Medical student INtervention to promote effective nicotine dependence and tobacco HEalthcare (MIND-THE-GAP): single-centre feasibility randomised trial results

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.

Tobacco Cessation Curriculum in Medical Schools: a Scoping Review

This scoping review aims to identify interventional training courses on tobacco cessation counseling skills of medical students, identify the most appropriate teaching method, and the ideal stage to provide such training. We retrieved articles published since 2000 from two electronic peer-reviewed databases (PubMed and Scopus) and hand-searched reference lists of selected articles. Articles published in English, with a clearly defined curriculum, reporting knowledge, attitude, cessation counseling skills of medical students post-training, and cessation-related outcomes of patients participating in student-led counseling sessions, were considered for inclusion. We used the York framework to guide this scoping review. First, data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria were charted using a standardized form. Subsequently, related studies were organized under three themes that emerged in the review process-lectured-based, web-based, and multi-modal curriculum. We concluded that a short but focused lecture-based curriculum combined with peer role-play or standardized/real patient interactions effectively develops the necessary knowledge and skills of undergraduate medical students to provide tobacco cessation counseling to patients. However, studies consistently report that the gains in knowledge and skills after cessation training is acute. Therefore, continued participation in cessation counseling and periodic review of cessation-related knowledge and skills post-training is warranted.

Elaboration and refinement of a motivational communication training program for healthcare professionals in pediatric oncology: a feasibility and acceptability study

INTRODUCTION

A healthy lifestyle could have a positive impact in reducing the incidence of some long-term sequelae secondary to pediatric cancer treatments. Motivational communication (MC) is effective at improving healthy lifestyle habits, especially when patients experience change as a challenge. To date, there is no available intervention program using MC that promotes healthy lifestyles in pediatric oncology.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop the first MC training program for professionals in pediatric oncology and assess its feasibility and acceptability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following standard procedures involving professionals, we developed a professional-targeted training named the Motivation Cafés, consisting in six sessions of core MC skills for healthcare professionals who wish to positively impact lifestyles of families in pediatric oncology. We used a mixed-methods quantitative-qualitative study to assess the program feasibility and acceptability. Professionals in nutrition and physical activity (N = 16) attended two rounds of the training and completed surveys to evaluate the training. They reported self-efficacy and knowledge in MC. Participation and retention rates were used to assess acceptability and feasibility, and a thematic analysis of the open-ended questions was performed to identify strengths and weaknesses of the program to further refine the program. We used non-parametric statistics to compare pre-post changes on measures of self-efficacy and knowledge in MC.

RESULTS

Attendance and retention (average 4.2/6 sessions completed) were high, suggesting very good adherence and feasibility. We also found high levels of acceptability and pertinence of the program (i.e. >90%). The results suggested probable improvements in self-efficacy and knowledge, but these were not statistically significant given the limited sample size.

CONCLUSION

The training Motivation Cafés is now ready to be pilot tested in pediatric cancer care centers.

Systematic Review of Clinician-Reported Barriers to Provision of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Hospital Inpatient Settings

Background: Although the hospital inpatient setting arguably provides an ideal opportunity to engage patients in smoking cessation interventions, this is done infrequently. We therefore aimed to systematically review the perceived barriers to the implementation of smoking cessation interventions in the hospital inpatient setting.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted specific to hospital-based healthcare workers’ perceived barriers to implementing smoking cessation interventions. Reported barriers were categorised using the capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) framework.

Results: Eighteen studies were selected for inclusion, which consisted of cross-sectional surveys and interviews. The most commonly identified barrier in capability was lack of knowledge (56% of studies); in Opportunity, it was a lack of time (78%); while in Motivation, a lack of perceived patient motivation to quit smoking (44%). Seventeen other barriers were also endorsed, but less frequently.

Conclusion: Healthcare workers report a plethora of barriers to providing smoking cessation interventions in hospital settings, which cover all aspects of the COM-B framework. These impediments need to be addressed in a multidisciplinary approach, at clinical, educational, and administrative levels, to improve intervention provision.