Dataset Information

Depression Symptoms Among Homeless Smokers: Effect of Motivational Interviewing.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Tobacco use is higher among homeless individuals than the general population. Homeless individuals are also more likely to have symptoms of depression. Depression symptoms may add to the burden of homelessness by increasing psychological distress and serve as a barrier to quitting smoking. OBJECTIVES:The primary goal of this study is to assess the impact of depression symptoms on psychological distress in homeless smokers. The effect of depression symptoms on abstinence and the effect of Motivational Interviewing (MI) on cessation among smokers is also explored. METHODS:Homeless smokers (N = 430) enrolled in a smoking cessation study were randomized to Motivational Interviewing (MI) or standard care (SC). Participants received nicotine replacement therapy and were followed for 26 weeks. Participants were categorized into a depression symptoms (DS) group or control group using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Between group differences of perceived stress, hopelessness, confidence, craving and abstinence were assessed at weeks 8 and 26. The interaction between depression symptoms (levels: DS and control) and the intervention (levels: MI and SC) was also assessed. RESULTS:Homeless smokers in the DS group reported higher levels of hopelessness, perceived stress, and craving. There was no effect of DS status on abstinence at week 8 or week 26. There was no significant interaction between depression symptoms (DS vs. Control) and the intervention (MI vs. SC). CONCLUSION:Despite reporting greater psychological distress, homeless smokers with depression symptoms in this sample had abstinence levels similar to the control group. Future research should explore protective factors among depressed smokers.

SUBMITTER: Robinson CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4929022 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Depression Symptoms Among Homeless Smokers: Effect of Motivational Interviewing.

Robinson Cendrine D CD Rogers Charles R CR Okuyemi Kolawole S KS

Substance use & misuse 20160606 10

<h4>Background</h4>Tobacco use is higher among homeless individuals than the general population. Homeless individuals are also more likely to have symptoms of depression. Depression symptoms may add to the burden of homelessness by increasing psychological distress and serve as a barrier to quitting smoking.<h4>Objectives</h4>The primary goal of this study is to assess the impact of depression symptoms on psychological distress in homeless smokers. The effect of depression symptoms on abstinence ...[more]

PMID: 27267588

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite limitations in evidence, the current Clinical Practice Guideline advocates Motivational Interviewing for smokers not ready to quit. This study evaluated the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing for inducing cessation-related behaviors among smokers with low motivation to quit.DesignRandomized clinical trial.Setting/participantsTwo-hundred fifty-five daily smokers reporting low desire to quit smoking were recruited from an urban community during 2010-2011 and randomly assigned to Motivational Interviewing, health education, or brief advice using a 2:2:1 allocation. Data were analyzed from 2012 to 2014.InterventionFour sessions of Motivational Interviewing utilized a patient-centered communication style that explored patients' own reasons for change. Four sessions of health education provided education related to smoking cessation while excluding elements characteristic of Motivational Interviewing. A single session of brief advice consisted of brief, personalized advice to quit.Main outcomes measuresSelf-reported quit attempts; smoking abstinence (biochemically verified); use of cessation pharmacotherapies; motivation; and confidence to quit were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-ups.ResultsUnexpectedly, no significant differences emerged between groups in the proportion who made a quit attempt by 6-month follow-up (Motivational Interviewing, 52.0%; health education, 60.8%; brief advice, 45.1%; p=0.157). Health education had significantly higher biochemically verified abstinence rates at 6 months (7.8%) than brief advice (0.0%) (8% risk difference, 95% CI=3%, 13%, p=0.003), with the Motivational Interviewing group falling in between (2.9% abstinent, 3% risk difference, 95% CI=0%, 6%, p=0.079). Both Motivational Interviewing and health education groups showed greater increases in cessation medication use, motivation, and confidence to quit relative to brief advice (all p<0.05), and health education showed greater increases in motivation relative to Motivational Interviewing (Cohen's d=0.36, 95% CI=0.12, 0.60).ConclusionsAlthough Motivational Interviewing was generally more efficacious than brief advice in inducing cessation behaviors, health education appeared the most efficacious. These results highlight the need to identify the contexts in which Motivational Interviewing may be most efficacious and question recommendations to use Motivational Interviewing rather than other less complex cessation induction interventions.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01188018.

Project description:IntroductionThis study used data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) relative to health education (HE) and brief advice (BA) to encourage quit attempts and cessation in order to determine their relative cost-effectiveness.Aims and methodsUrban community residents (n = 255) with low desire to quit smoking were randomized to MI, HE, or BA which differed in communication style and/or number of treatment sessions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to compare the intensive interventions (MI and HE) to BA for facilitating quit attempts and smoking cessation. Costs were calculated from the perspective of an agency that might engage in program delivery. Sensitivity analysis examined different assumptions for MI training and pharmacotherapy costs.ResultsTotal intervention delivery time costs per participant for MI, HE, and BA were $46.63, $42.87, and $2.4, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios per quit attempt at 24 weeks were $380 for MI, $272 for HE, and $209 for BA. The cost per additional quit attempt for MI and HE relative to BA was $508 and $301, respectively. The cost per additional quit for MI and HE relative to BA was $2030 and $752, respectively. Four separate sensitivity analyses conducted in our study did not change the conclusion the HE had a lower Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for both quit attempts and cessation.ConclusionsHE was the most cost-effective of the three types of smoking cessation induction therapies and therefore may be preferable for smokers who are less motivated to quit. Providing valuable cost information in choosing different clinical methods for motivating smokers to quit.ImplicationsAll direct costs and activity-based time costs associated with delivering the intervention were analyzed from the perspective of an agency that may wish to replicate these strategies. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of MI relative to HE and BA to encourage quit attempts and cessation determined their relative cost-effectiveness. HE was the most cost-effective of the three types of smoking cessation induction therapies and therefore may be preferable. Despite guideline recommendations, MI may not be the best approach to encourage quit attempts in diverse populations. Rather, a structured, intensive HE intervention might be the most cost-effective alternative.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the current Clinical Practice Guideline recommend Motivational Interviewing for use with smokers not ready to quit, the strength of evidence for its use is rated as not optimal. The purpose of the present study is to address key methodological limitations of previous studies by ensuring fidelity in the delivery of the Motivational Interviewing intervention, using an attention-matched control condition, and focusing on unmotivated smokers whom meta-analyses have indicated may benefit most from Motivational Interviewing. It is hypothesized that MI will be more effective at inducing quit attempts and smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up than brief advice to quit and an intensity-matched health education condition.Methods/designA sample of adult community resident smokers (N = 255) who report low motivation and readiness to quit are being randomized using a 2:2:1 treatment allocation to Motivational Interviewing, Health Education, or Brief Advice. Over 6 months, participants in Motivational Interviewing and Health Education receive 4 individual counseling sessions and participants in Brief Advice receive one brief in-person individual session at baseline. Rigorous monitoring and independent verification of fidelity will assure the counseling approaches are distinct and delivered as planned. Participants complete surveys at baseline, week 12 and 6-month follow-up to assess demographics, smoking characteristics, and smoking outcomes. Participants who decide to quit are provided with a self-help guide to quitting, help with a quit plan, and free pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome is self-report of one or more quit attempts lasting at least 24 hours between randomization and 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence cessation at 6-month follow-up. Hypothesized mediators of the presumed treatment effect on quit attempts are greater perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation. Use of pharmacotherapy is a hypothesized mediator of Motivational Interviewing's effect on cessation.DiscussionThis trial will provide the most rigorous evaluation to date of Motivational Interviewing's efficacy for encouraging unmotivated smokers to make a quit attempt. It will also provide effect-size estimates of MI's impact on smoking cessation to inform future clinical trials and inform the Clinical Practice Guideline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01188018.

Project description:BackgroundMany people living with diabetes are at risk for poor glycemic control, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and macro vascular complications. Glycemic control and psychological wellbeing of the patient is mandatory for diabetes management. Addressing these issues in the early stages of the disease are the best interventions for decreasing poor glycemic control and psychological problems.ObjectiveTo explore and analyze the literature for evidence of the effect of Motivational Interviewing (MI) intervention has on glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (HgbA1C) and depression in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsA systemic review and meta-analysis of studies published in Cochrane Library, Google scholar, PubMed, & clinical trials.gov between 01/01/2009 and 12/06/2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria included RCT and pre post studies that assessed the effects of Motivational Interviewing on Hgb.A1C and depression in adults with T2DM. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. The data were synthesized and analyzed in a narrative form in systematic review and meta-analysis which was conducted using RevMan 5.2.0 & STATA version 11 software. Data were evaluated by weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% CIs.ResultOf the total identified 121 studies, eight were eligible for inclusion in the review. The pooled results showed that MI resulted in a significant improvement of mean HgbA1C level in the intervention group when compared with the control group (WMD, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.10; p = 0.003, I2 = 48%). Effect of MI intervention on depressive symptoms was identified through subgroup analysis according to intervention session time (30 or 60-80 minutes) and Follow-up period (3 or 24 months) then result showed that there was no significant difference in the reduction of depressive symptoms between the intervention and control groups. The output results were (WMD, -1.58; 95% CI, -5.05 to -0.188; p = 0.37; I2 = 48%), (WMD, -4.30; 95% CI, -9.32 to -0.73; p = 0.09; I2 = 95%), (WMD, -4.45; 95% CI, -10.58 to 1.69; p = 0.16; I2 = 96%) and (WMD, -2.12; 95% CI, -5.54 to 1.30; p = 0.22; I2 = 83%) respectively.ConclusionThe pooled result in meta-analysis indicated that motivational interviewing is effective in reducing HgbA1C but not depressive symptoms of patients with type 2 diabetes. Motivational interviewing intervention is important for diabetes management and effective in glycemic control with no effect on the reduction of depressive symptoms among persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Systematic review registration numberCRD42019146368.

Project description:Background and objectiveVaccine uptake during pregnancy remains low. Our objectives were to describe 1) development and adaptation of a clinician communication training intervention for maternal immunizations and 2) obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) clinician and staff perspectives on the intervention and fit for the prenatal care context.MethodsDesign of the Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI) intervention was based on similar communication training interventions for pediatric settings and included presumptive initiation of vaccine recommendations ("You're due for two vaccines today") combined with motivational interviewing (MI) for hesitant patients. Interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with ob-gyn clinicians and staff in five Colorado clinics including settings with obstetric physicians, certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and clinician-trainees. Participants were asked about adapting training to the ob-gyn setting and their implementation experiences. Feedback was incorporated through iterative changes to training components.ResultsInterview and focus group discussion results from participants before (n = 3), during (n = 11) and after (n = 25) implementation guided intervention development and adaptation. Three virtual, asynchronous training components were created: a video and two interactive modules. This virtual format was favored due to challenges attending group meetings; however, participants noted opportunities to practice skills through role-play were lacking. Training modules were adapted to include common challenging vaccine conversations and live-action videos. Participants liked interactive training components and use of adult learning strategies. Some participants initially resisted the presumptive approach but later found it useful after applying it in their practices. Overall, participants reported that MI4MI training fit well with the prenatal context and recommended more inclusion of non-clinician staff.ConclusionsMI4MI training was viewed as relevant and useful for ob-gyn clinicians and staff. Suggestions included making training more interactive, and including more complex scenarios and non-clinician staff.

Project description:Cigarette smoking and traumatic life experiences are each common among homeless adults, but the prevalence and correlates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms among homeless smokers are not known. We assessed symptoms of PTSD and their association with smoking outcome expectancies in a sample of homeless smokers in Boston.We used time-location sampling to conduct an in-person survey of homeless adult smokers using Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program clinical services. We assessed symptoms of PTSD with the PTSD Checklist-Civilian version and considered scores at least 14 as positive. We used the Smoking Effects Questionnaire to assess positive and negative smoking outcome expectancies. We modeled the associations between PTSD screening status and smoking expectancies using design-adjusted linear regression.Eighty-six percent of eligible individuals participated (N = 306). Sixty-eight percent of participants screened positive for PTSD. Screen-positive respondents were younger (P = .001), more likely to report fair/poor health (P = .01), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .02), and past-month hallucinations (P = .004), and had greater drug (P < .001) and alcohol (P < .001) use severity and cigarette dependence (P = .002). In analyses controlling for these confounders, PTSD screen-positive participants more strongly endorsed smoking to reduce negative affect (P = .01), smoking for social benefits (P = .002), and smoking for weight control (P = .03). Exploratory analyses suggested that these associations were driven by avoidance/numbing and re-experiencing symptoms.Symptoms of posttraumatic stress are common among homeless smokers and strongly associated with positive smoking outcome expectancies. Tobacco cessation programs for this population should consider screening for PTSD and fostering a trauma-sensitive treatment environment.In this study of homeless cigarette smokers in Boston, over two-thirds of participants screened positive for PTSD. PTSD screen-positive respondents more strongly endorsed multiple positive smoking outcome expectancies than screen-negative individuals. These findings suggest that the psychological sequelae of trauma may be a pervasive but under-recognized factor impacting the persistence of smoking among homeless people. Tobacco cessation programs for this population should consider screening for PTSD, fostering a trauma-sensitive treatment environment, and incorporating strategies that have shown promise in smokers with PTSD.

Dataset Information

Depression Symptoms Among Homeless Smokers: Effect of Motivational Interviewing.

Publications

Depression Symptoms Among Homeless Smokers: Effect of Motivational Interviewing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets