Testing a Brief Quitline Intervention for Tobacco Cannabis Co-Users: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Background: Tobacco cannabis co-use is common and becoming more prevalent. Frequent and heavy users of cannabis may struggle to quit smoking. Quitlines offer free cessation treatment in the United States and 25% of quitline callers may also be cannabis users. The present paper describes a randomized pilot study of a tailored intervention for cannabis and cigarette co-users. The intervention combines the quitline smoking cessation treatment with a motivational enhancement therapy-based cannabis intervention. Methods: The randomized pilot study was conducted within four state-funded quitlines with quitline coaches as interventionists. 102 quitline callers who were cannabis and cigarette co-users were randomized to receive treatment as usual (TAU) or the new Quitline Check-Up (QLCU) intervention. Outcomes were collected 90 days post-randomization. Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability of delivering the QLCU in the quitline setting. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, past 30-day cannabis use, and Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test scores. Results: Study participants were heavy cannabis users, averaging 25 days of use in the past 30; nearly 70% used at a level considered hazardous. Fidelity ratings indicated coaches were successful at delivering the intervention. Treatment engagement was high for both groups (TAU m = 3.4 calls; QLCU m = 3.6 calls) as was treatment satisfaction. Intent-to-treat quit rates (with survey non-responders classified as smokers) were 28.6% for the TAU control group and 24.5% for the QLCU group (P = .45). Discussion: Hazardous cannabis use rates were high in this sample of tobacco cannabis co-users calling quitlines to quit smoking. The intervention for co-users was acceptable and feasible to deliver. No improvements in tobacco cessation outcomes were observed. Pragmatic intervention development within a real-world clinical setting can streamline the intervention development process. More research is needed on tobacco cannabis co-users and who can benefit from a tailored intervention. Registered: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04737772, February 4, 2021.

Texas tobacco quitline knowledge, attitudes, and practices within healthcare agencies serving individuals with behavioral health needs: A multimethod study

Patients with behavioral health conditions have disproportionately high tobacco use rates and face significant barriers to accessing evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Tobacco quitlines are an effective and accessible resource, yet they are often underutilized. We identify knowledge, practices, and attitudes towards the Texas Tobacco Quitline (TTQL) within behavioral healthcare settings in Texas. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in 2021 as part of a statewide needs assessment in behavioral healthcare settings. Survey respondents (n = 125) represented 23 Federally Qualified Health Centers, 29 local mental health authorities (LMHAs), 12 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 61 standalone substance use treatment centers (26 people participated in qualitative interviews). Over half of respondents indicated familiarity with the TTQL and believed that the TTQL was helpful for quitting. Qualitative findings reveal potential concerns about inconsistency of services, long wait time, and the format of the quitline. About half of respondents indicated that their center promoted patient referral to TTQL, and few indicated that their center had an electronic referral system with direct TTQL referral capacity. Interview respondents reported overall lack of systematic follow up with patients regarding their use of the TTQL services. Findings suggest the need for (1) increased TTQL service awareness among healthcare providers; (2) further investigation into any changes needed to better serve patients with behavioral health conditions who use tobacco; and (3) electronic health record integration supporting direct referrals and enhanced protocols to support patient follow up after TTQL referral.

Tobacco Quitlines May Help Exclusive Vapers Quit: An Analysis of Data From an Employer-Sponsored Quitline

Numerous studies have supported the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of quitlines for cigarette smoking cessation, but how effective they are for vaping cessation has not been established. Our secondary analysis examined quitline data on participants in employer-sponsored quitlines in the US run by Optum, Inc to compare quit rates among callers who were exclusive vapers (n = 1,194) with those who were exclusive smokers (n = 22,845). We examined data from the time of quitline enrollment, January 2017, through October 2020. Before adjusting for differences in demographics, quitline treatment engagement, and unadjusted quit rates, the quit rates for vapers were significantly higher. However, after adjusting for demographic and treatment engagement variables, 6-month quit rates among vapers did not differ significantly from rates among smokers.

Unique cessation tools in the box: Quitline utilization and effectiveness trends among a large sample of tobacco users reporting mental health disorders

It is estimated that the prevalence of smoking among adults with MHDs ranges between 40-60%, as compared to about 17% among those without an MHD. In addition, smokers with MHDs smoke more cigarettes, are more nicotine dependent, and experience more difficulty quitting, compared to other smokers. The uniquely high smoking prevalence among the MHD population is a serious public health concern; unfortunately, a majority of individuals experiencing difficulty receive no treatment. The US Public Health Service guidelines, as well as the National Cancer Institute, strongly recommend quitlines as an evidence-based treatment strategy to reduce barriers to cessation treatment, especially among smokers with MHDs; however, the literature is sparse on quitline engagement trends and associated outcomes for quitline participants with MHDs. This study sought to contribute to this gap with the largest sample to-date of MHD-endorsing tobacco quitline (Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline, OTH) participants. From 2015 to 2020, ~65,000 registrants (45-50% of total registered participants) with the OTH identified as having one or more MHDs in addition to their tobacco use. This study tested for the presence of significant differences between groups with and without MHDs (as well as within the MHD-identified group) on program enrollment selections, the intensity of engagement with chosen services, NRT utilization, and quit rates. It also tested for the existence of differences and moderating effects of demographic variables associated with the comparison groups. Statistically significant differences were found between these two groups with regard to: sex, age, racial identity, education level, annual income and insurance status. Significant differences were also found with tobacco use patterns reported by individuals (e.g., timing and daily use amounts). Differences in quitline program selection were demonstrated, such that the MHD-endorsing sample were more likely to participate and agree to the most robust service available. Significantly higher rates of service intensity (number of services engaged) were demonstrated, and MHD individuals were also significantly more likely to receive NRT as a part of their treatment. This study suggests a simplistic "more is better" quitline services approach may suffer in effectiveness because it neglects barriers common to this population. Important information is provided on these unique variables associated with MHD-endorsing individuals trying to quit their tobacco use. These results can help tobacco quitlines conceptualize the unique difficulties experienced by individuals with MHDs and then tailor their approach to respond supportively and constructively to this high need group.

Comparison of smoking cessation program registration, participation, smoking cessation medication utilization and abstinence rates between smokers with and without schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder or bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

People with serious mental illness (SMI) are three times more likely to smoke and be heavy smokers than smokers without SMI. Counseling combined with smoking cessation medication (SCM) is the recommended treatment. However until 2017, SCM prescription for SMI smokers was discouraged (FDA black box warning). This study compared use of smoking cessation programs (SCP) and SCM between smokers with and without SMI.

METHODS

Data regarding SCP and SCM use were extracted from the database of a large HMO that offers free Group and telephone SCP. SCP registration, participation, completion and abstinence rates between July 2013 and December 2019 were compared between smokers with and without SMI, controlling for demographic and health variables.

RESULTS

48,000 smokers registered for a SCP during the study period. Smokers with SMI were 1.8 times more likely to register for a SCP than smokers without SMI. Smokers without SMI were, however, 1.2 times more likely to start the SCP, 1.5 times more likely to complete the SCP and 1.6 times more likely to have quit by the end of the program. The strongest factors predicting abstinence were SCP completion and SCM use. Smokers with SMI were less likely to purchase SCM, although their purchase rate increased after the black box warning was lifted.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation programs and SCM use should be encouraged in the SMI population. Providing support during the quit attempt and adapting SCP to the needs of smokers with SMI, combined with SCM prescription promotion, should improve abstinence.

IMPLICATIONS

Smokers with serious mental illness (SMI) were more likely to seek professional help to quit smoking than non-SMI smokers, with over 30% achieving abstinence, discrediting healthcare professional beliefs that SMI smokers don't want to and cannot quit. Smoking cessation program (SCP) completion and smoking cessation medication (SCM) utilization were the strongest predictors of abstinence. SMI smokers were more likely to drop out of SCPs and less likely to use SCMs. Providing support during the quit attempt and adapting SCPs to the needs of smokers with SMI, combined with SCM prescription promotion, should improve abstinence.

Quitline Programs Tailored for Mental Health: Initial Outcomes and Feasibility

INTRODUCTION

The general efficacy of quitlines has been widely demonstrated, but uncertainty exists regarding how quitlines might best intervene for persons with mental health conditions. A total of 1 in 5 people in the U.S. has a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. These individuals smoke at 2‒4 times the rate of smoking among those without a mental health condition and face high rates of related death and disability. About half of quitline callers self-report a mental health condition, but until recently, quitline protocols tailored to these smokers did not exist.

METHODS

This paper provides initial results for tailored mental health programs from the largest quitline providers in the U.S., Optum and National Jewish Health. From 2017 to 2018, cohorts of callers with a mental health condition who enrolled in tailored programs were compared with cohorts with a mental health condition who received standard care. Both mental health programs offered participants additional calls, longer duration of combination nicotine-replacement therapy, and attention to mental health issues. Analyses were conducted in 2018-2019.

RESULTS

Findings suggest that callers with a mental health condition benefit from both standard care and tailored mental health services. Tailored programming did well in engaging people with mental health conditions. At the same time, there were no significant differences in abstinence rates when comparing mental health programs with standard care. Mental health cohorts did receive significantly greater service durations, more counseling calls, and longer nicotine-replacement therapy duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored mental health quitline programs present a promising framework for testing the services that address psychiatric symptoms as well as other frequent population characteristics such as chronic illness. Implications for increasing reach to the often underserved population with a mental health condition are discussed.

Effectiveness of Proactive Tobacco Cessation Treatment Outreach Among Smokers With Serious Mental Illness

INTRODUCTION

People with serious mental illness (SMI) have a high smoking prevalence and low quit rates. Few cessation treatments are tested in smokers with SMI. Mental health (MH) providers are reluctant to address smoking. Proactive tobacco cessation treatment strategies reach out directly to smokers to offer counseling and medication and improve treatment utilization and quit rates. The current study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of proactive outreach for tobacco cessation treatment in VA MH patients.

AIMS AND METHODS

Participants (N = 1938, 83% male, mean age 55.7) across four recruitment sites, who were current smokers and had a MH visit in the past 12 months, were identified using the electronic medical record. Participants were randomized to Intervention (telephone outreach call plus invitation to engage in MH tailored telephone counseling and assistance obtaining nicotine replacement therapy) or Control (usual care). The current study assessed outcomes in participants with SMI (N = 982).

RESULTS

Compared to the Control group, participants assigned to the Intervention group were more likely to engage in telephone counseling (22% vs. 3%) and use nicotine replacement therapy (51% vs. 41%). Participants in the Intervention group were more likely to be abstinent (7-day point prevalence; 18%) at 12 months than participants in the Control group (11%) but equally likely to make quit attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive tobacco cessation treatment is an effective strategy for tobacco users with SMI. Proactive outreach had a particularly strong effect on counseling utilization. Future randomized clinical trials examining proactive tobacco treatment approaches in SMI treatment settings are needed.

IMPLICATIONS

Few effective treatment models exist for smokers with SMI. Proactive tobacco cessation outreach with connections to MH tailored telephone counseling and medication promotes tobacco abstinence among smokers with SMI and is an effective treatment strategy for this underserved population.

Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?

INTRODUCTION

Affective disorders and symptoms (ADS) are predictive of lower odds of quitting smoking. However, it is unknown which approach to assessing ADS best predicts cessation. This study compared a battery of ADS screening instruments with a single, self-report question on predicting cessation. Among those who self-reported ADS, we also examined if an additional question regarding whether participants believed the condition(s) might interfere with their ability to quit added predictive utility to the single-item question.

METHODS

Participants (N = 2637) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of web-based smoking treatments completed a battery of five ADS screening instruments and answered a single-item question about having ADS. Those with a positive self-report on the single-item question were also asked about their interference beliefs. The primary outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months.

RESULTS

Both assessment approaches significantly predicted cessation. Screening positive for ≥ one ADS in the battery was associated with 23% lower odds of quitting than not screening positive for any (p = .023); those with a positive self-report on the single-item had 39% lower odds of quitting than self-reporting no mental health conditions (p < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the two assessment approaches were similar (p = .136). Adding the interference belief question to the single-item assessment significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (p = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

The single-item question assessing ADS had as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than the battery of screening instruments for identifying participants at risk for failing to quit smoking. Adding a question about interference beliefs significantly increased the predictive utility of the single-item question.

IMPLICATIONS

This is the first study to demonstrate that a single-item question assessing ADS has at least as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than a battery of validated screening instruments for identifying smokers at highest risk for cessation failure. This study also demonstrates adding a question about interference beliefs significantly adds to the predictive utility of a single, self-report question about mental health conditions. Findings from this study can be used to inform decisions regarding how to assess ADS in the context of tobacco treatment settings.

Association of a Comprehensive Smoking Cessation Program With Smoking Abstinence Among Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Patients with cancer who smoke after diagnosis risk experiencing reductions in treatment effectiveness, survival rates, and quality of life, and increases in complications, cancer recurrence, and second primary cancers. Smoking cessation can significantly affect these outcomes, but to date comprehensive treatment is not widely implemented in the oncologic setting.

OBJECTIVES

To describe a potential model tobacco treatment program (TTP) implemented in a cancer setting, report on its long-term outcomes, and highlight its importance to quality patient care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective cohort of smokers was treated in the TTP at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2006, to August 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to December 2018. Participants included 3245 patients (2343 with current cancer; 309 with previous cancer; 593 with no cancer history) drawn from a population of 5061 smokers referred for treatment in the TTP. Reasons for exclusion included follow-up for a noncancerous disease, no medical consultation, smoked less than 1 cigarette per day; or died before the 9-month follow-up.

EXPOSURES

Treatment consisted of an in-person medical consultation, 6 to 8 in-person and telephone follow-up counseling sessions, and 10 to 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was 9-month 7-day point-prevalence abstinence evaluated using time-specific (3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups) and longitudinal covariate-adjusted and unadjusted regression models with multiple imputation, intention-to-treat, and respondent-only approaches to missing data. The Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence was used as a measure of dependence (possible range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate greater dependence).

RESULTS

Of the 3245 smokers, 1588 (48.9%) were men, 322 (9.9%) were of black race/ethnicity, 172 (5.3%) were of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and 2498 (76.0%) were of white race/ethnicity. Mean (SD) age was 54 (11.4) years; Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence score, 4.41 (2.2), number of cigarettes smoked per day, 17.1 (10.7); years smoked, 33 (13.2); and 1393 patients (42.9%) had at least 1 psychiatric comorbidity. Overall self-reported abstinence was 45.1% at 3 months, 45.8% at 6 months, and 43.7% at 9 months in the multiply imputed sample. Results across all models were consistent, suggesting that, in comparison with smokers with no cancer history, abstinence rates within this TTP program did not differ appreciably whether smokers had current cancer, were a cancer survivor, or had smoking-related cancers, with the exception of patients with head and neck cancer; the rates were higher at 9 months (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56; P = .001) and in longitudinal models (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, mean smoking abstinence rates did not differ significantly between patients with cancer and those without cancer. These findings suggest that providing comprehensive tobacco treatment in the oncologic setting can result in sustained high abstinence rates for all patients with cancer and survivors and should be included as standard of care to ensure the best possible cancer treatment outcomes.