Barriers to Telephone Quitline Use Among Methadone-Maintained Smokers

Barriers to smoking interventions in community healthcare settings: a scoping review

Smoking is one of the major causes of preventable death and is considered the greatest threat to global public health. While the prevalence of smoking has decreased, population growth has led to an increase in the absolute number of smokers. There are many proven smoking cessation interventions available to support smokers in their quit attempts. Most people who smoke, however, underutilize the treatments available to them. This scoping review aimed to identify the current barriers experienced by all stakeholders (smokers, service providers and policymakers) to existing evidence-based smoking cessation interventions in community healthcare settings. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched for relevant literature. A total of 40 eligible articles from different countries published between 2015 and 2022 were included in the review and content analysis carried out to identify the key barriers to smoking cessation interventions. Seven key themes were found to be common to all stakeholders: (i) literacy, (ii) competing demands and priorities, (iii) time, (iv) access to product, (v) access to service, (vi) workforce and (vii) motivation/readiness. These themes were mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. This study presents the effect the barriers within these themes have on current smoking cessation services and highlights priorities for future interventions.

A qualitative study on people with opioid use disorders' perspectives on smoking and smoking cessation interventions

Introduction

Smoking-related diseases are major contributors to disability and shorter life expectancy among opioid-dependent patients. Smoking prevalence is considerably higher for opioid-dependent persons than among the general population, and only a minority quit smoking in treatment settings. Studies show that pharmacological smoking cessation interventions have modest success rates. This study aimed to investigate patients' receiving opioid agonist therapy perspectives on factors affecting behavior and decisions related to smoking cessation, and their experiences with smoking cessation.

Methods

This is a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews. The participants were asked, among others, to elaborate on the participants' thoughts about smoking, previous attempts to quit tobacco use, and what could prompt a smoking cessation attempt. We analyzed the transcripts with systematic text condensation. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines were followed. Opioid-dependent patients receiving opioid agonist therapy in outpatient clinics were invited to participate using a purposive sampling method. In total, fourteen individuals participated in this study.

Results

We identified six themes which were: (1) reflections on how smoking affected decisions, (2) smoking and its impact on physical and mental health, (3) the economy as a motivator to stop smoking, (4) emotions, desires, and habits related to smoking, (5) knowledge of smoking, smoking cessation, and quit attempts, and (6) social factors influencing the participants' choices and activities. The participants were well informed about the consequences of smoking and had some knowledge and experience in quitting. The participants' pulmonary health was an important motivational factor for change. Withdrawal symptoms, anxiety, and fear of using other substances discouraged several from attempting to quit smoking. In contrast, social support from partners and access to meaningful activities were considered important factors for success. Few reported being offered help from health professionals to make a smoking cessation attempt.

Discussion

Experiencing social support, being encouraged to quit smoking, and patients' concerns for their physical health were important reasons for wanting to quit smoking. Smoking cessation interventions based on patient preferences and on the behavior change wheel may enable a higher success rate among patients receiving opioid agonist therapy.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of Online and Telephone Services Targeting Health Risk Behaviours among Vocational Education Students: A Qualitative Study

Uptake of online and telephone services targeting health behaviours is low among vocational education students and barriers and facilitators are unknown. This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of online and telephone services for smoking, nutrition, alcohol, and physical activity (SNAP) risk behaviours via semi-structured individual telephone interviews with fifteen vocational education students. Two authors independently completed thematic analysis, classified themes according to the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour) framework, and discussed disagreements until consensus was reached. Facilitators to uptake of online (e.g., desire to learn something new, cost-free, accessible) and telephone services (e.g., prefer to talk to provider, complements online support) primarily related to capability and opportunity. For telephone services, difficulty understanding accent/language was a capability-related barrier. Opportunity-related barriers for online and telephone services were preference for face-to-face interaction and lack of time, while preference for apps/online programs was a barrier for telephone services. For online and telephone services, not wanting to change SNAP behaviours was a motivation-related barrier and being able to change SNAP risk behaviours themselves was a motivation-related barrier for online services. Barriers and facilitators to online and telephone services are relevant for designing interventions vocational education students are more likely to use.

Achieving Smoking Cessation Among Persons with Opioid Use Disorder

While prevalence of tobacco use in the US general population is declining, prevalence among those with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains high and results in excessive tobacco-related disease and premature mortality. Among smokers with OUD, tobacco cessation rates are negligible without treatment. However, both low-intensity behavioral interventions and more intensive motivational interventions yield negligible cessation rates. While contingency management has potent short-term cessation effects, effects are not maintained at post-intervention follow-up. Evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, result in very modest cessation rates among smokers with OUD. Intensification of pharmacotherapy, such as high-dose and combination nicotine replacement therapy or extended medication treatment, has failed to improve cessation outcomes compared with standard treatment regimens. Targeting the unique challenges faced by smokers with OUD, including nicotine-opioid interactions and poor medication adherence, has potential to improve cessation outcomes, but further research is needed to optimize intervention efficacy among smokers with OUD.

Text2Connect: a health system approach to engage tobacco users in quitline cessation services via text messaging

Mobile technology has created the opportunity for health systems to provide low cost tobacco cessation assistance to patients. The goal of the present study was to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of an intervention (Text2Connect) that uses text messages to offer proactive connection to the New York State Smokers' Quitline. The electronic health record at two urban health systems was queried for patients who were current smokers and who had an outpatient visit between March 2015 and February 2016. Smokers (N = 4000) were sent an informational letter. Those who did not opt out (N = 3719) were randomized to one of 6 message sequences in order to examine the effect of theoretically informed message frames on response rates. Participants were sent a series of text messages at baseline and at 1 month and were asked to reply in order to be contacted by the state quitline (QL). After removing 1403 nonworking numbers, texts were sent to 2316 patients, and 10.0% (205/2060) responded with a QL request. Almost one quarter (23.6%, 486/2060) replied STOP and 66.4% (1369/2060) never responded. QL request rates were significantly higher when response efficacy messages were not used (p < .001). There were no differences by message framing on STOP requests (p > .05). The Text2Connect intervention was well accepted with a minority opting out. A 10% QL response rate is noteworthy given that only 5-7 brief outreach text messages were used. Results indicate that simple self-efficacy-focused messaging is most effective at supporting response rates.

Pilot Study of a Tailored Smoking Cessation Intervention for Individuals in Treatment for Opioid Dependence

Introduction

Over 85% of opioid-dependent individuals in methadone treatment smoke cigarettes; however, smoking cessation interventions are minimally effective in this population. To better help opioid-dependent individuals quit smoking, we developed and pilot-tested an intervention, based in the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model of behavior change, which could be tailored to address individual barriers to smoking cessation in this population.

Methods

We randomized participants (n = 83) in methadone treatment to the eight-session, IMB model-based, intervention plus nicotine replacement therapy (intervention, n = 41) or a facilitated referral to the state Quitline (control, n = 42). All participants completed assessments at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.

Results

Intervention participants completed a median of five sessions (interquartile range [IQR] 3-8) and had significantly higher intervention satisfaction than control participants. Intervention participants reported smoking significantly fewer cigarettes per day at 3 months (median [IQR] = 6 [4-15]) and 6 months (median [IQR] = 8 [4-14]) as compared control participants at 3 months (median [IQR] = 10 [5-20]) and 6 months (median [IQR] = 10 [6-20]). Fifty-six percent of the intervention group and 41% of the control group a made a quit attempt during the study (p = .16). At 3 months, 7% (n = 3) of intervention participants and none of the control participants were abstinent from smoking (p = .23). At 6 months, 2% of participants in both groups were abstinent. Twenty-four percent and 10% of the intervention and control group participants, respectively, reported 20 or more smoke-free days (p = .43).

Conclusions

An IMB model-based smoking cessation intervention for opioid-dependent smokers is feasible and acceptable in methadone treatment and may help methadone maintained smokers cut down on their smoking.

Implications

This is the first study of a tailored, IMB Model-based, smoking cessation intervention for opioid dependent smokers. Results showed that opioid dependent smokers are willing and able to participate in an IMB model-based smoking cessation intervention, and this intervention may help this population cut down on their smoking. Also, the Quitline seems less feasible and acceptable for this population than a face-to-face intervention. Further research is needed to determine how to integrate smoking cessation treatment into methadone programs and how to improve interventions so that treatment gains can lead to long-term abstinence in this population.

Providing routine chronic disease preventive care in community substance use services: a pilot study of a multistrategic clinical practice change intervention

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential effectiveness of a practice change intervention in increasing preventive care provision in community-based substance use treatment services. In addition, client and clinician acceptability of care were examined.

DESIGN

A pre-post trial conducted from May 2012 to May 2014.

SETTING

Public community-based substance use treatment services (n=15) in one health district in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Surveys were completed by 226 clients and 54 clinicians at baseline and 189 clients and 46 clinicians at follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS

A 12-month multistrategic clinician practice change intervention that aimed to increase the provision of preventive care for smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Client and clinician reported provision of assessment, brief advice and referral for three modifiable health risk behaviours: smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity. Clinician-reported optimal care was defined as providing care to 80% of clients or more. Client acceptability and clinician attitudes towards preventive care were assessed at follow-up.

RESULTS

Increases in client reported care were observed for insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption including: assessment (24% vs 54%, p<0.001), brief advice (26% vs 46%, p<0.001), and clinicians speaking about (10% vs 31%, p<0.001) and arranging a referral (1% vs 8%, p=0.006) to telephone helplines. Clinician reported optimal care delivery increased for: assessment of insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption (22% vs 63%, p<0.001) and speaking about telephone helplines for each of the three health risk behaviours. Overall, clients and clinicians held favourable views regarding preventive care.

CONCLUSION

This study reported increases in preventive care for insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption; however, minimal increases were observed for smoking or insufficient physical activity. Further investigation of the barriers to preventive care delivery in community substance use settings is needed.

TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12614000469617.

Characterizing Cardiovascular Health and Evaluating a Low-Intensity Intervention to Promote Smoking Cessation in a Food-Assistance Population

Food assistance recipients are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular health given their propensity to poor dietary intake and tobacco use. This study sought to evaluate the cardiovascular health status, and determine the impact of a low-intensity smoking cessation education intervention that connected mobile food pantry participants to state quit-smoking resources. A pre-post design with a 6-week follow-up was used to evaluate the impact of a 10-12 min smoking cessation education session implemented in five food pantries in Delaware. Baseline cardiovascular health, smoking behaviors and food security status were assessed. Smoking cessation knowledge, intention to quit and use of the state quit line were also assessed at follow-up. Of the 144 participants 72.3% reported having hypertension, 34.3% had diabetes, 13.9% had had a stroke. 50.0% were current smokers. The low-intensity intervention significantly increased smoking cessation knowledge but not intention to quit at follow-up. Seven percent of current smokers reported calling the quit line. Current tobacco use was five times more likely in food insecure versus food secure adults (OR 4.98; p = 0.006), even after adjustment for demographic factors. Systems based approaches to address tobacco use and cardiovascular health in low-income populations are needed. The extent to which smoking cessation could reduce food insecurity and risk for cardiovascular disease in this population warrants investigation.

Provision of Chronic Disease Preventive Care in Community Substance Use Services: Client and Clinician Report

INTRODUCTION

People with substance use problems have a higher prevalence of modifiable health risk behaviors. Routine clinician provision of preventive care may be effective in reducing such health behaviors. This study aimed to examine clinician provision of preventive care to clients of community substance use treatment services.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with 386 clients and 54 clinicians of community substance use treatment services in one health district in New South Wales, Australia. Client- and clinician-reported provision of three elements of care (assessment, brief advice and referral) for three health risk behaviors (tobacco smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity) was assessed, with associations with client characteristics examined.

RESULTS

Provision was highest for tobacco smoking assessment (90% client reported, 87% clinician reported) and brief advice (79% client reported, 80% clinician reported) and lowest for fruit and vegetable consumption (assessment 23%, brief advice 25%). Few clients reported being offered a referral (<10%). Assessment of physical activity and brief advice for all behaviors was higher for clients residing in rural/remote areas.

CONCLUSION

Assessment and brief advice were provided to the majority of clients for smoking, but sub-optimally for the other behaviors. Further investigation of barriers to the provision of preventive care within substance use treatment settings is required, particularly for referral to ongoing support.

When Free Is Not for Me: Confronting the Barriers to Use of Free Quitline Telephone Counseling for Tobacco Dependence

Remarkable disparities in smoking rates in the United States contribute significantly to socioeconomic and minority health disparities. Access to treatment for tobacco use can help address these disparities, but quitlines, our most ubiquitous treatment resource, reach just 1%-2% of smokers. We used community-based participatory methods to develop a survey instrument to assess barriers to use of the quitline in the Arkansas Mississippi delta. Barriers were quitline specific and barriers to cessation more broadly. Over one-third (34.9%) of respondents (n = 799) did not have access to a telephone that they could use for the quitline. Respondents reported low levels of knowledge about the quitline, quitting, and trust in tobacco treatment programs as well as considerable ambivalence about quitting including significant concerns about getting sick if they quit and strong faith-based beliefs about quitting. These findings suggest quitlines are not accessible to all lower socioeconomic groups and that significant barriers to use include barriers to cessation. These findings suggest targets for providing accessible tobacco use treatment services and addressing concerns about cessation among lower income, ethnic minority, and rural groups.