Treating Tobacco Dependence at the Intersection of Diversity, Poverty, and Mental Illness: A Randomized Feasibility and Replication Trial

Dying to Quit: Understanding the Burden of Tobacco in Psychiatric Patients-A Clinical Review

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide and remains a critical public health challenge. The burden of disease caused by smoking is disproportionately borne by persons living with mental illness. Public health efforts to address smoking have not historically translated to a significant reduction in smoking prevalence among patients with mental illness. Smoking is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality among psychiatric patients who smoke at 1.7 to 3.3 times the rate of the general population. Among those with serious mental illness, tobacco-related illness accounts for half of all deaths. Nicotine dependence also interferes with treatment and worsens many psychiatric symptoms. Interventions are underutilized due to persistent misunderstandings regarding tobacco cessation for patients who are mentally ill. Addressing these misunderstandings is crucial in targeting the disparate rates of smoking in this population. Therefore, it is incumbent on psychiatrists to address the outsized effect that smoking has on patients with mental illness.

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.

Implementing Chronic Care Model Treatments for Cigarette Dependence in Community Mental Health Clinics

Objective: Tobacco use is rarely addressed in community mental healthcare settings, despite its high prevalence among people with serious mental illness. The aim of the current study was to gather stakeholder feedback regarding the feasibility of chronic care management strategies for tobacco dependence in community mental health centers (CMHCs). Chronic care strategies evaluated included the 5 As (Ask about tobacco use, Advise users of tobacco to quit, Assess interest in cessation, Assist with cessation, and Arrange for follow-up) and proactive telephone outreach (reaching out to all users of tobacco to offer connection to tobacco cessation treatment). Methods: Using a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with providers, leaders, and clients across two CMHCs. Our objectives were to capture their attitudes toward smoking cessation treatment, two chronic care model interventions (i.e., proactive outreach, the 5 As), and to determine the infrastructure needed to implement such interventions in their CMHCs. Thematic analysis was conducted by two independent coders to uncover pertinent themes. Results: Participants (n = 20) included nine providers, six leaders, and five clients. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes: (1) characteristics of recipients, (2) characteristics of the intervention, and (3) infrastructure needed for implementation and sustainability. Providers, leaders, and clients all reported that tobacco cessation treatment was rarely provided in CMHCs and expressed an interest in such treatments becoming more available. The 5 As and proactive outreach were viewed as feasible and acceptable to deliver and receive. Providers, leaders, and clients wanted support to connect clients with smoking cessation treatment. Providers and leaders requested a range of implementation supports, including didactic trainings, decision aids, performance feedback, and coaching on evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments for people with serious mental illness. Clients requested tobacco cessation resources, such as a cessation counseling provided at the CMHC and prescriptions for cessation medication. Conclusions: CMHC providers, leaders, and clients are interested in making tobacco cessation services more widely accessible and available. The feedback gathered in this study can be used to inform the delivery and implementation of guideline-adherent tobacco dependence care in CMHCs.

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.

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.

Comparison of Perceptions and Smoking Cessation Experiences Between Smokers With and Without Serious Mental Illness in a Large Health Maintenance Organization

OBJECTIVE

Smoking prevalence is threefold higher among people with serious mental illness (PWSMI) than in the general population, yet smoking cessation rates for PWSMI are lower. Numerous reasons have been posited as to why tobacco use is higher and abstinence rates are lower among PWSMI. This study explores smoking cessation perceptions and experiences among PWSMI and people without serious mental illness (SMI).

METHODS

Participants in this cross-sectional study were recruited from among members of a large health maintenance organization (HMO) in Israel who had registered for or commenced a smoking cessation program in 2015 through 2017. The sample comprised 208 PWSMI and a matched sample of people without SMI (N = 428). Telephone surveys were used to collect information about smoking status and smoking/cessation history, use of smoking cessation programs and aids (prescription medications, nicotine replacement therapy, electronic cigarettes), motivation and intention to quit, self-efficacy (to quit), smoking cessation outcome expectancies, physician support to quit, barriers and facilitators for those who had not quit, and reinforcements/challenges for those who had quit.

RESULTS

Of those without SMI, 27% quit smoking compared to 20% of PWSMI (p = .051). Irrespective of mental health status, the most significant predictor of abstinence was the use of smoking cessation prescription medications. Family physicians were significantly less likely to inquire about motivation to quit, refer to smoking cessation programs, or prescribe smoking cessation medications for PWSMI than for people without SMI. Beyond these factors, no differences were noted between respondents with and without SMI regarding motivation to quit, intention to quit, and abstinence self-efficacy. PWSMI who had not quit were more likely to be concerned about how quitting might affect their functioning and how they would pass the time without cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

PWSMI have similar levels of motivation and intention to quit smoking as those without SMI. However, they are disadvantaged by the reduced support received from their family physicians and lower cessation medication usage. Efforts to promote the implementation of smoking cessation treatment guidelines will help promote smoking abstinence among PWSMI.

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.

Episodic future thinking for smoking cessation in individuals with substance use disorder: Treatment feasibility and acceptability

BACKGROUND

Smokers with substance use disorders (SUD) smoke approximately four times more than the general population. Current efforts are focused on improving smoking cessation treatments for this population. Episodic future thinking (EFT), a novel intervention aimed at decreasing impulsive choice, has shown promising results for reducing cigarette demand in experimental settings. This feasibility study sought to examine the feasibility and preliminary EFT effects on delay discounting (DD) and nicotine intake reductions throughout treatment.

METHOD

Smokers in substance use treatment (N = 29; 75.9% males) received an 8-week cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) + EFT for smoking cessation. The study assessed feasibility through successful recruitment rates, retention, and adherence to treatment. Participants' satisfaction acted as our acceptability measure. We computed nonparametric range tests to analyze changes in continuous variables.

RESULTS

Among interested individuals, 42 (43.75%) met the inclusion criteria, and 29 entered the treatment program. Rate of treatment completion was 65.5% (19/29). Mean (SD) sessions attended were 7(1.11), and mean patient satisfaction rating with treatment was 8.83/10. The study observed low compliance with EFT, with 15.8% (3/19) of patients practicing at least 50% of the requested times.

CONCLUSIONS

CBT + EFT is acceptable for the SUD population. However, future studies should implement some adjustments to improve the adherence and feasibility of EFT, such as reducing the number of practices and temporal intervals in EFT events. Given the small sample size, and the absence of a control group, future larger scale trials are needed to elucidate EFT effects on DD and smoking cessation.

Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Adaptation of a sustained care cessation intervention for smokers hospitalized for psychiatric disorders: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke at disproportionately higher rates than those without SMI, have lifespans 25-32 years shorter, and thus bear an especially large burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Several recent studies demonstrate that smokers with SMI can successfully quit smoking with adequate support. Further evidence shows that using technology to deliver sustained care interventions to hospitalized smokers can lead to smoking cessation up to 6 months after discharge. The current comparative effectiveness trial adapts a technology-assisted sustained care intervention designed for smokers admitted to a general hospital and tests whether this approach can produce higher cessation rates compared to usual care for smokers admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit.

METHODS

A total of 353 eligible patients hospitalized for psychiatric illness are randomized by cohort into one of two conditions, Sustained Care (SusC) or Usual Care (UC), and are followed for six months after discharge. Participants assigned to UC receive brief tobacco education delivered by a hospital nurse during or soon after admission. Those assigned to SusC receive a 40-min, in-hospital motivational counseling intervention. Upon discharge, they also receive up to 8 weeks of free nicotine patches, automated interactive voice response (IVR) telephone and text messaging, and access to cessation counseling resources lasting 3 months post discharge. Smoking cessation outcomes are measured at 1-, 3- and 6-months post hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Results from this comparative effectiveness trial will add to our understanding of acceptable and effective smoking cessation approaches for patients hospitalized with SMI.

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.

The Methodological Quality and Effectiveness of Technology-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions for Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aims

To assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of technology-based smoking cessation interventions in disadvantaged groups.

Method

Four databases (EMBASE, Cochrane, Medline, and PsycInfo) were searched for studies conducted from 1980 to May 2016. Randomized controlled trials that compared a behavioral smoking cessation intervention delivered primarily through a technology-based platform (eg, mobile phone) with a no-intervention comparison group among disadvantaged smokers were included. Three reviewers assessed all relevant studies for inclusion, and one reviewer extracted study, participant and intervention-level data, with a subset crosschecked by a second reviewer.

Results

Thirteen studies targeting disadvantaged smokers (n =4820) were included. Only one study scored highly in terms of methodological rigor on EPOC criteria for judging risk of bias. Of the 13 studies using a technology-based platform, most utilized websites (n = 5) or computer programs (n = 5), and seven additionally offered nicotine replacement therapy. Technology-based interventions increased the odds of smoking cessation for disadvantaged groups at 1 month (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 2.63), 3 months (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07, 1.59), 6 months (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03, 1.62), and 18 months post-intervention (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.11, 3.01).

Conclusion

Few methodologically rigorous studies were identified. Mobile phone text-messaging, computer- and website-delivered quit support showed promise at increasing quit rates among Indigenous, psychiatric and inpatient substance use disorder patients. Further research is needed to address the role technology-based interventions have on overcoming health inequalities to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups.

Implications

This review provides the first quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of a range of technology-based smoking cessation interventions among disadvantaged smokers, with separate estimates on the basis of intervention type, and cessation outcome measure. Providing cost-effective, easily accessible and real-time smoking cessation treatment is needed, and innovative technology-based platforms will help reach this endpoint. These interventions need to be tested in larger scale randomized controlled trial designs and target broader disadvantaged groups. Data collection beyond 6 months is also needed in order to establish the efficacy of these intervention approaches on long-term cessation rates among disadvantaged population groups.

How can we help African American substance users stop smoking? client and agency perspectives

Research is needed to better understand barriers to smoking cessation and sustained abstinence among racial/ethnic minority polydrug users. We conducted community dialogue groups involving 49 clients in substance use treatment programs with predominantly ethnic minority clientele and individual dialogues/interviews with seven program providers (stakeholders). Most clients were African American, under 40 years old, women, current smokers, and high school graduates. Smoking cessation services in these programs were considered inadequate and community programs insufficiently culturally tailored and economically and geographically inaccessible. Participants discussed individual "willpower" and choice; agency tobacco-related programs and policies; the relationships between smoking, smoking cessation, and treatment goals; and steps needed to reshape agency services and policies to provide greater support for smoking cessation in this at-risk population.

Innovative approaches to support smoking cessation for individuals with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of death in the US, accounting for over 520,000 deaths annually. While the smoking prevalence has declined over the past 50 years, those with mental illness and addictive disorders continue to smoke at high levels and with significant tobacco-related health problems. Areas covered: This review highlights the epidemiology, contributing factors, and evidence-base for intervening upon tobacco use in those with mental illness and addictive disorders. Historically underprioritized, a growing body of literature supports treating tobacco within mental health and addiction treatment settings. Critically, treating tobacco use appears to support, and not harm, mental health recovery and sobriety. This review also summarizes novel, emerging approaches to mitigate the harms of cigarette smoking. Expert commentary: People with mental illness and addictive disorders have a high prevalence of tobacco use with serious health harms. Treating tobacco use is essential. Evidence-based strategies include individual treatments that are stage-matched to readiness to quit and combine cessation medications with behavioral therapies, supported by smoke-free policies in treatment settings and residential environments. Emerging approaches, with a focus on harm reduction, are electronic nicotine delivery systems and tobacco regulatory efforts to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes, thereby reducing their addiction potential.

Health behavior models for informing digital technology interventions for individuals with mental illness

OBJECTIVE

Theoretical models offer valuable insights for designing effective and sustainable behavioral health interventions, yet the application of theory for informing digital technology interventions for people with mental illness has received limited attention. We offer a perspective on the importance of applying behavior theories and models to developing digital technology interventions for addressing mental and physical health concerns among people with mental illness.

METHOD

In this commentary, we summarize prominent theories of human behavior, highlight key theoretical constructs, and identify opportunities to inform digital health interventions for people with mental illness. We consider limitations with existing theories and models, and examine recent theoretical advances that can specifically guide development of digital technology interventions.

RESULTS

Established behavioral frameworks including health belief model, theory of planned behavior, transtheoretical model, and social cognitive theory consist of important and overlapping constructs that can inform digital health interventions for people with mental illness. As digital technologies continue to evolve and enable longitudinal data collection, real-time behavior monitoring, and adaptive features tailored to users' changing needs over time, there are new opportunities to broaden our understanding of health behaviors and mechanisms of behavior change. Recent advances include dynamic models of behavior, persuasive system design, the behavioral intervention technology model, and behavioral models for just-in-time adaptive interventions.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Behavior theories offer advantages for guiding use of digital technologies. Future researchers must explore how theoretical models can effectively advance efforts to develop, evaluate, and disseminate digital health interventions targeting individuals with mental illness. (PsycINFO Database Record

Smoking Cessation and Electronic Cigarettes in Community Mental Health Centers: Patient and Provider Perspectives

Little is known about patients' electronic cigarette use, interest in and use of smoking cessation treatments, and providers' attitude towards such treatment. We assessed patients (N = 231) and providers (45 psychiatrists, 97 case workers) in four Community Mental Health Centers. Interestingly, 50% of smokers reported interest in using electronic cigarettes to quit smoking, and 22% reported current use. While 82% of smokers reported wanting to quit or reduce smoking, 91% of psychiatrists and 84% of case workers reported that patients were not interested in quitting as the lead barrier, limiting the provision of cessation interventions. Providers' assumption of low patient interest in treatment may account for the low rate of smoking cessation treatment. In contrast, patients report interest and active use of electronic cigarettes to quit smoking. This study highlights the need for interventions targeting different phases of smoking cessation in these patients suffering disproportionately from tobacco dependence.

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.

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.

Smoking, Mental Illness, and Public Health

Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death worldwide. In particular, people with mental illness are disproportionately affected with high smoking prevalence; they account for more than 200,000 of the 520,000 tobacco-attributable deaths in the United States annually and die on average 25 years prematurely. Our review aims to provide an update on smoking in the mentally ill. We review the determinants of tobacco use among smokers with mental illness, presented with regard to the public health HAVE framework of “the host” (e.g., tobacco user characteristics), the “agent” (e.g., nicotine product characteristics), the “vector” (e.g., tobacco industry), and the “environment” (e.g., smoking policies). Furthermore, we identify the significant health harms incurred and opportunities for prevention and intervention within a health care systems and larger health policy perspective. A comprehensive effort is warranted to achieve equity toward the 2025 Healthy People goal of reducing US adult tobacco use to 12%, with attention to all subgroups, including smokers with 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.