Dataset Information

Residential treatment compared with outpatient treatment for tobacco use and dependence.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of outpatient vs residential treatment for tobacco dependence in a large referral practice.

Patients and methods

We analyzed data from 2 cohorts of cigarette smokers who received either comprehensive outpatient or intensive 8-day residential treatment for tobacco dependence between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2007. Self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6 months was obtained via telephone interview. Logistic regression was used to assess the likelihood of increased abstinence with residential treatment.

Results

Overall, 4327 cigarette smokers received comprehensive outpatient treatment for tobacco dependence, and 226 smokers received treatment in an intensive 8-day residential program. Compared with outpatients, residential patients smoked more cigarettes per day (mean ± SD, 31.1 ± 14.4 vs 21.2 ± 11.2), had more severe nicotine dependence (Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence score, 6.9 ± 2.0 vs 5.1 ± 2.3), and were more likely to have been treated for alcoholism (58/222 [26%] vs 649/4327 [15%]) or depression (124/222 [56%] vs 1817/4327 [42%]; P<.001 for all comparisons). The 6-month smoking abstinence rate was significantly higher for residential patients compared with outpatients (115/222 [52%] vs 1168/4327 [27%]; unadjusted odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-3.9), with similar findings after adjusting for baseline characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 3.58; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-4.9).

Conclusion

Compared with smokers who received outpatient treatment, those who received residential treatment had more severe tobacco dependence. Residential treatment for tobacco dependence was associated with a significantly greater odds of 6-month smoking abstinence compared with outpatient treatment among smokers in a referral clinic setting.

SUBMITTER: Hays JT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3046940 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of tobacco use dependence are of varied scope and quality, making it challenging for users to select and apply recommendations. Objective The study objective is to identify and critically appraise the quality of existing clinical practice guidelines for tobacco cessation. Setting The study occurred between collaborative academic institutions located in Qatar and New Zealand. Methods A systematic literature search was performed for the period 2006-2018 through the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, National Guideline Clearing House, Campbell Library, Health System Evidence, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice Database, Academic Search Complete, ProQuest, PROSPERO, and Google Scholar. Relevant professional societies' and health agencies' websites were also searched. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed guidelines' quality using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Main outcome measure Standardized domain scores according to the AGREE II instrument. Results 7741 hits were identified. After removing duplicates and screening, 24 guidelines were included. Highest guideline quality was for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline with an overall ranking score of 87.56% and least quality was for Japanese Circulation Society Joint Working Group with an overall score of 29.34%. Domain 4 of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) had the highest average quality score (70.95%), while the lowest average quality scores were for Domain 2 (Rigour of Development) (50.21%) and Domain 5 (Applicability) (45.05%). Conclusion Seven guidelines were judged to be of high quality (overall score of ≥ 70%). Future guidelines for tobacco dependence treatment should use rigorous methods of development and provide applicable recommendations.

Project description:Although tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death and is elevated among patients with substance use disorders, many substance use treatment centers (SUTCs) do not offer tobacco use interventions (i.e., screening and treatment). This study examined a key outcome of the implementation of a tobacco-free workplace program that provided education and specialized training to employees; namely, changes in clinician provision of the five As (Asking about tobacco use; Advising to quit; Assessing willingness to quit; Assisting with quitting; Arranging follow-up) from before to after the larger program implementation. The five As are a brief tobacco screening and treatment protocol that was taught as part of the program and that formed the basis for further intervention (e.g., provision of nicotine replacement therapies, Motivational Interviewing to enhance desire and willingness to make a quit attempt). Moreover, we also examined organizational moderators that may have impacted changes in the delivery of the five As over time among clinicians from 15 participating SUTCs. The number of the centers' total and unique annual patient visits; full-time employees; and organizational readiness for implementing change were assessed as potential moderators of change in clinicians' behaviors over time. Clinicians completed pre- and post-program implementation surveys assessing their provision of the five As. Results demonstrated significant increases in Asking (p = 0.0036), Advising (p = 0.0176), Assisting (p < 0.0001), and Arranging (p < 0.0001). SUTCs with higher Change Efficacy (p = 0.025) and lower Resource Availability (p = 0.019) had greater increases in Asking. SUTCs with lower Resource Availability had greater increases in Assessing (p = 0.010). These results help guide tobacco control program implementation to increase the provision of tobacco use interventions (i.e., the five As) to SUTC patients and elucidate Change Efficacy and Resource Availability as organizational factors promoting this clinician behavior change.