The effect of a clinical decision support system on prompting an intervention for risky alcohol use in a primary care smoking cessation program: a cluster randomized trial

The effects of alcohol use on smoking cessation treatment with nicotine replacement therapy: An observational study

INTRODUCTION

Concurrent users of tobacco and alcohol are at greater risk of harm than use of either substance alone. It remains unclear how concurrent tobacco and alcohol use affects smoking cessation across levels of alcohol use and related problems. This study assessed the relationship between smoking cessation and levels of alcohol use problems.

METHODS

59,018 participants received nicotine replacement therapy through a smoking cessation program. Alcohol use and related symptoms were assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-10) and the AUDIT-Concise (AUDIT-C). The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence cigarette abstinence (PPA) at 6-month follow-up. We evaluated the association between alcohol use (and related problems) and smoking cessation using descriptive methods and mixed-effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

7-day PPA at 6-months was lower in groups meeting hazardous alcohol consumption criteria, with the lowest probability of smoking abstinence observed in the highest risk group. The probability of successful tobacco cessation fell with increasing levels of alcohol use and related problems. Adjusted predicted probabilities were 30.3 (95 % CI = 29.4, 31.1) for non-users, 30.2 (95 % CI = 29.4, 31.0) for low-risk users, 29.0 (95 % CI = 28.1, 29.9) for those scoring below 8 on the AUDIT-10, 27.3 (95 % CI = 26.0, 28.6) for those scoring 8-14, and 24.4 (95 % CI = 22.3, 26.5) for those scoring 15 or higher.

CONCLUSION

Heavy, hazardous alcohol use is associated with lower odds of successfully quitting smoking compared to low or non-use of alcohol. Targeting alcohol treatment to this group may improve tobacco cessation outcomes.

Clinical decision support systems in addiction and concurrent disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This review aims to synthesise the literature on the efficacy, evolution, and challenges of implementing Clincian Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in the realm of mental health, addiction, and concurrent disorders.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Searches conducted in databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through 25 May 2023, yielded 27,344 records. After necessary exclusions, 69 records were allocated for detailed synthesis. In the examination of patient outcomes with a focus on metrics such as therapeutic efficacy, patient satisfaction, and treatment acceptance, meta-analytic techniques were employed to synthesise data from randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

A total of 69 studies were included, revealing a shift from knowledge-based models pre-2017 to a rise in data-driven models post-2017. The majority of models were found to be in Stage 2 or 4 of maturity. The meta-analysis showed an effect size of -0.11 for addiction-related outcomes and a stronger effect size of -0.50 for patient satisfaction and acceptance of CDSS.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate a shift from knowledge-based to data-driven CDSS approaches, aligned with advances in machine learning and big data. Although the immediate impact on addiction outcomes is modest, higher patient satisfaction suggests promise for wider CDSS use. Identified challenges include alert fatigue and opaque AI models.

CONCLUSION

CDSS shows promise in mental health and addiction treatment but requires a nuanced approach for effective and ethical implementation. The results emphasise the need for continued research to ensure optimised and equitable use in healthcare settings.

Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System for Addressing Physical Activity and/or Healthy Eating during Smoking Cessation Treatment: Hybrid Type I Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

Background

People who smoke have other risk factors for chronic diseases, such as low levels of physical activity and poor diet. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) might help health care practitioners integrate interventions for diet and physical activity into their smoking cessation programming but could worsen quit rates.

Objective

The aims of this study are to assess the effects of the addition of a CDSS for physical activity and diet on smoking cessation outcomes and to assess the implementation of the study.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial with 232 team-based primary care practices in Ontario, Canada, from November 2019 to May 2021. We used a 2-arm randomized controlled trial comparing a CDSS addressing physical activity and diet to treatment as usual and used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months.

Results

We enrolled 5331 participants in the study. Of these, 2732 (51.2%) were randomized to the intervention group and 2599 (48.8%) to the control group. At the 6-month follow-up, 29.7% (634/2137) of respondents in the intervention arm and 27.3% (552/2020) in the control arm reported abstinence from tobacco. After multiple imputation, the absolute group difference was 2.1% (95% CI −0.5 to 4.6; F_1,1000.42=2.43; P=.12). Mean exercise minutes changed from 32 (SD 44.7) to 110 (SD 196.1) in the intervention arm and from 32 (SD 45.1) to 113 (SD 195.1) in the control arm (group effect: B=−3.7 minutes; 95% CI −17.8 to 10.4; P=.61). Servings of fruit and vegetables changed from 2.64 servings to 2.42 servings in the intervention group and from 2.52 servings to 2.45 servings in the control group (incidence rate ratio for intervention group=0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.02; P=.35).

Conclusions

A CDSS for physical activity and diet may be added to a smoking cessation program without affecting the outcomes. Further research is needed to improve the impact of integrated health promotion interventions in primary care smoking cessation programs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04223336 https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04223336

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/19157

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review

Background:

Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada.

Methods:

We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level.

Results:

We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%–56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%–66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%–30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%–85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%–35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%–71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%–97.3%, n = 9).

Interpretation:

We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

Integrating a brief alcohol intervention with tobacco addiction treatment in primary care: qualitative study of health care practitioner perceptions

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials of complex interventions are increasingly including qualitative components to further understand factors that contribute to their success. In this paper, we explore the experiences of health care practitioners in a province wide smoking cessation program (the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program) who participated in the COMBAT trial. This trial examined if the addition of an electronic prompt embedded in a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS)-designed to prompt practitioners to Screen, provide a Brief intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) to patients who drank alcohol above the amounts recommended by the Canadian Cancer Society guidelines-influenced the proportion of practitioners delivering a brief intervention to their eligible patients. We wanted to understand the factors influencing implementation and acceptability of delivering a brief alcohol intervention for treatment-seeking smokers for health care providers who had access to the CDSS (intervention arm) and those who did not (control arm).

METHODS

Twenty-three health care practitioners were selected for a qualitative interview using stratified purposeful sampling (12 from the control arm and 11 from the intervention arm). Interviews were 45 to 90 min in length and conducted by phone using an interview guide that was informed by the National Implementation Research Network's Hexagon tool. Interview recordings were transcribed and coded iteratively between three researchers to achieve consensus on emerging themes. The preliminary coding structure was developed using the National Implementation Research Network's Hexagon Tool framework and data was analyzed using the framework analysis approach.

RESULTS

Seventy eight percent (18/23) of the health care practitioners interviewed recognized the need to simultaneously address alcohol and tobacco use. Seventy four percent (17/23), were knowledgeable about the evidence of health risks associated with dual alcohol and tobacco use but 57% (13/23) expressed concerns with using the Canadian Cancer Society guidelines to screen for alcohol use. Practitioners acknowledged the value of adding a validated screening tool to the STOP program's baseline questionnaire (19/23); however, following through with a brief intervention and referral to treatment proved challenging due to lack of training, limited time, and fear of stigmatizing patients. Practitioners in the intervention arm (5/11; 45%) might not follow the recommendations from CDSS if these recommendations are not perceived as beneficial to the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study show that practitioners' beliefs were reflective of the current social norms around alcohol use and this influenced their decision to offer a brief alcohol intervention. Future interventions need to emphasize both organizational and sociocultural factors as part of the design. The results of this study point to the need to change social norms regarding alcohol in order to effectively implement interventions that target both alcohol and tobacco use in primary care clinics. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03108144. Retrospectively registered 11 April 2017, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03108144.

Impact of a Web-Based Clinical Decision Support System to Assist Practitioners in Addressing Physical Activity and/or Healthy Eating for Smoking Cessation Treatment: Protocol for a Hybrid Type I Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Modifiable risk factors such as tobacco use, physical inactivity, and poor diet account for a significant proportion of the preventable deaths in Canada. These factors are also known to cluster together, thereby compounding the risks of morbidity and mortality. Given this association, smoking cessation programs appear to be well-suited for integration of health promotion activities for other modifiable risk factors. The Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients (STOP) program is a province-wide smoking cessation program that currently encourages practitioners to deliver Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to treatment for patients who are experiencing depressive symptoms or consume excessive amounts of alcohol via a web-enabled clinical decision support system. However, there is no available clinical decision support system for physical inactivity and poor diet, which are among the leading modifiable risk factors for chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess whether adding a computerized/web-enabled clinical decision support system for physical activity and diet to a smoking cessation program affects smoking cessation outcomes.

METHODS

This study is designed as a hybrid type 1 effectiveness/implementation randomized controlled trial to evaluate a web-enabled clinical decision support system for supporting practitioners in addressing patients' physical activity and diet as part of smoking cessation treatment in a primary care setting. This design was chosen as it allows for simultaneous testing of the intervention, its delivery in target settings, and the potential for implementation in real-world situations. Intervention effectiveness will be measured using a two-arm randomized controlled trial. Health care practitioners will be unblinded to their patients' treatment allocation; however, patients will be blinded to whether their practitioner receives the clinical decision support system for physical activity and/or fruit/vegetable consumption. The evaluation of implementation will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

RESULTS

Recruitment for the primary outcome of this study is ongoing and will be completed in November 2020. Results will be reported in March 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the study will provide much needed insight into whether adding a computerized/web-enabled clinical decision support system for physical activity and diet to a smoking cessation program affects smoking cessation outcome. Furthermore, the implementation evaluation would provide insight into the feasibility of online-based interventions for physical activity and diet in a smoking cessation program. Addressing these risk factors simultaneously could have significant positive effects on chronic disease and cancer prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04223336; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04223336.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/19157.

Variability in patient sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and healthcare service utilization among 107,302 treatment seeking smokers in Ontario: A cross-sectional comparison

Background

Since 2005, the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients (STOP) program has provided smoking cessation treatment of varying form and intensity to smokers through 11 distinct treatment models, either in-person at partnering healthcare organizations or remotely via web or telephone. We aimed to characterize the patient populations reached by different treatment models.

Methods

We linked self-report data to health administrative databases to describe sociodemographics, physical and mental health comorbidity, healthcare utilization and costs. Our sample consisted of 107,302 patients who enrolled between 18Oct2005 and 31Mar2016, across 11 models operational during different time periods.

Results

Patient populations varied on sociodemographics, comorbidity burden, and healthcare usage. Enrollees in the Web-based model were youngest (median age: 39; IQR: 29–49), and enrollees in primary care-based Family Health Teams were oldest (median: 51; IQR: 40–60). Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and hypertension were the most common physical health comorbidities, twice as prevalent in Family Health Teams (32.3% and 30.8%) than in the direct-to-smoker (Web and Telephone) and Pharmacy models (13.5%-16.7% and 14.7%-17.7%). Depression, the most prevalent mental health diagnosis, was twice as prevalent in the Addiction Agency (52.1%) versus the Telephone model (25.3%). Median healthcare costs in the two years up to enrollment ranged from $1,787 in the Telephone model to $9,393 in the Addiction Agency model.

Discussion

While practitioner-mediated models in specialized and primary care settings reached smokers with more complex healthcare needs, alternative settings appear better suited to reach younger smokers before such comorbidities develop. Although Web and Telephone models were expected to have fewer barriers to access, they reached a lower proportion of patients in rural areas and of lower socioeconomic status. Findings suggest that in addition to population-based strategies, embedding smoking cessation treatment into existing healthcare settings that reach patient populations with varying disparities may enhance equitable access to treatment.

Computerized Clinical Decision Support System for Prompting Brief Alcohol Interventions with Treatment Seeking Smokers: A Sex-Based Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Trial

Although brief alcohol intervention can reduce alcohol use for both men and women, health care providers (HCPs) are less likely to discuss alcohol use or deliver brief intervention to women compared to men. This secondary analysis examined whether previously reported outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-prompting delivery of a brief alcohol intervention (an educational alcohol resource) for patients drinking above cancer guidelines-were moderated by patients' sex. Patients (n = 5702) enrolled in a smoking cessation program at primary care sites across Ontario, Canada, were randomized to either the intervention (CDSS) or control arm (no CDSS). Logistic generalized estimating equations models were fit for the primary and secondary outcome (HCP offer of resource and patient acceptance of resource, respectively). Previously reported results showed no difference between treatment arms in HCP offers of an educational alcohol resource to eligible patients, but there was increased acceptance of the alcohol resource among patients in the intervention arm. The results of this study showed that these CDSS intervention effects were not moderated by sex, and this can help inform the development of a scalable strategy to overcome gender disparities in alcohol intervention seen in other studies.