Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital ('warm handoff') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A Systematic Review Evaluating Disparities in State-Run Quitline Utilization and Effectiveness in the U.S

Context

Cigarette smoking is a public health problem in the U.S. and is marked by pervasive sociodemographic disparities. State-run quitlines may offer greater access to cessation services that could in turn help to reduce smoking disparities. The aim of this review was to synthesize the body of literature regarding sociodemographic disparities in the utilization and effectiveness of state-run quitlines.

Evidence acquisition

The PRISMA guidelines were followed in conducting this review. Included articles were published between January 1, 1992 and May 28, 2019 and sourced from PubMed and Web of Science. Studies that evaluated state-run quitline utilization or effectiveness (cessation) by sex, race/ethnicity, sexual or gender identity, or SES (income, education, insurance) were included.

Evidence synthesis

Our search yielded 2,091 unique articles, 17 of which met the criteria for inclusion. This review found that quitline utilization was higher among Black and Asian/Pacific Islander individuals than among White individuals and among people with lower income and lower education than among people with higher income and higher education. Quitline use was associated with less smoking cessation among females than among males, among American Indian/Alaskan Native individuals than among individuals from all other races and ethnicities, and among individuals of lower than among those of higher income and education.

Conclusions

This review found that although communities disproportionately affected by smoking utilize quitlines more commonly than their White and more affluent peers, disparities in cessation persist for American Indian/Alaskan Native and individuals from lower SES groups who use quitlines.

Text messaging interventions to support smoking cessation among hospitalized patients in Brazil: a randomized comparative effectiveness clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

A clinical trial carried out in patients hospitalized for clinical and surgical conditions. This study evaluated the effectiveness of text messaging interventions (TM) versus telephone counseling (TC) to promote smoking cessation among hospitalized smokers in a middle-income country. Seven-day abstinence was measured during follow-up phone calls one month after discharge. The comparative cost of the two interventions considered the cost of calls, time spent on phone calls and sending SMS and cost of the professional involved in the approaches.

RESULTS

Past 7-day tobacco abstinence was not statistically different between groups (30.5% in TM group and 26% in TC, p = 0.318). Costs were significantly lower in the TM group (U$9.28 × U$19.45- p < 0,001). Continuous abstinence was reported by 26% of TM participants and 24.5% of TC participants (p = 0.730). In the 3-month follow-up, 7-day abstinence was 23% in the TMI and 27% in the TC (p = 0.356) group. Continuous abstinence was reported by 20% of TM participants and 24% of TC participants (p = 0.334).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03237949 Registred on: 30th May 2017.

Impact of Smoking Cessation Interventions Initiated During Hospitalization Among HIV-Infected Smokers

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a key determinant of mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH).

METHODS

To better understand the effects of smoking cessation interventions in PLWH, we conducted a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials of hospital-initiated smoking interventions conducted through the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART). In each study, cigarette smokers were randomly assigned to usual care or a smoking cessation intervention. The primary outcome was self-reported past 30-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Abstinence rates were compared between PLWH and participants without HIV and by treatment arm, using both complete-case and intention-to-treat analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of HIV status on 6-month tobacco abstinence and to determine predictors of smoking cessation within PLWH.

RESULTS

Among 5550 hospitalized smokers, there were 202 (3.6%) PLWH. PLWH smoked fewer cigarettes per day and were less likely to be planning to quit than smokers without HIV. At 6 months, cessation rates did not differ between intervention and control groups among PLWH (28.9% vs. 30.5%) or smokers without HIV (36.1% vs. 34.1%). In multivariable regression analysis, HIV status was not significantly associated with smoking cessation at 6 months. Among PLWH, confidence in quitting was the only clinical factor independently associated with smoking cessation (OR 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.8, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

HIV status did not alter likelihood of quitting smoking after hospital discharge, whether or not the smoker was offered a tobacco cessation intervention, but power was limited to identify potentially important differences.

IMPLICATIONS

PLWH had similar quit rates to participants without HIV following a hospital-initiated smoking cessation intervention. The findings suggest that factors specific to HIV infection may not influence response to smoking cessation interventions and that all PLWH would benefit from efforts to assist in quitting smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(1) Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial: NCT01305928. (2) Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient: NCT01277250. (3) Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: NCT01363245. (4) Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (HelpingHAND2): NCT01714323.

Promoting cessation in hospitalized smoking patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate high intensity post-discharge follow-up strategies to promote smoking cessation in hospitalized patients. METHODS A systematic review was performed, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA - P) protocol. The databases used for research were: PubMed, LILACS/BIREME, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scielo. The included articles were randomized clinical trials, published from 1990 to 2018, which evaluated in-hospital and post-discharge intervention, and provided a minimum of 30-day care post discharge. The studies aimed to evaluate tobacco cessation. RESULTS Fourteen studies were selected for analysis. Across studies, pharmacotherapy was consistently effective for smoking cessation. Communication technologies likewise were consistently effective for cessation and post-discharge access. CONCLUSION Effective strategies exist. The challenge for future trials is to determine the best approaches for different clinical contexts, to promote cessation.

Stress, Coping, Resilience and Trust during the Flint Water Crisis

In 2014, government officials in the City of Flint, Michigan switched the municipal water source from the Detroit Water System (water source: Lake Huron) to the Flint River. During this time, an estimated 102,000 Flint residents were potentially exposed to multiple chemical (e.g., lead) and biological threats (e.g., Legionella). After the switch to water sourced from the Flint River, Flint residents consistently reported concerns over water quality while also experiencing rashes, hair loss, and other health problems, including anxiety and depression. This study 1) reports on the Flint Water Crisis and its subsequent impact on residents' stress, coping, resilience and trust and 2) describes a process methodology that trained, hired and deployed Flint residents as members of a multidisciplinary research team. A random sample of 320 Flint residents underwent household-based interviews to assess their health and mental health needs. Concomitantly, household water samples were obtained and residents were connected to known resources based on interview responses relative to need. This study found that declines in health and mental health status were correlated with increased stressors (i.e., fatigue, financial concern, anxiety), coping and less resilience or the capacity to recover. Perceived trust in government officials was significantly lower after the water crisis. While the water crisis generated numerous stressors, the event also galvanized community competence to engage in solution-focused coping and other adaptive capacities. By assessing and building upon Flint residents' resilience, community resource specialists, identified and subsequently strengthened city residents' ability to survive devastating challenges.

Effects of post-discharge counseling and medication utilization on short and long-term smoking cessation among hospitalized patients

Numerous studies have tested the effect of multicomponent post-discharge smoking cessation interventions on post-discharge smoking cessation, and many are effective. However, little is known regarding the relative efficacy of the different intervention components on short or long-term cessation. The present study is a secondary analysis (n = 984) of a randomized controlled trial for hospitalized smokers that took place at two large hospitals in Kansas from 2011 to 2014. All study participants were offered post-discharge quitline services. Pharmacotherapy was recommended during bedside tobacco treatment. The study outcomes were self-reported cessation at 1-month and biochemically verified cessation at 6-months post-randomization. During the post-discharge period, 69% of participants completed at least one quitline call and 28% of participants reported using cessation pharmacotherapy. After controlling for known predictors of cessation among hospitalized smokers, both the number of total quitline calls completed post-discharge and use of cessation pharmacotherapy post-discharge were predictive of cessation at 1-month. After accounting for predictors of cessation and quitting at 1-month, total post-discharge quitline calls was associated with cessation at 6-months (OR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.12, 1.35], p < 0.001) while post-discharge cessation pharmacotherapy use was not. The results suggest that both engagement in quitline services and use pharmacotherapy independently facilitate cessation beyond the influence of known clinical characteristics associated with cessation. Over the longer term, the effect of engaging in quitline services persists while the effect of pharmacotherapy diminishes. To optimize outcomes, future research should investigate methods to increase utilization of medications and promote sustained counseling engagement in order to sustain the effects of treatment during the post-discharge period.

•

Counseling and pharmacotherapy are effective interventions for helping hospitalized smokers quit smoking, but the relative contribution of each intervention component to short or long-term abstinence is not well understood

•

This secondary analysis of a large clinical trial found that quitline counseling and pharmacotherapy – when used after hospital discharge - were associated with increased odds of quitting smoking at 1-month follow up

•

Controlling for early abstinence at 1 month, only post-discharge quitline counseling remained predictive of cessation at 6-months follow-up

•

Pharmacotherapy and quitline counseling independently facilitate short-term abstinence, while long-term abstinence is facilitated by engagement in quitline counseling services

•

Hospitals could work directly with state quitlines to integrate counseling into post-discharge care

Rapid relapse to smoking following hospital discharge

Many of nearly 7 million smokers who are hospitalized each year plan to stay quit after they leave the hospital. Most, however, relapse after discharge. This is a secondary analysis of a large Midwestern hospital-based smoking cessation trial that occurred between July 2011 and May 2013 to better understand how quickly smokers relapse and the predictors of rapid relapse. Of 942 participants who completed follow up, 25% returned to smoking within a day after hospital discharge. Among these rapid relapses, 36.6% relapsed within one-hour of leaving the hospital, 35.3% between one and 24 h, and 28.1% relapsed one-day post-discharge. Predictors with the highest odds for rapid relapse (within a day of hospital discharge) included tobacco use during hospitalization (OR, 7.37, [95% CI, 3.85–14.13], P < 0.01); low confidence for quitting (OR, 2.07, [95% CI, 1.49–2.88], P < 0.01); and not setting a quit date (OR, 1.76, [95% CI, 1.25–2.48], P < 0.01). Other significant predictors included higher nicotine dependence, shorter length of stay, and depression. Patients who are vulnerable to rapid relapse may benefit from policies that discourage leaving the hospital to smoke. In addition, hospital interventions that target smokers' confidence in quitting, encourage setting a quit date, and addressing nicotine dependence and depression may also be effective at supporting smoker's intentions to make their pre-admission cigarette their last.

Clinical Trials Registration NCT01305928

Critical steps in the path to using cessation pharmacotherapy following hospital-initiated tobacco treatment

Background

Hospital-initiated smoking cessation interventions utilizing pharmacotherapy increase post-discharge quit rates. Use of smoking cessation medications following discharge may further increase quit rates. This study aims to identify individual, smoking-related and hospitalization-related predictors of engagement in three different steps in the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy utilization process: 1) receiving medications as inpatient, 2) being discharged with a prescription and 3) using medications at 1-month post-hospitalization, while accounting for associations between these steps.

Methods

Study data come from a clinical trial (N = 1054) of hospitalized smokers interested in quitting who were randomized to recieve referral to a quitline via either warm handoff or fax. Variables were from the electronic health record, the state tobacco quitline, and participant self-report. Relationships among the predictors and the steps in cessation medication utilization were assessed using bivariate analyses and multivariable path analysis.

Results

Twenty-eight percent of patients reported using medication at 1-month post-discharge. Receipt of smoking cessation medications while hospitalized (OR = 2.09, 95%CI [1.39, 3.15], p < .001) and discharge with a script (OR = 4.88, 95%CI [3.34, 7.13], p < .001) were independently associated with medication use at 1-month post-hospitalization. The path analysis also revealed that the likelihood of being discharged with a script was strongly influenced by receipt of medication as an inpatient (OR = 6.61, 95%CI [4.66, 9.38], p < .001). A number of other treatment- and individual-level factors were associated with medication use in the hospital, receipt of a script, and use post-discharge.

Conclusions

To encourage post-discharge smoking cessation medication use, concerted effort should be made to engage smokers in tobacco treatment while in hospital. The individual and hospital-level factors associated with each step in the medication utilization process provide good potential targets for future implementation research to optimize treatment delivery and outcomes.

Trial registration

Number: NCT01305928.

Date registered: February 24, 2011.

Predictors of engagement in post-discharge quitline counseling among hospitalized smokers

Quitlines provide evidence-based tobacco treatment and multiple calls yield higher quit rates. This study aimed to identify subgroups of smokers with greater quitline engagement following referral during hospitalization. Data were from a randomized clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of fax referral (referral faxed to proactive quitline) versus warm handoff (patient connected to quitline at bedside) (n = 1054). Classification and regression trees analyses evaluated individual and treatment/health system-related variables and their interactions. Among all participants, warm handoff, higher ratings of the tobacco treatment care transition, and being older predicted completing more quitline calls. Among patients enrolled in the quitline, higher transition of care ratings, being older, and use of cessation medication post-discharge predicted completing more calls. Three of the four factors influencing engagement were characteristics of treatment within the hospital (quality of tobacco treatment care transition and referral method) and therapy (use of cessation medications), suggesting potential targets to increase quitline engagement post-discharge.

A randomized, controlled pilot study of warm handoff versus fax referral for hospital-initiated smoking cessation among people living with HIV/AIDS

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) remains higher than the general population. Life expectancy among PLWHA has increased over the past decade, however, PLWHA who smoke will die younger than their non-smoking peers. The primary aim of this pilot study was to examine the effects of warm handoff versus fax referral to the quitline for smoking cessation among hospitalized smokers living with HIV/AIDS.

METHODS

25 smokers with a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS hospitalized at a Midwestern academic medical center in 2012-2013 (19 male; mean age=47.7; 48% African-American) were identified, approached, and randomized to one of two treatment arms. At the bedside for patients in warm handoff, staff telephoned the quitline for on-the-spot enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were fax-referred to the quitline on the day of discharge. The quitline provided continued outpatient counseling to participants in both conditions. The main outcome was verified tobacco abstinence at 6-months post randomization.

RESULTS

Enrollment and participation in quitline counseling was high among both warm handoff (100%) and fax-referred (71.4%) PLWHA participants. Nearly all completed follow up for outcome data collection at 6months. Verified abstinent rates were 45.5% in warm handoff versus 14.3% in fax referral at 6months (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized smokers living with HIV/AIDS were highly engaged in quitline services. Warm handoff seems a promising intervention for hospitalized PLWHA that requires further exploration. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01305928.

Overcoming barriers to a successful transition from pediatric to adult care

As life expectancy for people with cystic fibrosis (CF) has increased dramatically, so has the need for a guided, structured transition from pediatric to adult-focused care. A formalized transition program allows for seamless transfer of patients between providers, helping to ensure continuity of care, and avoid potential declines associated with inconsistent medical care. New CF Center guidelines issued by the CFF strongly recommend that each center establish a transition program for age-appropriate transition to an adult CF clinic. In this article, we explore the remaining barriers to establishing a transition program in a CF Center and offer examples of several successful models. We describe CFF-sponsored and other initiatives that exist to support centers in establishing a transition program and discuss the need for ongoing research in this area.

Changing the default for tobacco-cessation treatment in an inpatient setting: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most health care providers do not treat tobacco dependence routinely. This may in part be due to the treatment "default." Current treatment guidelines recommend that providers (1) ask patients if they are willing to quit and (2) provide cessation-focused medications and counseling only to smokers who state that they are willing to quit. The default is that patients have to "opt in" to receive cessation assistance: providers ask smokers if they are willing to quit, and only offer medications and cessation support to those who say "yes." This drastically limits the reach of cessation services because, at any given encounter, only one in three smokers say that they are ready to quit. The objective of this study is to determine the impact of providing all smokers with tobacco-cessation treatment unless they refuse it (OPT OUT) versus current practice-screening for readiness and only offering treatment to smokers who say they are ready to quit (OPT IN).

METHODS

This individually randomized clinical trial is conducted in a tertiary-care hospital. We will conduct the trial among up to 1000 randomly selected hospitalized smokers to determine the population impact of changing the treatment default, identify mediators of outcome, and determine the cost-effectiveness of this new, highly proactive approach. This is a population-based study that targets an endpoint of vital interest; applies minimal eligibility criteria to broaden generalizability; and utilizes hospital staff for interventions to ensure long-term sustainability. The study employs delayed consent and an innovative Bayesian adaptive design to evaluate a major shift in our approach to care. If effective, this change would expand the reach of tobacco-cessation treatment from 30% to 100% of smokers.

DISCUSSION

Regardless of outcome, the trial will provide a model of how to alter and evaluate the impact of health care defaults. If OPT OUT proves to be more effective, it will expand the population eligible for cessation treatment by over 300%. It will also simplify the tobacco-cessation treatment algorithm, and relieve busy health care providers of the burden of evaluating readiness to quit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registration, ID: NCT02721082 . Registered on 22 March 2016.

Implementation of the Tobacco Tactics intervention versus usual care in Trinity Health community hospitals

Background

Guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) implementation framework, a National Institutes of Health-sponsored study compared the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention to usual care. A prior paper describes the effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics intervention. This subsequent paper provides data describing the remaining constructs of the RE-AIM framework.

Methods

This pragmatic study used a mixed methods, quasi-experimental design in five Michigan community hospitals of which three received the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention and two received usual care. Nurses and patients were surveyed pre- and post-intervention.

Measures included reach (patient participation rates, characteristics, and receipt of services), adoption (nurse participation rates and characteristics), implementation (pre-to post-training changes in nurses' attitudes, delivery of services, barriers to implementation, opinions about training, documentation of services, and numbers of volunteer follow-up phone calls), and maintenance (continuation of the intervention once the study ended).

Results

Reach: Patient participation rates were 71.5 %. Compared to no change in the control sites, there were significant pre- to post-intervention increases in self-reported receipt of print materials in the intervention hospitals (n = 1370, p < 0.001). Adoption: In the intervention hospitals, all targeted units and several non-targeted units participated; 76.0 % (n = 1028) of targeted nurses and 317 additional staff participated in the training, and 92.4 % were extremely or somewhat satisfied with the training. Implementation: Nurses in the intervention hospitals reported increases in providing advice to quit, counseling, medications, handouts, and DVD (all p < 0.05) and reported decreased barriers to implementing smoking cessation services (p < 0.001). Qualitative comments were very positive (“user friendly,” “streamlined,” or “saves time”), although problems with showing patients the DVD and charting in the electronic medical record were noted. Maintenance: Nurses continued to provide the intervention after the study ended.

Conclusions

Given that nurses represent the largest group of front-line providers, this intervention, which meets Joint Commission guidelines for treating inpatient smokers, has the potential to have a wide reach and to decrease smoking, morbidity, and mortality among inpatient smokers. As we move toward more population-based interventions, the RE-AIM framework is a valuable guide for implementation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01309217

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0511-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health behavior change in pregnant women: a two-phase study

BACKGROUND

Maternal health behaviors during pregnancy/infancy can have a significant impact on maternal and child health. Many women engage in health risk behaviors during pregnancy. Multiple health behavior change (MHBC) interventions provide support to change health behaviors, but further information is needed on potential targets for such an intervention, as well as on the feasibility of technology use and e-health with this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two studies were completed as part of this project. First, a survey to examine views regarding health behaviors, desires to change health behaviors, and use of technology was completed by 68 pregnant women presenting for routine care. Based on survey findings, a brief MHBC e-health educational intervention related to breastfeeding, healthy nutrition/lifestyle, and stress management, using iPad(®) (Apple, Cupertino, CA) and text-messaging media, was then developed and piloted in the home with five pregnant women.

RESULTS

In the survey, the majority of participants reported interest in receiving help to improve health behaviors, including losing weight or eating a healthier diet, breastfeeding, smoking cessation, and help with depression. The majority of women reported access to a computer with Internet, a phone, and frequent use of text messaging. In the second phase, results suggest that the home-based intervention was feasible and that the technology was convenient and user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women are interested in improving health behaviors and found a brief technology-based e-health intervention feasible, convenient, and user-friendly. In-home technology appears to be a feasible and convenient approach to addressing the multiple health behavior change needs of pregnant women.

CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research

INTRODUCTION

It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on "spoke and wheel" diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015.

RESULTS

All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements.

CONCLUSIONS

CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.

Warm Handoff Versus Fax Referral for Linking Hospitalized Smokers to Quitlines

INTRODUCTION

Few hospitals treat patients' tobacco dependence. To be effective, hospital-initiated cessation interventions must provide at least 1 month of supportive contact post-discharge.

STUDY DESIGN

Individually randomized clinical trial. Recruitment commenced July 2011; analyses were conducted October 2014-June 2015.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The study was conducted in two large Midwestern hospitals. Participants included smokers who were aged ≥18 years, planned to stay quit after discharge, and spoke English or Spanish.

INTERVENTION

Hospital-based cessation counselors delivered the intervention. For patients randomized to warm handoff, staff immediately called the quitline from the bedside and handed the phone to participants for enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were referred on the day of hospital discharge.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes at 6 months included quitline enrollment/adherence, medication use, biochemically verified cessation, and cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

Significantly more warm handoff than fax participants enrolled in quitline (99.6% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI=1.65, 1.68). One in four (25.4% warm handoff, 25.3% fax) were verified to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up; this did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI=0.82, 1.24). Cessation medication use in the hospital and receipt of a prescription for medication at discharge did not differ between groups; however, significantly more fax participants reported using cessation medication post-discharge (32% vs 25%, p=0.01). The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enrolling participants into warm handoff was $0.14. Hospital-borne costs were significantly lower in warm handoff than in fax ($5.77 vs $9.41, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One in four inpatient smokers referred to quitline by either method were abstinent at 6 months post-discharge. Among motivated smokers, fax referral and warm handoff are efficient and comparatively effective ways to link smokers with evidence-based care. For hospitals, warm handoff is a less expensive and more effective method for enrolling smokers in quitline services.

Fidelity monitoring across the seven studies in the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART)

BACKGROUND

This paper describes fidelity monitoring (treatment differentiation, training, delivery, receipt and enactment) across the seven National Institutes of Health-supported Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) studies. The objectives of the study were to describe approaches to monitoring fidelity including treatment differentiation (lack of crossover), provider training, provider delivery of treatment, patient receipt of treatment, and patient enactment (behavior) and provide examples of application of these principles.

METHODS

Conducted between 2010 and 2014 and collectively enrolling over 9500 inpatient cigarette smokers, the CHART studies tested different smoking cessation interventions (counseling, medications, and follow-up calls) shown to be efficacious in Cochrane Collaborative Reviews. The CHART studies compared their unique treatment arm(s) to usual care, used common core measures at baseline and 6-month follow-up, but varied in their approaches to monitoring the fidelity with which the interventions were implemented.

RESULTS

Treatment differentiation strategies included the use of a quasi-experimental design and monitoring of both the intervention and control group. Almost all of the studies had extensive training for personnel and used a checklist to monitor the intervention components, but the items on these checklists varied widely and were based on unique aspects of the interventions, US Public Health Service and Joint Commission smoking cessation standards, or counselor rapport. Delivery of medications ranged from 31 to 100 % across the studies, with higher levels from studies that gave away free medications and lower levels from studies that sought to obtain prescriptions for the patient in real world systems. Treatment delivery was highest among those studies that used automated (interactive voice response and website) systems, but this did not automatically translate into treatment receipt and enactment. Some studies measured treatment enactment in two ways (e.g., counselor or automated system report versus patient report) showing concurrence or discordance between the two measures.

CONCLUSION

While fidelity monitoring can be challenging especially in dissemination trials, the seven CHART studies used a variety of methods to enhance fidelity with consideration for feasibility and sustainability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dissemination of Tobacco Tactics for hospitalized smokers. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01309217.Smoking cessation in hospitalized smokers. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01289275.Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01305928.Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01277250.Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01363245.Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge interventions for hospitalized smokers. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01177176.Health and economic effects from linking bedside and outpatient tobacco cessation services for hospitalized smokers in two large hospitals. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01236079.

Increasing prevalence of electronic cigarette use among smokers hospitalized in 5 US cities, 2010-2013

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the pattern of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use over time or among smokers with medical comorbidity.

METHODS

We assessed current cigarette smokers' use of e-cigarettes during the 30 days before admission to 9 hospitals in 5 geographically dispersed US cities: Birmingham, AL; Boston, MA; Kansas City, KS; New York, NY; and Portland, OR. Each hospital was conducting a randomized controlled trial as part of the NIH-sponsored Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART). We conducted a pooled analysis using multiple logistic regression to examine changes in e-cigarette use over time and to identify correlates of e-cigarette use.

RESULTS

Among 4,660 smokers hospitalized between July 2010 and December 2013 (mean age 57 years, 57% male, 71% white, 56% some college, average 14 cigarettes/day), 14% reported using an e-cigarette during the 30 days before admission. The prevalence of e-cigarette use increased from 1.1% in 2010 to 10.3% in 2011, 10.2% in 2012, and 18.4% in 2013; the increase was statistically significant (p < .0001) after adjustment for age, sex, education, and CHART study. Younger, better educated, and heavier smokers were more likely to use e-cigarettes. Smokers who were Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and who had Medicaid or no insurance were less likely to use e-cigarettes. E-cigarette use also varied by CHART project and by geographic region.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette use increased substantially from 2010 to 2013 among a large sample of hospitalized adult cigarette smokers. E-cigarette use was more common among heavier smokers and among those who were younger, white, and who had higher socioeconomic status.