITATIONS

The study was unable to differentiate between suicide attempts and self-harm self-poisonings.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a deliberate self-poisoning population those who were younger, diagnosed with a variety of substance use disorders, or had a history of previous self-poisoning were more likely to use tobacco. Those with a mood disorder were less likely to smoke tobacco.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours by mental health services

People with mental illness experience increased chronic disease burden, contributed to by a greater prevalence of modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours. Policies recommend mental health services provide preventive care for such risk behaviours. Provision of such care has not previously been synthesised. This review assessed the provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours by mental health services. Four databases were searched from 2006 to 2017. Eligible studies were observational quantitative study designs conducted in mental health services, where preventive care was provided to clients for tobacco smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, inadequate nutrition, or inadequate physical activity. Two reviewers independently screened studies, conducted data extraction and critical appraisal. Results were pooled as proportions of clients receiving or clinicians providing preventive care using random effects meta-analyses, by risk behaviour and preventive care element (ask/assess, advise, assist, arrange). Subgroup analyses were conducted by mental health service type (inpatient, outpatient, other/multiple). Narrative synthesis was used where meta-analysis was not possible. Thirty-eight studies were included with 26 amenable to meta-analyses. Analyses revealed that rates of assessment were highest for smoking (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI]:59%-96%) and lowest for nutrition (17%, 95% CI:1%-35%); with variable rates of care provision for all behaviours, care elements, and across service types, with substantial heterogeneity across analyses. Findings indicated suboptimal and variable provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours in mental health services, but should be considered with caution due to the very low quality of cumulative evidence. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016049889.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness.

METHODS

In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13).

INTERPRETATION

This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Effectiveness of a telephone-based intervention for smoking cessation in patients with severe mental disorders: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Up to 75% of inpatients with mental disorders smoke, and their life expectancy is decreased by up to 25 years compared to the general population. Hospitalized patients without monitoring after discharge quickly return to prehospitalization levels of tobacco use. The aim of the 061 QuitMental study is to assess the effectiveness of a multicomponent and motivational telephone-based intervention to stop smoking through a quitline addressed to smokers discharged from mental health hospital wards.

Methods

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial, single blinded, will include 2:1 allocation to the intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG). The IG will receive telephone assistance to quit smoking (including psychological and psychoeducational support, and pharmacological treatment advice if required) proactively for 12 months, and the CG will receive only brief advice after discharge. The sample size, calculated with an expected difference of 15 points on smoking abstinence between groups (IG, 20% and CG, 5%), α = 0.05, β = 0.10, and 20% loss, will be 334 participants (IG) and 176 participants (CG). Participants are adult smokers discharged from psychiatric units of five acute hospitals.

Measurements include dependent variables (self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (carbon monoxide verified), duration of abstinence, number of quit attempts, motivation, and self-efficacy to quit) and independent variables (age, sex, and psychiatric diagnoses). In data analysis, IG and CG data will be compared at 48 h and 1, 6, and 12 months post discharge. Multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval) of dependent variables adjusted for potential confounding variables will be performed. The number needed to treat to achieve one abstinence outcome will be calculated. We will compare the abstinence rate of enrolled patients between groups.

Discussion

This trial evaluates an innovative format of a quitline for smokers with severe mental disorders regardless of their motivation to quit. If effective, the pragmatic nature of the study will permit transfer to routine clinical practice in the National Health System.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03230955. Registered on 24 July 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3106-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Psychosocial Factors Affecting Smoking Cessation Among People Living With Schizophrenia: A Lived Experience Lens

Introduction: People living with schizophrenia smoke at much higher rates than the general population, and find it more difficult to quit. To date, lived experience has received little attention from researchers. Personal recovery perspectives may generate further insights into established psychosocial barriers and enablers of smoking cessation. Methods and Results: A lived experience account is provided by one of our authors that places the current evidence in context, and highlights the role of marginalization and stigma in reinforcing smoking. Key concepts from the personal recovery paradigm, such as connectedness, hope, and empowerment are discussed. The relevance of these factors and the value of shared lived experience in challenging stigma, marginalization, and low expectations demonstrates the contribution that peer support can offer to support smoking cessation. Conclusions: Recovery-oriented approaches when integrated with existing evidence-based treatments designed to meet the needs of people living with schizophrenia have potential to improve outcomes by helping to take a more holistic approach to break down barriers and facilitate increased uptake of treatment and support. Further research to evaluate the effectiveness of integrated approaches is warranted.

Complete smokefree policies in mental health inpatient settings: results from a mixed-methods evaluation before and after implementing national guidance

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is extremely prevalent in people with severe mental illness (SMI) and has been recognised as the main contributor to widening health inequalities in this population. Historically, smoking has been deeply entrenched in the culture of mental health settings in the UK, and until recently, smokefree policies tended to be only partially implemented. However, recent national guidance and the government's tobacco control plan now call for the implementation of complete smokefree policies. Many mental health Trusts across the UK are currently in the process of implementing the new guidance, but little is known about the impact of and experience with policy implementation.

METHODS

This paper reports findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of policy implementation across 12 wards in a large mental health Trust in England. Quantitative data were collected and compared before and after implementation of NICE guidance PH48 and referred to 1) identification and treatment of tobacco dependence, 2) smoking-related incident reporting, and 3) prescribing of psychotropic medication. A qualitative exploration of the experience of inpatients was also carried out. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed, and the feasibility of collecting relevant and complete data for each quantitative component was assessed. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.

RESULTS

Following implementation of the complete smokefree policy, increases in the numbers of patients offered smoking cessation advice (72% compared to 38%) were identified. While incident reports demonstrated a decrease in challenging behaviour during the post-PH48 period (6% compared to 23%), incidents relating to the concealment of smoking materials increased (10% compared to 2%). Patients reported encouraging changes in smoking behaviour and motivation to maintain change after discharge. However, implementation issues challenging full policy implementation, including covert facilitation of smoking by staff, were reported, and difficulties in collecting relevant and complete data for comprehensive evaluation purposes identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the implementation of complete smokefree policies in mental health settings may currently be undermined by partial support. Strategies to enhance support and the establishment of suitable data collection pathways to monitor progress are required.

Relapse to smoking following release from smoke-free correctional facilities in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

Smoke-free prison policies are increasingly common, but few studies have investigated relapse to smoking after release from prison. This study investigated return to tobacco smoking and correlates of smoking at reduced levels after release among adults recently released from smoke-free prisons in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 114 people at parole offices within two months of release from prison was used. The survey measured health, social, and criminological factors related to tobacco smoking. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with reduced post-release smoking levels compared to pre-incarceration levels.

RESULTS

94% of participants relapsed to smoking within two months of release; 72% relapsed on the day of release. 62% of participants smoked significantly less per day after compared with before incarceration. Living with a partner (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.77, 95%CI 1.02-7.52), expressing support for smoke-free prison policies (OR 2.44, 95%CI 1.12-5.32), intending to remain abstinent post-release (OR 4.29, 95%CI 1.88-9.82), and intending to quit in the future (OR 3.88, 95%CI 1.66-9.07) were associated with reduced smoking post-release. Use of illicit drugs post-release was negatively associated with reduced smoking post-release (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.09-0.79). In multivariate analyses, pre-release intention to remain smoke-free was associated with reduced smoking post-release (AOR 2.69, 95%CI 1.01-7.14).

DISCUSSION

Relapse to smoking after release from smoke-free prisons is common, but many who relapse smoke less than before incarceration, suggesting that smoke-free prison policies may reduce post-release tobacco smoking. There is a need for tailored, evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions for people recently released from prison.

Impact of the 2015 CMS Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Rule on Tobacco Treatment

Introduction

In its fiscal year 2015 final rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required reporting of tobacco treatment quality measures as part of the Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System (IPF PPS). This pre-intervention, post-intervention policy analysis evaluates the impact of that policy at a large academic medical center that opted to improve performance as it implemented reporting measures.

Methods

Electronic medical record data were collected retrospectively for all adult (≥18 years) inpatient psychiatric admissions from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. Data from admissions were analyzed to determine changes in the provision of tobacco treatment including the proportions of patients screened for tobacco use, receiving tobacco cessation counseling, and receiving tobacco cessation medication(s) using a chi-square test. Covariate analysis of treatment differences based on psychiatric diagnosis was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and Breslow-Day test.

Results

Post-policy screening for admissions increased significantly (85% vs. 97%; p < .001). Referral to cessation counseling increased 18-fold (4% vs. 74%; p < .001). Receipt of Counselling (8% vs. 67%; p < .001) and referral for cessation medication (32% vs. 68%; p < .001) also increased dramatically. Though statistically non-significant, the number of tobacco users who actually received medications increased markedly between 2014 and 2015, 24% versus 35%. Gains in screening, referral, and treatment did not differ by psychiatric diagnosis.

Conclusions

The Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Quality Reporting (IPFQR) Program resulted in a 10-fold increase in the number of smokers who received inpatient tobacco treatment. Should CMS link prospective payment to performance, it could have a major impact on quality of care for tobacco dependence.

Implications

This is the first study to examine the implementation and impact of new 2015 IPFQR program tobacco measures. This study may illustrate the potential effect that performance based penalties can have should facilities be required to do more than simply report on these tobacco measures. This study exemplifies the impact these new reporting measures can have when psychiatric facilities move beyond letter of the policy, to continually assess organizational performance and implement changes to improve treatment delivery.

Maintaining abstinence from smoking after a period of enforced abstinence - systematic review, meta-analysis and analysis of behaviour change techniques with a focus on mental health

BACKGROUND

Smoking prevalence is doubled among people with mental health problems and reaches 80% in inpatient, substance misuse and prison settings, widening inequalities in morbidity and mortality. As more institutions become smoke-free but most smokers relapse immediately post-discharge, we aimed to review interventions to maintain abstinence post-discharge.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2016 and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies conducted with adult smokers in prison, inpatient mental health or substance use treatment included. Risk of bias (study quality) was rated using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Tool. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were coded from published papers and manuals using a published taxonomy. Mantel-Haenszel random effects meta-analyses of RCTs used biochemically verified point-prevalence smoking abstinence at (a) longest and (b) 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (n = 416 intervention, n = 415 control) and five cohort studies (n = 471) included. Regarding study quality, four RCTs were rated strong, one moderate; one cohort study was rated strong, one moderate and three weak. Most common BCTs were pharmacotherapy (n = 8 nicotine replacement therapy, n = 1 clonidine), problem solving, social support, and elicitation of pros and cons (each n = 6); papers reported fewer techniques than manuals. Meta-analyses found effects in favour of intervention [(a) risk ratio (RR) = 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-3.27; (b) RR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.31].

CONCLUSION

Medication and/or behavioural support can help maintain smoking abstinence beyond discharge from smoke-free institutions with high mental health comorbidity. However, the small evidence base tested few different interventions and reporting of behavioural interventions is often imprecise.

Treating Smoking in Adults With Co-occurring Acute Psychiatric and Addictive Disorders

OBJECTIVES

Tobacco use is undertreated in individuals with psychiatric and substance use disorders (SUDs), with concerns that quitting smoking may compromise recovery. We evaluated outcomes of a tobacco intervention among psychiatric patients with co-occurring SUDs.

METHODS

Data from 2 randomized tobacco treatment trials conducted in inpatient psychiatry were combined; analyses focused on the subsample with co-occurring SUDs (n = 216). Usual care provided brief advice to quit and nicotine replacement therapy during the smoke-free hospitalization. The intervention, initiated during hospitalization and continued 6 months after hospitalization, was tailored to readiness to quit smoking, and added a computer-assisted intervention at baseline, and 3 and 6 months; brief counseling; and 10 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy after hospitalization. Outcomes were 7-day point prevalence abstinence from 3 to 12 months and past 30-day reports of alcohol and illicit drug use.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 34% women, among which 36% were Caucasian, averaging 19 cigarettes/d prehospitalization; the groups were comparable at baseline. At 12 months, 22% of the intervention versus 11% of usual care participants were tobacco-abstinent (risk ratio 2.01, P = 0.03). Past 30-day abstinence from alcohol/drugs did not differ by group (22%); however, successful quitters were less likely than continued smokers to report past 30-day cannabis (18% vs 42%) and alcohol (22% vs 58%) use (P < 0.05), with no difference in other drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco treatment in psychiatric patients with co-occurring SUDs was effective and did not adversely impact recovery. Quitting smoking was associated with abstinence from alcohol and cannabis at follow-up. The findings support addressing tobacco in conjunction with alcohol and other drugs in psychiatric treatment.

A systematic narrative review of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected disadvantaged groups (2010-2017)

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco remains the key modifiable risk factor for the development of a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tuberculosis and cancer. Among priority populations, smoking prevalence remains high, smokers tend to relapse more often and earlier and fewer are able to sustain quit attempts. This systematic review provides an update on the literature. Areas covered: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials published from 2010-2017, in English language, were identified after searching on Medline, Ovid, Embase and PsycINFO databases. Studies reported on the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among six disadvantaged groups known to have high smoking rates: (i) homeless, (ii) prisoners, (iii) indigenous populations, (iv) at-risk youth, (v) people with low income, and (vi) those with a mental illness. Narrative review and assessment of methodological quality of included papers was undertaken. Expert commentary: There is a growing evidence base of methodologically robust studies evaluating a variety of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for priority populations. Multi-component interventions and those examining behavioural interventions incorporating mindfulness training, financial incentives, motivational interviewing and extended telephone-delivered counseling may be effective in the short-term, particularly for smokers on low incomes and people with a mental illness.

Efficacy of a universal smoking cessation intervention initiated in inpatient psychiatry and continued post-discharge: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Interventions are required to redress the disproportionate tobacco-related health burden experienced by persons with a mental illness. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a universal smoking cessation intervention initiated within an acute psychiatric inpatient setting and continued post-discharge in reducing smoking prevalence and increasing quitting behaviours.

METHOD

A randomised controlled trial was undertaken across four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Participants ( N = 754) were randomised to receive either usual care ( n = 375) or an intervention comprising a brief motivational interview and self-help material while in hospital, followed by a 4-month pharmacological and psychosocial intervention ( n = 379) upon discharge. Primary outcomes assessed at 6 and 12 months post-discharge were 7-day point prevalence and 1-month prolonged smoking abstinence. A number of secondary smoking-related outcomes were also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on psychiatric diagnosis, baseline readiness to quit and nicotine dependence.

RESULTS

Seven-day point prevalence abstinence was higher for intervention participants (15.8%) than controls (9.3%) at 6 months post-discharge (odds ratio = 1.07, p = 0.04), but not at 12 months (13.4% and 10.0%, respectively; odds ratio = 1.03, p = 0.25). Significant intervention effects were not found on measures of prolonged abstinence at either 6 or 12 months post-discharge. Differential intervention effects for the primary outcomes were not detected for any subgroups. At both 6 and 12 months post-discharge, intervention group participants were significantly more likely to smoke fewer cigarettes per day, have reduced cigarette consumption by ⩾50% and to have made at least one quit attempt, relative to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal smoking cessation treatment initiated in inpatient psychiatry and continued post-discharge was efficacious in increasing 7-day point prevalence smoking cessation rates and related quitting behaviours at 6 months post-discharge, with sustained effects on quitting behaviour at 12 months. Further research is required to identify strategies for achieving longer term smoking cessation.

Effectiveness of a clinical practice change intervention in increasing the provision of nicotine dependence treatment in inpatient psychiatric facilities: an implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending the routine provision of nicotine dependence treatment to smokers in inpatient psychiatric facilities, the prevalence of such treatment provision is low. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a clinical practice change intervention in increasing clinician recorded provision of nicotine dependence treatment to patients in inpatient psychiatric facilities.

METHODS

We undertook an interrupted time series analysis of nicotine dependence treatment provision before, during and after a clinical practice change intervention to increase clinician recorded provision of nicotine dependence treatment for all hospital discharges (aged >18 years, N = 4175) over a 19 month period in two inpatient adult psychiatric facilities in New South Wales, Australia. The clinical practice change intervention comprised six key strategies: leadership and consensus, enabling systems and procedures, training and education, information and resources, audit and feedback and an on-site practice change support officer. Systematic medical record audit and segmented logistic regression was used to determine differences in proportions for each nicotine dependence treatment outcome measure between the 'pre', 'during' and 'post-intervention' periods.

RESULTS

The prevalence of all five outcome measures increased significantly between the pre and post-intervention periods, including clinician recorded: assessment of patient smoking status (36.43 to 51.95%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.39, 99% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.23 to 4.66); assessment of patient nicotine dependence status (4.74 to 11.04%; AOR = 109.67, 99% CI: 35.35 to 340.22); provision of brief advice to quit (0.85 to 8.81%; AOR = 97.43, 99% CI: 31.03 to 306.30); provision of nicotine replacement therapy (8.06 to 26.25%; AOR = 19.59, 99% CI: 8.17 to 46.94); and provision of nicotine dependence treatment on discharge (8.82 to 13.45%, AOR = 12.36; 99% CI: 6.08 to 25.14).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to provide evidence that a clinical practice change intervention may increase clinician recorded provision of nicotine dependence treatment in inpatient psychiatric settings. The intervention offers a mechanism for psychiatric facilities to increase the provision of nicotine dependence treatment in accordance with clinical guidelines.

Uptake of smoking cessation aids by smokers with a mental illness

Psychiatric inpatient settings represent an opportunity to initiate the provision of tobacco cessation care to smokers with a mental illness. This study describes the use of evidence-based smoking cessation aids proactively and universally offered to a population of psychiatric inpatients upon discharge, and explores factors associated with their uptake. Data derived from the conduct of a randomised controlled trial were analysed in terms of the proportion of participants (N = 378) that utilised cessation aids including project delivered telephone smoking cessation counselling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and Quitline support. Factors associated with uptake of cessation aids were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. A large proportion of smokers utilised project delivered cessation counselling calls (89 %) and NRT (79 %), while 11 % used the Quitline. The majority accepted more than seven project delivered telephone cessation counselling calls (52 %), and reported NRT use during more than half of their accepted calls (70 %). Older age, higher nicotine dependence, irregular smoking and seeing oneself as a non-smoker were associated with uptake of behavioural cessation aids. Higher nicotine dependence was similarly associated with use of pharmacological aids, as was NRT use whilst an inpatient. Most smokers with a mental illness took up a proactive offer of aids to support their stopping smoking. Consideration by service providers of factors associated with uptake may increase further the proportion of such smokers who use evidence-based cessation aids and consequently quit smoking successfully.

Relationship between tobacco cessation and mental health outcomes in a tobacco cessation trial

Persons with mental health diagnoses use tobacco at alarming rates, yet misperceptions remain about the effect of quitting on mental health outcomes. This article examines the relationship between tobacco cessation and changes in severity of mental illness. Participants were N = 577 veterans with a history of mental health treatment enrolled in a tobacco cessation study. The effects of abstinence and time on Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 summary scores and subscales were examined. Abstinence at both 2 and 6 months post-baseline was related ( p < .0001) to lower Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 summary scores and improvement on three Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 subscales. Providers should recommend and provide tobacco treatment to all mental health patients to improve their physical and mental health functioning.

Smoking and environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and associations with quitting behaviour and motivation; a cross sectional study

Background

Persons with a mental illness are less likely to be successful in attempts to quit smoking. A number of smoking and environmental characteristics have been shown to be related to quitting behaviour and motivation of smokers generally, however have been less studied among smokers with a mental illness. This study aimed to report the prevalence of smoking characteristics and a variety of physical and social environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and explore their association with quitting behaviour and motivation.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken of 754 smokers admitted to four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to explore the association between smoking and environmental characteristics and recent quitting behaviour and motivation.

Results

Participants were primarily daily smokers (93 %), consumed >10 cigarettes per day (74 %), and highly nicotine dependent (51 %). A third (32 %) lived in a house in which smoking was permitted, and 44 % lived with other smokers. The majority of participants believed that significant others (68–82 %) and health care providers (80–91 %) would be supportive of their quitting smoking. Reflecting previous research, the smoking characteristics examined were variously associated with quitting behaviour and motivation. Additionally, participants not living with other smokers were more likely to have quit for a longer duration (OR 2.02), and those perceiving their psychiatrist to be supportive of a quit attempt were more likely to have had more quit attempts in the past six months (OR 2.83).

Conclusions

Modifiable characteristics of the physical and social environment, and of smoking, should be considered in smoking cessation interventions for persons with a mental illness.

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.

A call to include people with mental illness and substance use disorders alongside 'regular' smokers in smoking cessation research

This commentary points out that smoking is increasingly concentrated among people with psychiatric problems and other substance use disorders (eg, alcohol use disorder), and argues that for clinical, ethical and efficiency reasons, such individuals should be routinely enrolled in smoking cessation research.

An Adaptation of Motivational Interviewing Increases Quit Attempts in Smokers With Serious Mental Illness

INTRODUCTION

Smokers with serious mental illness (SMI) have a high smoking prevalence and a low quit rate. Motivational interviewing (MI) is an empirically supported approach for addressing substance use disorders and may motivate smokers with SMI to quit.

METHODS

We randomized smokers (N = 98) with SMI to receive a single 45-minute session of (1) MI with personalized feedback or (2) interactive education. We hypothesized that participants receiving the MI intervention would be more likely to follow-up on a referral for tobacco dependence treatment, to make a quit attempt, and to quit smoking than those receiving the interactive educational intervention.

RESULTS

Smokers receiving an MI intervention were significantly more likely to make a quit attempt by the 1-month follow-up (34.7% vs. 14.3%; OR = 4.39 [95% CI = 1.44 to 13.34], P = .009); however, these quit attempts did not translate into abstinence. In addition, 32.7% of those receiving MI followed-up on a referral for tobacco dependence treatment (vs. 20.4% receiving interactive education; OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 0.76 to 3.55], P = .157). MI Treatment Integrity Code ratings indicated that the interventions were easily distinguishable from each other and that MI was delivered with proficiency. Despite the intervention's brevity, participants reported high levels of therapeutic alliance with their therapist.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief adaptation of MI with personalized feedback appears to be a promising approach for increasing quit attempts in smokers with SMI, but future research is required to determine how to best help smokers with SMI to attain sustained abstinence.

Evaluating the efficacy of an integrated smoking cessation intervention for mental health patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Smoking rates, and associated negative health outcomes, are disproportionately high among people with mental illness compared to the general population. Smoke-free policies within mental health hospitals can positively impact on patients’ motivation and self-efficacy to address their smoking. However, without post-discharge support, preadmission smoking behaviours typically resume. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial that aims to assess the efficacy of linking mental health inpatients to community-based smoking cessation supports upon discharge as a means of reducing smoking prevalence.

Methods/Design

Eight hundred participants with acute mental illness will be recruited into the randomised controlled trial whilst inpatients at one of four psychiatric inpatient facilities in the state of New South Wales, Australia. After completing a baseline interview, participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: ‘Supported Care’, a multimodal smoking cessation intervention; or ‘Normal Care’, consisting of existing hospital care only. The ‘Supported Care’ intervention will consist of a brief motivational interview and a package of self-help material for abstaining from smoking whilst in hospital, and, following discharge, 16 weeks of motivational telephone-based counselling, 12 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy, and a referral to the Quitline. Data will be collected at 1, 6 and 12 months post-discharge via computer-assisted telephone interview. The primary outcomes are abstinence from smoking (7-day point prevalence and prolonged cessation), and secondary outcomes comprise daily cigarette consumption, nicotine dependence, quit attempts, and readiness to change smoking behaviour.

Discussion

If shown to be effective, the study will provide evidence in support of systemic changes in the provision of smoking cessation care to patients following discharge from psychiatric inpatient facilities.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZTCN: ACTRN12612001042831. Date registered: 28 September 2012.