Dataset Information

Referring Hospitalized Smokers to Outpatient Quit Services: A Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Linking outpatient cessation services to bedside counseling for hospitalized smokers can improve long-run quit rates. Adding an assisted referral (AR) offer to a tobacco treatment specialist consult service fits the team approach to care in U.S. hospitals. DESIGN:A two-arm patient-randomized trial tested the effectiveness of adding an AR offer to outpatient smoking-cessation services and interactive voice recognition (AR+IVR) follow-up to a usual care (UC) tobacco-cessation consult for hospitalized smokers. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Over 24 months (November 2011-November 2013), 898 hospitalized adult smokers interested in quitting smoking were recruited from three large hospitals in the Portland, Oregon, area: an integrated group model HMO (n=622), a community hospital (n=195), and an academic health center (n=81). INTERVENTION:Tobacco treatment specialists identified smokers and provided an intensive bedside tobacco use assessment and cessation consultation (UC). AR+IVR recipients also received proactive ARs to available outpatient counseling programs and medications, and linked patients to a tailored IVR telephone follow-up system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was self-reported 30-day abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included self-reported and continuous abstinence and biochemically confirmed 7-day abstinence at 6 months. Follow-up was completed in September 2014; data were analyzed in 2015. RESULTS:A total of 597 and 301 hospitalized smokers were randomized to AR+IVR and UC, respectively. AR+IVR and UC recipients received 19.3 and 17.0 minutes of bedside counseling (p=0.372), respectively. Most (58%) AR+IVR patients accepted referrals for counseling, 43% accepted medications, and 28% accepted both. Self-reported 30-day abstinence for AR+IVR (17.9%) and UC (17.3%) were not statistically significant (p=0.569). Differences in 7-day, continuous, and biochemically confirmed abstinence by treatment group also were insignificant, overall and adjusting for site. CONCLUSIONS:Adding an AR to outpatient counseling and medications did not increase cigarette abstinence at 6 months compared to UC alone.

SUBMITTER: Fellows JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5031367 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Referring Hospitalized Smokers to Outpatient Quit Services: A Randomized Trial.

Fellows Jeffrey L JL Mularski Richard A RA Leo Michael C MC Bentz Charles J CJ Waiwaiole Lisa A LA Francisco Melanie C MC Funkhouser Kimberly K Stoney Catherine M CM

American journal of preventive medicine 20161001 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Linking outpatient cessation services to bedside counseling for hospitalized smokers can improve long-run quit rates. Adding an assisted referral (AR) offer to a tobacco treatment specialist consult service fits the team approach to care in U.S. hospitals.<h4>Design</h4>A two-arm patient-randomized trial tested the effectiveness of adding an AR offer to outpatient smoking-cessation services and interactive voice recognition (AR+IVR) follow-up to a usual care (UC) tobacco-ces ...[more]

PMID: 27647061

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPeople with mental health conditions (MHCs) are less likely to achieve long-term abstinence than people without MHCs. The Quit and Stay Quit Monday (QSQM) model offers a long-term approach to treating tobacco use by encouraging people to quit, requit, or recommit to quit smoking every Monday.AimTo evaluate the efficacy, patient satisfaction, and patient engagement with an intervention that integrated the QSQM model into multicomponent smoking cessation services among people with an MHC.MethodsThis was a randomized controlled pilot trial. Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) ≥18 years old, (2) smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days, (3) diagnosis of an ICD-10 MHC, (4) interest in quitting smoking, (5) able to receive services in English, and (5) had an active email and a cell phone. The intervention group (n = 33) received QSQM-focused telephone coaching, a weekly QSQM email newsletter, a SmokefreeTXT anchored around a Monday quit date, and 4 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The control group (n = 36) received information about contacting their state Quitline for usual services. Primary outcomes were self-reported quit attempts, 7-day abstinence, and intervention satisfaction at 3 months.ResultsTwenty-four participants (73%) in the intervention group began telephone coaching, 26 (79%) enrolled in the QSQM email newsletter, 19 (58%) enrolled in SmokefreeTXT, and 15 (46%) used NRT. Using a penalized intent-to-treat approach, quit attempts in the intervention and control groups were 63.6% and 38.9% (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.03-7.30), respectively. Seven-day abstinence in the two groups was 12.1% and 5.6% (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.40-13.74), respectively. Of the 15 intervention group participants who set a quit date during the intervention, 13 (86.7%) selected a Monday quit day. Qualitative interviews revealed positive participant experiences with picking a Monday quit day. On follow-up surveys, 89.5%, 69.3%, and 64.3% of intervention participants reported that the counseling, QSQM email, and text messaging, respectively, were very or somewhat helpful.ConclusionsThe QSQM model was acceptable and potentially efficacious among people with MHCs, but intervention engagement and satisfaction were modest. Future research should adapt or develop new QSQM delivery approaches to improve patient engagement and potential efficacy of the model. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04512248).

Project description:BackgroundExtended smoking cessation follow-up after hospital discharge significantly increases abstinence. Hospital smoke-free policies create a period of 'forced abstinence' for smokers, thus providing an opportunity to integrate tobacco dependence treatment, and to support post-discharge maintenance of hospital-acquired abstinence. This study is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1U01HL1053231).Methods/designThe Inpatient Technology-Supported Assisted Referral study is a multi-center, randomized clinical effectiveness trial being conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) hospitals in Portland, Oregon. The study assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of linking a practical inpatient assisted referral to outpatient cessation services plus interactive voice recognition (AR + IVR) follow-up calls, compared to usual care inpatient counseling (UC). In November 2011, we began recruiting 900 hospital patients age ≥18 years who smoked ≥1 cigarettes in the past 30 days, willing to remain abstinent postdischarge, have a working phone, live within 50 miles of the hospital, speak English, and have no health-related barriers to participation. Each site will randomize 450 patients to AR + IVR or UC using a 2:1 assignment strategy. Participants in the AR + IVR arm will receive a brief inpatient cessation consult plus a referral to available outpatient cessation programs and medications, and four IVR follow-up calls over seven weeks postdischarge. Participants do not have to accept the referral. At KPNW, UC participants will receive brief inpatient counseling and encouragement to self-enroll in available outpatient services. The primary outcome is self-reported thirty-day smoking abstinence at six months postrandomization for AR + IVR participants compared to usual care. Additional outcomes include self-reported and biochemically confirmed seven-day abstinence at six months, self-reported seven-day, thirty-day, and continuous abstinence at twelve months, intervention dose response at six and twelve months for AR + IVR recipients, incremental cost-effectiveness of AR + IVR intervention compared to usual care at six and twelve months, and health-care utilization and expenditures at twelve months for AR + IVR recipients compared to UC.DiscussionThis study will provide important evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of linking hospital-based tobacco treatment specialists' services with discharge follow-up care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01236079.

Project description:BackgroundQuitting smoking is especially challenging for low-income smokers due to high stress, high smoking prevalence around them, and limited support for quitting. This study aimed to determine whether any of three interventions designed specifically for low-income smokers would be more effective than standard tobacco quitline services: a specialized quitline, the specialized quitline with social needs navigation, or the standard quitline with social needs navigation.MethodsUsing a randomized 2 × 2 factorial design, low-income daily cigarette smokers (n = 1944) in Missouri, USA who called a helpline seeking assistance with food, rent or other social needs were assigned to receive Standard Quitline alone (n = 485), Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 484), Specialized Quitline alone (n = 485), or Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 490). The target sample size was 2000, 500 per group. The main outcome was 7-day self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Multiple imputation was used to impute outcomes for those missing data at 6-month follow-up. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to assess differences between study groups.FindingsParticipants were recruited from June 2017 to November 2020; most were African American (1111 [58%]) or White (666 [35%]), female (1396 [72%]), and reported <$10,000 (957 [51%]) or <$20,000 (1529 [82%]) annual pre-tax household income. At 6-month follow-up (58% retention), 101 participants in the Standard Quitline group reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (20.8% of those assigned at baseline, 38.1% after imputation). Quit rates in the Specialized Quitline (90 quitters, 18.6%, 38.1%) and Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (103 quitters, 21.0%, 39.8%) were not different from the Standard Quitline. Quit rates for Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (74 quitters, 15.3%, 30.1%) were significantly lower than Standard Quitline (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.50-0.98).InterpretationA specialized version of a state tobacco quitline was no more effective than standard quitline services in helping low-income smokers quit. Adding social needs navigation to a standard quitline decreased its effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03194958.FundingNational Cancer Institute: R01CA201429.

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:IntroductionCigarette smoking disproportionately affects communities of low socioeconomic status where greater smoking prevalence and poorer cessation rates have been observed. Utilizing brief evidence-based interventions to increase cessation attempts may be an effective and easily disseminable means by which to mitigate undue burden in this population.Aims and methodsThe current intervention randomized daily smokers (N = 57) recruited from a local community soup kitchen to receive either Brief (eg, 30 m) Motivational Interviewing, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) sampling, or a Referral-Only intervention. Approximately half of participants (50.9%) reported not completing high school and many reported either just (41.4%) or not (40.4%) meeting basic expenses. Follow-up was completed approximately 1-month postintervention.ResultsNonsignificant group differences indicated that participants randomized to the NRT sampling condition were more likely to make a quit attempt (moderate effect size). Approximately 40% of the sample reported making a serious quit attempt at follow-up. Significant differences in cigarettes per day at follow-up, controlling for baseline, were observed, with participants in the Motivational Interviewing condition, only, reporting significant reductions. Participants randomized to the NRT condition were significantly more likely to report using NRT patch and lozenge at follow-up (large effect). There were no differences between groups with respect to seeking behavioral support. Finally, we found that subjective financial strain moderated the effect of condition on change in cigarette consumption where NRT sampling was more effective for participants reporting less financial strain.ConclusionsFindings provide initial evidence for personalizing brief interventions to promote quit attempts in low-income smokers.ImplicationsWhile most clinical research on tobacco use and dependence focuses on successful sustained abstinence, the current study is novel because it examined three brief interventions designed to increase the number of quit attempts made by a nontreatment-seeking group suffering from health disparities (ie, smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage). These data suggest that nontreatment-seeking smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage can be influenced by Brief MIs and these interventions should be used to motivate smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage to make a quit attempt. Future studies should examine combined MIs including pharmacological and behavioral interventions.

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: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:AimsTo test whether, in comparison to usual care, brief motivational or reduction interventions increase quit attempts (QA) or abstinence among smokers who are not ready to quit.DesignA parallel-group randomized controlled trial of brief motivational (n = 185), reduction (n = 186) or usual care (n = 189) telephone interventions delivered over the course of 4 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. No medication was provided.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsA total of 560 adult smokers of ≥ 10 cigarettes per day who were not ready to quit in the next 30 days.MeasurementsThe primary outcomes were whether participants made a QA that lasted ≥ 24 hours and whether they made a QA of any length between baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6 and 12 months. The 12-month follow-up was added after the study began.FindingsA priori-defined comparisons were between motivational versus usual care and reduction versus usual care conditions. The probability of making a QA that lasted ≥ 24 hours was not significantly different between the motivational (38%) or the reduction (31%) conditions and the usual care (34%) condition [motivational versus usual care odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-1.82; reduction versus usual care OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.57-1.36]. Bayes factors ranged from 0.13 to 0.18. Findings regarding a QA of any length were similar. At 6 months, the motivational condition had marginally more abstinence than usual care (11 versus 5%, OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 0.99-4.77), but the reduction condition was not significantly different from usual care (8 versus 5%, OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.69-3.59). At 12 months, the motivational condition had significantly more abstinence than usual care (10 versus 4%, OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.14-6.88) and the reduction condition had marginally more abstinence than usual care (9 versus 4%, OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 0.98-6.09).ConclusionsAmong adult smokers who are not ready to quit, both logistic regression and Bayesian analysis indicate that neither motivational nor reduction-based telephone interventions increased the odds of making a quit attempt in comparison to usual care at 6 months. The motivational intervention appeared to increase abstinence at 6 months and did increase abstinence at 12 months. The reduction intervention did not increase abstinence at 6 months but appeared to increase abstinence at 12 months.

Dataset Information

Referring Hospitalized Smokers to Outpatient Quit Services: A Randomized Trial.

Publications

Referring Hospitalized Smokers to Outpatient Quit Services: A Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets