Health Care Professionals' Clinical Skills to Address Vaping and e-Cigarette Use by Patients: Needs and Interest Questionnaire Study

Electronic Cigarettes and Tobacco Product Cessation: A Survey of Healthcare Providers' Opinions on Safety and Recommendation

Background: This study aimed to: (1) assess healthcare providers' opinions on e-cigarette safety and compare them across professions; (2) evaluate providers' recommendations for e-cigarettes as a tobacco product cessation tool and identify any associations with their safety perceptions. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 760 healthcare professionals (January-March 2020). The survey included eight opinions on e-cigarette safety with five Likert-scale answers and a question on recommending them for tobacco product cessation. Results: Among 760 healthcare providers (173 physicians/dentists, 69 pharmacists, and 518 nurses), only 20% reported prior experience with tobacco product cessation counseling. Providers expressed uncertainty regarding e-cigarette safety (mean ± SD: 2.5 ± 0.7 on a 5-point Likert scale), with no significant differences between professions (p = 0.836). Similarly, e-cigarette recommendations for tobacco product cessation remained low across professions (13%, 85/637), with no significant differences found (p = 0.072). The recommendation of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation is associated with perceived safety, lower respiratory irritation, lower coughing, a lower risk of cancer, and a lower risk for secondhand smokers when compared to traditional cigarettes (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Most healthcare providers were unsure about the safety of e-cigarettes; about 13% of providers suggested using them for tobacco product cessation, with safety perceptions influencing recommendations.

Cannabis vaporisation: Understanding products, devices and risks

ISSUES

Vaporisation is a common method of cannabis administration. Inconsistent terminology and jargon regarding vaporisation has led to confusion. The increasing public interest and access to cannabis, combined with possible safety concerns associated with certain cannabis vaping products, warrants improved consumer and public and health care professional knowledge.

APPROACH

To improve this knowledge, we conducted a review of the common terminology, regulatory status, products and device types related to cannabis vaporisation.

KEY FINDINGS

Cannabis vaporisation devices can be separated into nine types. While vaporisation reduces respiratory risks associated with cannabis combustion, not all vaping products and device types carry the same level of safety. Metered dose inhalers and dried product vaporisers present the lowest safety risk due to a lower risk of toxin exposure and the use of lower tetrahydrocannabinol potency products.

IMPLICATIONS

As both vaping and cannabis use increase in popularity, focusing on accurate health education will help facilitate health promotion to encourage lower risk use. The current lack of understanding on risk differences between types of cannabis vaporisation is a missed opportunity for harm reduction. Increased opportunities for public health and health care professional education on different cannabis vaporisation devices and associated risks are warranted. Improvements to health warning labelling may also be beneficial.

CONCLUSION

Not all cannabis vaporisation devices and products carry the same level of risk. A better understanding of risk differentiation is needed among consumers and health professionals. Continued research, policy development and health education can lead to safer cannabis vaporisation.

Providers' Non-Cigarette Tobacco Use Intervention Practices in Relation to Beliefs about Patients, Prioritization of and Skills for Intervention, and Referral Knowledge in Texas Healthcare Centers Providing Care to Persons with Behavioral Health Needs

Rates of non-cigarette (colloquially, other) tobacco use is elevated among adults with behavioral health conditions. Little is known about whether behavioral health providers are using brief interventions, including the evidence-based 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) for other tobacco use, or what provider factors may be associated with use of these interventions. The current study redressed this gap. Overall, 86 providers in Texas (9 Federally Qualified Health Centers, 16 Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs) that provide a broad range of mental and behavioral health services, 6 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 55 stand-alone substance use treatment programs) took a survey assessing their beliefs regarding (1) patients' concerns about other tobacco use; (2) their desire to quit; (3) importance of intervening on other tobacco use with cessation counseling; (4) perceived skills to intervene; (5) knowledge of referral options for treatment. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between each factor and use of the 5As. Results showed that 70.9% of providers asked patients about other tobacco use status, 65.1% advised them to quit, 59.3% assessed quit interest, 54.7% assisted with a quit attempt, and 31.4% arranged a follow-up. Providers who believed patients were concerned about other tobacco use, recognized the importance of offering other tobacco use cessation counseling, believed they had the necessary skills to treat other tobacco use, and possessed knowledge of referral options, respectively, were more likely to deliver the 5As (ps < 0.05). Results add to a limited literature on provider intervention practices for other tobacco use in settings where behavioral health care is provided, highlighting the significance of provider beliefs, perceived skills, and referral knowledge to care delivery. Findings reveal opportunities to increase delivery of the 5As for other tobacco use to behavioral health patients and suggest provider factors that could be targeted to build this capacity.