An increase in primary care prescriptions of stop-smoking medication as a result of health insurance coverage in the Netherlands: population based study

Implementation strategies to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Internationally, there is an 'evidence-practice gap' in the rate healthcare professionals assess tobacco use and offer cessation support in clinical practice, including primary care. Evidence is needed for implementation strategies enacted in the 'real-world'.

AIM

To identify implementation strategies aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care, their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and any perceived facilitators and barriers for effectiveness.

METHODS

'Embase', 'Medline', 'PsycINFO', 'CINAHL', 'Global Health', 'Social Policy & Practice', 'ASSIA Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts' databases, and grey literature sources were searched from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated an implementation strategy implemented on a nation-/state-wide scale, targeting any type of healthcare professional within the primary care setting, aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

implementation strategy identification, and effectiveness (practitioner-/patient-level).

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

perceived facilitators and barriers to effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

Of 49 included papers, half were of moderate/low risk of bias. The implementation strategy domains identified involved utilizing financial strategies, changing infrastructure, training and educating stakeholders, and engaging consumers. The first three increased practitioner-level smoking status recording and cessation advice provision. Interventions in the utilizing financial strategies domain also appeared to increase smoking cessation (patient-level). Key facilitator: external policies/incentives (tobacco control measures and funding for public health and cessation clinics). Key barriers: time and financial constraints, lack of free cessation medications and follow-up, deprioritisation and unclear targets in primary care, lack of knowledge of healthcare professionals, and unclear messaging to patients about available cessation support options. No studies assessed cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Some implementation strategy categories increased the rate of smoking status recording and cessation advice provision in primary care. We found some evidence for interventions utilizing financial strategies having a beneficial impact on cessation. Identified barriers to effectiveness should be reduced. More pragmatic approaches are recommended, such as hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs and utilising Multiphase Optimization Strategy methodology.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO:CRD42021246683.

The Usability of an Online Tool to Promote the Use of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions

To increase usage of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) among smokers, an online decision aid (DA) was developed. The aims of this study were (1) to conduct a usability evaluation; (2) to conduct a program evaluation and evaluate decisional conflict after using the DA and (3) to determine the possible change in the intention to use EBSCIs before and directly after reviewing the DA. A cross-sectional study was carried out in September 2020 by recruiting smokers via the Internet (n = 497). Chi-squared tests and t-tests were conducted to test the differences between smokers who differed in the perceived usability of the DA on the program evaluation and in decisional conflict. The possible changes in intention to use EBSCIs during a cessation attempt before and after reviewing the DA were tested using t-tests, McNemar's test and χ2 analysis. The participants evaluated the usability of the DA as moderate (MU; n = 393, 79.1%) or good (GU; n = 104, 20.9%). GU smokers rated higher on all the elements of the program evaluation and experienced less decisional conflict, but also displayed a higher intention to quit. After reviewing the DA, the participants on average had a significantly higher intention to use more EBSCIs, in particular in the form of eHealth. Recommendations to make the DA more usable could include tailoring, using video-based information and including value clarification methods. Furthermore, a hybrid variant in which smokers can use the DA independently and with the guidance of a primary care professional could aid both groups in choosing a fitting EBSCI option.

A referral aid for smoking cessation interventions in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To expedite the use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) in primary care and to thereby increase the number of successful quit attempts, a referral aid was developed. This aid aims to optimize the referral to and use of EBSCIs in primary care and to increase adherence to Dutch guidelines for smoking cessation.

METHODS

Practice nurses (PNs) will be randomly allocated to an experimental condition or control condition, and will then recruit smoking patients who show a willingness to quit smoking within six months. PNs allocated to the experimental condition will provide smoking cessation guidance in accordance with the referral aid. Patients from both conditions will receive questionnaires at baseline and after six months. Cessation effectiveness will be tested via multilevel logistic regression analyses. Multiple imputations as well as intention to treat analysis will be performed. Intervention appreciation and level of informed decision-making will be compared using analysis of (co)variance. Predictors for appreciation and informed decision-making will be assessed using multiple linear regression analysis and/or structural equation modeling. Finally, a cost-effectiveness study will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

This paper describes the study design for the development and evaluation of an information and decision tool to support PNs in their guidance of smoking patients and their referral to EBSCIs. The study aims to provide insight into the (cost) effectiveness of an intervention aimed at expediting the use of EBSCIs in primary care.

Subsidized pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation by the Spanish public health system: A randomized, pragmatic, clinical trial by clusters

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that financing drug therapy increases smoking abstinence rates, although most of these studies have been carried out in the private healthcare setting. The aim of this work is to assess the effect of subsidized pharmacological treatment on smoking cessation rates by the Spanish public healthcare system.

METHODS

A pragmatic, randomized, clinical trial was performed by clusters. Randomization unit was the primary healthcare center and the analysis unit was the patient. Smokers consuming ≥10 cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to an intervention group that received financed pharmacological treatment or to a control group that followed usual care. The main outcome was self-reported or CO-confirmed continuous abstinence at 12 months. The main outcome, continuous abstinence rates (%), were compared between groups at 12 months post-intervention. A model was adjusted using mixed-effect logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1154 patients were included from 23 healthcare centers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, self-reported abstinence after 12 months in the control and intervention groups, respectively, was 9.6% (37/387) and 15.4% (118/767) (gender-adjusted OR=1.75; 95% CI: 1.1–2.8); for CO-confirmed abstinence the corresponding values were 3.1% (12/387) and 6.4% (49/767) (gender-adjusted OR=1.72; 95% CI: 0.7–4.0). Pharmacological treatment use was 35.1% (136/387) in the control group, and 58.3% (447/767) in the intervention group (adjusted OR=4.25; 95% CI: 1.8–9.9)

CONCLUSIONS

Subsidizing pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation increases self-reported or CO-confirmed abstinence rates under realistic conditions in the primary care setting of the Spanish public health system.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.

Inequalities in the Impact of National Reimbursement of Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy and the Influence of Injunctive Norms: An Explorative Study

In 2011, the Dutch government reimbursed smoking cessation pharmacotherapy with behavioral therapy for quitting smokers. We investigate whether inequalities in the use of pharmacotherapy change and, if not, whether this is due to a relatively positive injunctive norm in lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. A total of 75,415 participants aged ≥15 years from the Dutch Continuous Survey of Smoking Habits, 2009–2012, were considered with the following measures: SES (education/income), injunctive norm (mostly acceptable/neutral/mostly unacceptable), period (2011/all other years), and pharmacotherapy use (yes/no). The proportion of low SES smokers compared with high SES smokers making quit attempts with pharmacotherapy did not differ significantly. The injunctive norm of low SES smokers differed significantly from high SES smokers and nonsmokers of all SES levels. Low income smokers with mostly acceptable injunctive norms were significantly less likely to make quit attempts using pharmacotherapy than those with a neutral or less accepting injunctive norm. The significantly lower use of pharmacotherapy in quit attempts in low income smokers with a positive injunctive norm toward smoking may partly underlie the lack of uptake of reimbursed pharmacotherapy in low SES smokers.

Perceived feasibility of a primary care intervention for Tobacco Cessation on Prescription targeting disadvantaged groups in Sweden: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of scientific evidence on how socioeconomically disadvantaged tobacco users can be reached with tobacco cessation interventions in Swedish primary healthcare (PHC). In this setting other lifestyle interventions are available by prescription, and there is the potential to develop a similar tool for tobacco cessation. The aim of this study was thus to explore the perceived feasibility and optimal design of Tobacco Cessation on Prescription (TCP) in PHC, targeting disadvantaged groups in Sweden.

METHODS

This qualitative study is based on semi-structured interviews with 32 participants including (1) three experts in lifestyle interventions on prescription, (2) 14 healthcare providers and (3) 15 clients from three PHC centres in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in Stockholm where tobacco use is high. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The manifest content of the transcripts was analysed according to a modified conventional approach to content analysis.

RESULTS

The interviewees proposed that TCP should include a template comprising the client's information, evidence-based tobacco cessation options and choices for follow-up. They also suggested including information about the benefits of tobacco cessation, as well as empowerment and planning support tools. The participants also commented that other measures for tobacco cessation could be included on the prescription. From the clients' point of view, the perceived advantages of TCP were often linked to an emotional meaning (e.g. increased motivation to quit tobacco use, sign of support from the healthcare system to seek care for tobacco cessation). For providers, advantages with TCP were frequently related to a practical meaning (e.g. improved documentation and facilitation of tobacco cessation treatment). The disadvantages identified were mainly connected with the future implementation of TCP (e.g. low self-efficacy among clients and providers).

CONCLUSIONS

TCP was perceived to be a useful tool for both clients and providers, potentially facilitating a structured and effective approach to tobacco cessation in PHC, and targeting disadvantaged groups. More research is needed to develop the prescription and investigate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared to current strategies for tobacco cessation in a PHC setting.

Substance abuse/dependence treatment: a European perspective

During the past decade, substantial progress has been made in the field of addiction medicine in Europe, particularly regarding the development of new treatment interventions, resulting in a wide range of therapeutic options for patients with substance use disorders. However, not all interventions are evidence based. Patients with cannabis and cocaine/amphetamine use disorders and special patient populations especially lack evidence-based treatment recommendations. Many patients undergo treatment that has not been scientifically evaluated for quality and efficacy. Moreover, there are large disparities regarding availability and treatment access across Europe, with the new member states of the European Union (EU) reporting long waiting lists and low treatment coverage. Even in Austria, which ranks among the countries with relatively high treatment coverage and good diversification of treatment in opioid maintenance therapy due to the availability of methadone, buprenorphine, and slow-release oral morphine (SROM), a considerable population of untreated or inadequately treated patients exists. Treatment for substance use disorders in Europe still has scope for improvement in terms of treatment availability and access, which is ideally provided by further development and implementation of evidence-based interventions.

Higher Adherence During Reimbursement of Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Treatments

INTRODUCTION

In the Netherlands, pharmacologic Smoking Cessation Treatments (pSCTs) were reimbursed in 2011. In 2012 the reimbursement was discontinued. As of 2013, pSCTs were again reimbursed, provided they are accompanied by behavioral counseling. The aim of this article is to assess the impact of changes in reimbursement policy on use of-and adherence to-pSCTs.

METHODS

A retrospective dispensing database analysis was performed on real-world observational data (2010-2013) from the Netherlands. Data on use and adherence was collected, in patients who were dispensed bupropion or varenicline in community pharmacies for the first time. Using the InterActionDataBase (iadb.nl), adherence per patient that initiated varenicline or bupropion was calculated by adding up all dispenses between initiation of the therapy and the 120 days thereafter. Good adherence was defined as using minimal 80% of the recommended duration and intensity of use.

RESULTS

The prevalence of patients initiating pSCTs was stable at 0.4 per 1000 inhabitants per quarter during 2010. In 2011, the prevalence was on average 0.7, with peaks in the first (0.8 per 1000) and fourth (1.0 per 1000) quarters of 2011. In 2012, the prevalence was stable again at 0.3. In 2013, prevalence was on average 0.4, with a small peak in the first quarter. Adherence was 15.4% in 2010 versus 20.1% in 2011 (P = .002). In 2012, adherence was 13.9%, compared with 18.9% in 2013 (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Not only the likelihood of initiating pSCTs, but also the extent of adherence to these treatments, although generally low, seems higher during reimbursement.

Are there income differences in the impact of a national reimbursement policy for smoking cessation treatment and accompanying media attention? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey

BACKGROUND

This study examined possible income differences in the impact of a national reimbursement policy for smoking cessation treatment and accompanying media attention in the Netherlands in 2011.

METHODS

We used three waves of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey, a nationally representative longitudinal sample of smokers aged 15 years and older (n=1912). The main analyses tested trends and income differences in outcome measures (smokers' quit attempt rates, use of behavioral counseling, use of cessation medications, and quit success) and awareness variables (awareness of reimbursement possibilities, the media campaign, medications advertisements and other media attention) with generalized estimating equations analyses.

RESULTS

In the first half of 2011, there was a significant increase in quit attempts (odds ratio (OR)=2.02, p<0.001) and quit success (OR=1.47, p<0.001). Use of counseling and medications remained stable at 3% of all smokers in this period. Awareness of reimbursement possibilities increased from 11% to 42% (OR=6.38, p<0.001). Only awareness of the media campaign was associated with more quit attempts at the follow-up survey (OR=1.95, p<0.001). Results were not different according to smokers' income level.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch reimbursement policy with accompanying media attention was followed by an increase in quit attempts and quit success, but use of cessation treatment remained stable. The impact of the policy and media attention did not seem to have decreased or increased socioeconomic inequalities in quit attempts, use of cessation treatment, or quit success.