Good practice regarding smoking cessation management in Spain: Challenges and opportunities for primary care physicians and nurses

Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Drug Use in Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review

Healthcare professionals are exposed to stressful situations that may favor substance use vulnerability. This systematic review aims to synthesize the risk and protective factors associated with use, abuse, and dependence of alcohol, tobacco, psychoactive drugs, and cannabis in healthcare professionals. Following PRISMA recommendations, a systematic search was performed in PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The search yielded 1523 studies, of which 19 were selected. The identified risk factors were demographic factors (i.e. male gender, and single/divorced marital status), psychopathological factors, social factors, positive attitudes toward drugs, unhealthy lifestyle habits, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the coexistence of the use of several substances. The protective factors were demographic factors (i.e. ethnicity and having dependent children), healthy lifestyle habits, and workplace anti-drug policies (i.e. restriction of tobacco use). These findings highlight the need for preventive actions against drug use in healthcare professionals to improve their health and reduce the possible negative impact on their healthcare practice. Knowledge of modifiable risk and protective factors allows their incorporation as components in preventive actions, and non-modifiable factors (e.g. demographic variables) may contribute to the detection of groups of greater vulnerability to propose selective prevention actions in this population.

Study on the participation of nursing staff in tobacco cessation support and related influencing factors: A survey from Chongqing, China

INTRODUCTION

Nursing staff's assistance for smokers to quit smoking can increase the rate of quitting. The smoking cessation help can be affected by many factors. This study surveyed the use of the 5As (Asking, Advising, Assessing, Assisting, Arranging) approach to support smoking cessation by the nursing staff in Chongqing, China, and analyzed the corresponding influencing factors.

METHODS

A stratified random cluster sampling method was used to select nursing staff from 8 tertiary hospitals, 5 secondary hospitals, 12 community health centers, and 35 township health centers in different geographical regions of Chongqing. A questionnaire survey was conducted among the nursing staff to investigate their participation in smoking cessation. Binary logistic regression analysis was employed to analyze the influencing factors of smoking cessation 5As behavior of the nursing staff.

RESULTS

The 1669 participants were 44 males (2.6%) and 1625 females (97.4%), with an average age of 37.00 ± 10.89 years. Among the participants, 55.2% were from tertiary hospitals, 23.2% from secondary hospitals, 14.2% from township health centers, and 7.4 from community health centers. The often or always used behaviors were: Asking, 69.2%; Advising, 53.0%; Assessing, 39.5%; Assisting, 33.7%; and Arranging, 25.1%. The factors that affected all the 5As were: smoking cessation training (AOR=1.60; 95% CI: 1.22-2.11), knowledge of smoking cessation guidelines (AOR=1.75; 95% CI: 1.32-2.32) and the use of smoking cessation Apps (AOR=1.50; 95% CI: 1.09-2.06), and smokers' willingness to quit (AOR=2.20; 95% CI: 1.60-3.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoker's motivation to quit smoking and nurses' knowledge of tobacco cessation resources affected nurses' participation in smoking control behavior. While encouraging smokers to quit smoking, clinical nursing staff should be provided with related resources to advocate smoking cessation. Guided by the Chinese Clinical Tobacco Cessation Guidelines, smoking control knowledge and skills training should be provided for nursing staff to increase their positive attitude towards smoking control, so as to promote their active participation.

Smoking cessation: health system challenges and opportunities

The systematic integration of evidence-based tobacco treatment has yet to be broadly viewed as a standard-of-care. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control recommends the provision of support for tobacco cessation. We argue that the provision of smoking cessation services in clinical settings is a fundamental clinical responsibility and permits the opportunity to more effectively assist with cessation. The role of clinicians in prioritising smoking cessation is essential in all settings. Clinical benefits of implementing cessation services in hospital settings have been recognised for three decades-but have not been consistently provided. The Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation has used an 'organisational change' approach to its introduction and has served as the basis for the introduction of cessation programmes in hospital and primary care settings in Canada and elsewhere. The significance of smoking cessation dwarfs that of many preventive interventions in primary care. Compelling evidence attests to the importance of providing cessation services as part of cancer treatment, but implementation of such programmes has been slow. We recognise that the provision of such services must reflect the realities and resources of a particular health system. In low-income and middle-income countries, access to treatment facilities pose unique challenges. The integration of cessation programmes with tuberculosis control services may offer opportunities; and standardisation of peri-operative care to include smoking cessation may not require additional resources. Mobile phones afford unique opportunities for interactive cessation programming. Health system change is fundamental to improving the provision of cessation services; clinicians can be powerful advocates for such change.

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.