Dataset Information

Combining alcohol interventions with tobacco addictions treatment in primary care-the COMBAT study: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: Tobacco and alcohol use present multiplicative risk for aerodigestive cancers. Reducing alcohol consumption improves smoking cessation outcomes and reduces cancer risk. Risky alcohol consumption and smoking are often treated separately despite concurrent treatment potentially leading to better outcomes for each. However, no rapidly scalable program exists for combined interventions in primary care clinics spread across wide geographic areas. This cluster randomized trial aims to report on the effects of a novel clinical decision support system (CDSS) on intervention rates by primary care practitioners addressing risky alcohol use in a smoking cessation program.We will be implementing a clinical decision support system (CDSS) in 221 primary care sites participating in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients (STOP) program across Ontario, Canada. Sites will be blindly allocated to one of two clinical decision support systems guiding practitioners to provide a risky alcohol use intervention to smokers attempting to quit using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Risky alcohol use is defined as drinking above the Canadian Cancer Society's low-risk drinking guidelines. Primary analysis will measure the proportion of risky drinkers offered an alcohol intervention in each CDSS arm at baseline. Patients will be contacted by phone or email to track smoking cessation and alcohol consumption rates at 6- and 12-month follow-up.Upon completion of the trial, the effect of different clinical decision support systems on practitioner behaviour, and on client tobacco and alcohol use, will be discussed. If the CDSS successfully promotes SBIRT for risky alcohol use in a primary care setting and/or improves patient-level outcomes, including smoking cessation rates and alcohol use reduction, this tool can be used as a model for other web-based behaviour change interventions integrated into primary care practice.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03108144.

SUBMITTER: Minian N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5437645 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combining alcohol interventions with tobacco addictions treatment in primary care-the COMBAT study: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

Minian Nadia N Baliunas Dolly D Zawertailo Laurie L Noormohamed Aliya A Giesbrecht Norman N Hendershot Christian S CS Le Foll Bernard B Rehm Jürgen J Samokhvalov Andriy A Selby Peter L PL

Implementation science : IS 20170518 1

<h4>Background</h4>Tobacco and alcohol use present multiplicative risk for aerodigestive cancers. Reducing alcohol consumption improves smoking cessation outcomes and reduces cancer risk. Risky alcohol consumption and smoking are often treated separately despite concurrent treatment potentially leading to better outcomes for each. However, no rapidly scalable program exists for combined interventions in primary care clinics spread across wide geographic areas. This cluster randomized trial aims ...[more]

PMID: 28521782

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS:Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:IntroductionQuitlines are effective in helping smokers quit, but pediatrician quitline referral rates are low, and few parents who smoke use the service. This study compared enrollment of parents who smoke in the quitline using electronic referral with that using manual referral.Study designThe study was designed as a pragmatic RCT.Setting/participantsParticipants were recruited from one large, urban pediatric primary care site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a high percentage of low-income families. Participants included adult parents who smoked and were present at their child's healthcare visit.InterventionPediatricians screened for tobacco use; smokers were given brief advice to quit and, if interested in quitting, were referred to the quitline. The eReferral ("warm handoff") involved electronically sending parent information to the quitline (parent received a call within 24-48 hours). Control group procedures were identical to eReferral, except the quitline number was provided to the parent. Data were collected between March 2017 and February 2018 and analyzed in 2018.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of parents enrolled in quitline treatment. Secondary outcomes included parent factors (e.g., demographics, nicotine dependence, and quitting motivation) associated with successful enrollment. Number of quitline contacts was also explored.ResultsDuring the study period, in the eReferral group, 10.3% (24 of 233) of parents who smoked and were interested in quitting enrolled in the quitline, whereas only 2.0% (5 of 251) of them in the control group enrolled in the quitline-a difference of 8.3% (95% CI=4.0, 12.6). Parents aged ≥50 years enrolled in the quitline more frequently. Although more parents in the eReferral group connected to the quitline, among parents who had at least one quitline contact, there was no significant difference in the mean number of quitline contacts between eReferral and control groups (mean, 2.04 vs 2.40 calls; difference, 0.36 [95% CI=0.35, 1.06]).ConclusionsSmoking parent eReferral from pediatric primary care may increase quitline enrollment and could be adopted by practices interested in increasing rates of parent treatment.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02997735.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Alcohol and tobacco use are common among U.S. women, yet if used during pregnancy these substances present significant preventable risks to prenatal and perinatal health. Because use of alcohol and tobacco often continue into the first trimester and beyond, especially among women with unintended pregnancies, effective evidence-based approaches are needed to decrease these risk behaviors. This study was designed to test the efficacy of CHOICES Plus, a preconception intervention for reducing the risk of alcohol- and tobacco-exposed pregnancies (AEPs and TEPs). STUDY DESIGN:RCT with two intervention groups: CHOICES Plus (n=131) versus Brief Advice (n=130). Data collected April 2011 to October 2013. Data analysis finalized February 2016. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Settings were 12 primary care clinics in a large Texas public healthcare system. Participants were women who were non-sterile, non-pregnant, aged 18-44 years, drinking more than three drinks per day or more than seven drinks per week, sexually active, and not using effective contraception (N=261). Forty-five percent were smokers. INTERVENTION:Interventions were two CHOICES Plus sessions and a contraceptive visit or Brief Advice and referral to community resources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcomes were reduced risk of AEP and TEP through 9-month follow-up. RESULTS:In intention-to-treat analyses across 9 months, the CHOICES Plus group was more likely than the Brief Advice group to reduce risk of AEP with an incidence rate ratio of 0.620 (95% CI=0.511, 0.757) and absolute risk reduction of -0.233 (95% CI=-0.239, -0.226). CHOICES Plus group members at risk for both exposures were more likely to reduce TEP risk (incidence rate ratio, 0.597; 95% CI=0.424, 0.840 and absolute risk reduction, -0.233; 95% CI=-0.019, -0.521). CONCLUSIONS:CHOICES Plus significantly reduced AEP and TEP risk. Addressing these commonly co-occurring risk factors in a single preconception program proved both feasible and efficacious in a low-income primary care population. Intervening with women before they become pregnant could shift the focus in clinical practice from treatment of substance-exposed pregnancies to prevention of a costly public health concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT01032772.

Project description:BackgroundWhile quitting smoking dramatically decreases overall mortality, general practitioners (GPs) are less likely to prescribe medications for smoking cessation than other cardiovascular risk factors. Guidelines recommend providers first assess patients' "readiness" to quit, an "opt-in" strategy, but only a minority of tobacco users are ready to quit on a given day. An "opt-out" strategy offering treatment as the default choice increased quit attempts in hospital and with pregnant women, but has not been tested in primary care. We will assess the efficacy of training GPs to offer treatment as the default choice using an encounter decision aid with current smokers seen in primary care.MethodsThis is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial with block randomization at the GP level in private practice in French-speaking Switzerland. GPs will be blinded to the arm allocation. The intervention is a half-day training course teaching an 'opt-out' approach to smoking cessation using an encounter decision aid (paper or electronic). GPs in the enhanced usual care group receives a brief refresher training about smoking cessation without changing their behaviour. GPs in both arms will recruit 23 patients each prior to routine primary care visits. The primary outcome is the effect of consulting a GP who received the intervention on the 7-day, point prevalence, smoking abstinence 6 months after the baseline appointment. Secondary outcomes include continuous abstinence; number of quit attempts; use of smoking cessation aids; patient-perceived involvement in discussions; and changes in GP behaviour. Patient outcomes will be collected using paper and telephone questionnaires. Assuming 15% drop-out, recruiting 46 GPs with 23 patients each will give us 80% power to detect an increase in smoking cessation from 4% (control) to 10.5% (intervention), with an alpha < 0.05.DiscussionGP visits are an opportunity to administer proven smoking cessation treatments. We hypothesize GPs offering smoking cessation treatment as the default choice using an encounter decision aid will increase the number of patients who quit. This study could significantly change our approach to smoking cessation in primary care. Default choices and the electronic decision aid are low-cost, easily diffusible interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04868474, First Posted May 3, 2021, Last Update Posted October 6, 2021.

Project description:The prevalence of depression is high and the elderly have an increased risk of developing chronic course. International data suggest that depression in the elderly is under-recognised, the latency before clinicians provide a treatment plan is longer and elderly patients with depression are not offered psychotherapy to the same degree as younger patients. Although recommendations for the treatment of elderly patients with depression exist, health-care professionals adhere to these recommendations to a limited degree only. We conducted a systematic review to identify recommendations for managing depression in the elderly and prioritised six recommendations. We identified and prioritised the determinants of practice related to the implementation of these recommendations in primary care, and subsequently discussed and prioritised interventions to address the identified determinants. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these tailored interventions for the six recommendations for the management of elderly patients with depression in primary care.We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomised trial comparing the implementation of the six recommendations using tailored interventions with usual care. We will randomise 80 municipalities into one of two groups: an intervention group, to which we will deliver tailored interventions to implement the six recommendations, and a control group, to which we will not deliver any intervention. We will randomise municipalities rather than patients, individual clinicians or practices, because we will deliver the intervention for the first three recommendations at the municipal level and we want to minimise the risk of contamination across GP practices for the other three recommendations. The primary outcome is the proportion of actions taken by GPs that are consistent with the recommendations.This trial will investigate whether a tailored implementation approach is an effective strategy for improving collaborative care in the municipalities and health-care professionals' practice towards elderly patients with depression in primary care. The effectiveness evaluation described in this protocol will be accompanied with a process evaluation exploring why and how the interventions were effective or ineffective.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01913236.

Dataset Information

Combining alcohol interventions with tobacco addictions treatment in primary care-the COMBAT study: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

Publications

Combining alcohol interventions with tobacco addictions treatment in primary care-the COMBAT study: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets