Dataset Information

Clinical Efficacy of Telemedicine Compared to Face-to-Face Clinic Visits for Smoking Cessation: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Tobacco is a major public health concern. A 12-week standard smoking cessation program is available in Japan; however, it requires face-to-face clinic visits, which has been one of the key obstacles to completing the program, leading to a low smoking cessation success rate. Telemedicine using internet-based video counseling instead of regular clinic visits could address this obstacle. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an internet-based remote smoking cessation support program compared with the standard face-to-face clinical visit program among patients with nicotine dependence. METHODS:This study was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial. We recruited nicotine-dependent adults from March to June 2018. Participants randomized to the telemedicine arm received internet-based video counseling, whereas control participants received standard face-to-face clinic visits at each time point in the smoking cessation program. Both arms received a CureApp Smoking Cessation smartphone app with a mobile exhaled carbon monoxide checker. The primary outcome was a continuous abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 9 to 12. Full analysis set was used for data analysis. RESULTS:We randomized 115 participants with nicotine dependence: 58 were allocated to the telemedicine (internet-based video counseling) arm and 57, to the control (standard face-to-face clinical visit) arm. We analyzed all 115 participants for the primary outcome. Both telemedicine and control groups had similar CARs from weeks 9 to 12 (81.0% vs 78.9%; absolute difference, 2.1%; 95% CI -12.8 to 17.0), and the lower limit of the difference between groups (-12.8%) was greater than the prespecified limit (-15%). CONCLUSIONS:The application of telemedicine using internet-based video counseling as a smoking cessation program had a similar CAR from weeks 9 to 12 as that of the standard face-to-face clinical visit program. The efficacy of the telemedicine-based smoking cessation program was not inferior to that of the standard visit-based smoking cessation program. TRIAL REGISTRATION:University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000031620; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000035975.

SUBMITTER: Nomura A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6660118 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Efficacy of Telemedicine Compared to Face-to-Face Clinic Visits for Smoking Cessation: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

Nomura Akihiro A Tanigawa Tomoyuki T Muto Tomoyasu T Oga Takafumi T Fukushima Yasushi Y Kiyosue Arihiro A Miyazaki Masaki M Hida Eisuke E Satake Kohta K

Journal of medical Internet research 20190426 4

<h4>Background</h4>Tobacco is a major public health concern. A 12-week standard smoking cessation program is available in Japan; however, it requires face-to-face clinic visits, which has been one of the key obstacles to completing the program, leading to a low smoking cessation success rate. Telemedicine using internet-based video counseling instead of regular clinic visits could address this obstacle.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an internet-bas ...[more]

PMID: 30982776

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTobacco consumption is a leading cause of death and disease, killing >8 million people each year. Smoking cessation significantly reduces the risk of developing smoking-related diseases. Although combined treatment for addiction is promising, evidence of its effectiveness is still emerging. Currently, there is no published research comparing the effectiveness of blended smoking cessation treatments (BSCTs) with face-to-face (F2F) treatments, where web-based components replace 50% of the F2F components in blended treatment.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this 2-arm noninferiority randomized controlled trial was to determine whether a BSCT is noninferior to an F2F treatment with identical ingredients in achieving abstinence rates.MethodsThis study included 344 individuals who smoke (at least 1 cigarette per day) attending an outpatient smoking cessation clinic in the Netherlands. The participants received either a blended 50% F2F and 50% web-based BSCT or only F2F treatment with similar content and intensity. The primary outcome measure was cotinine-validated abstinence rates from all smoking products at 3 and 15 months after treatment initiation. Additional measures included carbon monoxide-validated point prevalence abstinence; self-reported point prevalence abstinence; and self-reported continuous abstinence rates at 3, 6, 9, and 15 months after treatment initiation.ResultsNone of the 13 outcomes showed statistically confirmed noninferiority of the BSCT, whereas 4 outcomes showed significantly (P<.001) inferior abstinence rates of the BSCT: cotinine-validated point prevalence abstinence rate at 3 months (difference 12.7, 95% CI 6.2-19.4), self-reported point prevalence abstinence rate at 6 months (difference 19.3, 95% CI 11.5-27.0) and at 15 months (difference 11.7, 95% CI 5.8-17.9), and self-reported continuous abstinence rate at 6 months (difference 13.8, 95% CI 6.8-20.8). The remaining 9 outcomes, including the cotinine-validated point prevalence abstinence rate at 15 months, were inconclusive.ConclusionsIn this high-intensity outpatient smoking cessation trial, the blended mode was predominantly less effective than the traditional F2F mode. The results contradict the widely assumed potential benefits of blended treatment and suggest that further research is needed to identify the critical factors in the design of blended interventions.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register 27150; https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/27150.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3851-x.

Project description:BackgroundThe pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has caused disruptions in ongoing clinical trials and is expected to accelerate interest in conducting research studies remotely.ObjectiveA quasi-experimental, mixed methods approach was used to examine the rates of visit completion as well as the opinions and experiences of participants enrolled in an ongoing clinical trial of smoking cessation who were required to change from in-person clinic visits to remote visits using video or telephone conferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsFor quantitative comparisons, we used a quasi-experimental design, comparing a cohort of participants followed during the pandemic (n=23, COVID-19 cohort) to a comparable cohort of participants followed over a similar time period in the calendar years 2018 and 2019 (n=51, pre-COVID-19 cohort) to examine the rates of completion of scheduled visits and biospecimen collection. For the qualitative component, interviews were conducted with participants who experienced the transition from in-person to remote visits.ResultsParticipants in the COVID-19 cohort completed an average of 83.6% of remote clinic visits (95% CI 73.1%-91.2%), which was not significantly different than the in-person completion rate of 89.8% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Participants in the COVID-19 cohort returned an average of 93.2% (95% CI 83.5%-98.1%) of saliva specimens for remote clinic visits completed, which was not significantly different than the in-person saliva specimen completion rate of 100% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Two broad themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) the benefits of remote visits and (2) the challenges of remote counseling compared to in-person counseling. Despite limited experience with telehealth prior to this transition, most participants expressed a willingness to engage in remote visits in the future.ConclusionsEven in the context of a rapid transition from in-person to remote visits necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of visit completion and return of biospecimens remained high. Participants were generally accepting of the transition. Further research is needed to identify the optimal mix of in-person and remote visits beyond the pandemic context and to better understand how these changes may impact study outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03262662; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03262662.

Project description:BackgroundSmoking is a major public health concern. In Japan, a 12-week standard smoking cessation support program is available, however, its required face-to-face visits are a key obstacle in completing the program. Telemedicine is a useful way to provide medical treatment at a distance. Although telemedicine for smoking cessation using an internet-based video system has the potential for ensuring better clinical outcomes for patients with nicotine dependence, its efficacy is unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and feasibility of a smoking cessation support program using an internet-based video system compared with a face-to-face program among patients with nicotine dependence.MethodsThis study will be a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter trial. Participants randomized to the intervention arm will undergo an internet-based smoking cessation program, whereas control participants will undergo a standard face-to-face program. We will use the CureApp Smoking Cessation (CASC) for both arms, which consists of the CASC smartphone app for patients and a Web-based patient information management system for clinicians with a mobile carbon monoxide checking device. The primary endpoint will be the continuous abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 9 to 12. Secondary endpoints will be: (1) the smoking cessation success rate at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks; (2) CAR from weeks 9 to 24; (3) changes in scores on the mood and physical symptoms scale and 12-Item French Version Of The Tobacco Craving Questionnaire; (4) Kano Test for Social Nicotine Dependence scores at 8, 12, and 24 weeks; (5) time to first lapse after the first visit; (6) nicotine dependence and cognition scale scores at 12 and 24 weeks; (7) usage rate of the CASC; (8) qualitative questionnaire about the usability and acceptability of telemedicine; and (9) presence of product problems or adverse events.ResultsWe will recruit 114 participants who are nicotine-dependent but otherwise healthy adults from March to July 2018 and follow up with them until January 2019 (24 weeks). We expect all study results to be available by the end of March 2019.ConclusionsThis will be the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an internet-based (telemedicine) smoking cessation support program relative to a face-to-face program among patients with nicotine dependence. We expect that the efficacy of the telemedicine smoking cessation support program will not be clinically worse than the face-to-face program. If this trial demonstrates that telemedicine does not have clinically worse efficacy and feasibility than a conventional face-to-face program, physicians can begin to offer a more flexible smoking cessation program to patients who may otherwise give up on trying such programs.Trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000031620; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000035975.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/12701.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of addressing tobacco use in health care settings. However, few smokers receive cessation advice when visiting a hospital. Implementing smoking cessation technology in outpatient waiting rooms could be an effective strategy for change, with the potential to expose almost all patients visiting a health care provider without preluding physician action needed. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to develop an intervention for smoking cessation that would make use of the time patients spend in a waiting room by passively exposing them to a face-aging, public morphing, tablet-based app, to pilot the intervention in a waiting room of an HIV outpatient clinic, and to measure the perceptions of this intervention among smoking and nonsmoking HIV patients. METHODS:We developed a kiosk version of our 3-dimensional face-aging app Smokerface, which shows the user how their face would look with or without cigarette smoking 1 to 15 years in the future. We placed a tablet with the app running on a table in the middle of the waiting room of our HIV outpatient clinic, connected to a large monitor attached to the opposite wall. A researcher noted all the patients who were using the waiting room. If a patient did not initiate app use within 30 seconds of waiting time, the researcher encouraged him or her to do so. Those using the app were asked to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS:During a 19-day period, 464 patients visited the waiting room, of whom 187 (40.3%) tried the app and 179 (38.6%) completed the questionnaire. Of those who completed the questionnaire, 139 of 176 (79.0%) were men and 84 of 179 (46.9%) were smokers. Of the smokers, 55 of 81 (68%) said the intervention motivated them to quit (men: 45, 68%; women: 10, 67%); 41 (51%) said that it motivated them to discuss quitting with their doctor (men: 32, 49%; women: 9, 60%); and 72 (91%) perceived the intervention as fun (men: 57, 90%; women: 15, 94%). Of the nonsmokers, 92 (98%) said that it motivated them never to take up smoking (men: 72, 99%; women: 20, 95%). Among all patients, 102 (22.0%) watched another patient try the app without trying it themselves; thus, a total of 289 (62.3%) of the 464 patients were exposed to the intervention (average waiting time 21 minutes). CONCLUSIONS:A face-aging app implemented in a waiting room provides a novel opportunity to motivate patients visiting a health care provider to quit smoking, to address quitting at their subsequent appointment and thereby encourage physician-delivered smoking cessation, or not to take up smoking.

Project description:BackgroundIn rural America, cigarette smoking is prevalent and health care providers lack the time and resources to help smokers quit. Telephone quitlines are important avenues for cessation services in rural areas, but they are poorly integrated with local health care resources.ObjectiveThe intent of the study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two models for delivering expert tobacco treatment at a distance: telemedicine counseling that was integrated into smokers' primary care clinics (Integrated Telemedicine-ITM) versus telephone counseling, similar to telephone quitline counseling, delivered to smokers in their homes (Phone).MethodsSmokers (n=566) were recruited offline from 20 primary care and safety net clinics across Kansas. They were randomly assigned to receive 4 sessions of ITM or 4 sessions of Phone counseling. Patients in ITM received real-time video counseling, similar to Skype, delivered by computer/webcams in clinic exam rooms. Three full-time equivalent trained counselors delivered the counseling. The counseling duration and content was the same in both groups and was available in Spanish or English. Both groups also received identical materials and assistance in selecting and obtaining cessation medications. The primary outcome was verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at month 12, using an intent-to-treat analysis.ResultsThere were no significant baseline differences between groups, and the trial achieved 88% follow-up at 12 months. Verified abstinence at 12 months did not significantly differ between ITM or Phone (9.8%, 27/280 vs 12%, 34/286; P=.406). Phone participants completed somewhat more counseling sessions than ITM (mean 2.6, SD 1.5 vs mean 2.4, SD 1.5; P=.0837); however, participants in ITM were significantly more likely to use cessation medications than participants in Phone (55.9%, 128/280 vs 46.1%, 107/286; P=.03). Compared to Phone participants, ITM participants were significantly more likely to recommend the program to a family member or friend (P=.0075). From the combined provider plus participant (societal) perspective, Phone was significantly less costly than ITM. Participants in ITM had to incur time and mileage costs to travel to clinics for ITM sessions. From the provider perspective, counseling costs were similar between ITM (US $45.46, SD 31.50) and Phone (US $49.58, SD 33.35); however, total provider costs varied widely depending on how the clinic space for delivering ITM was valued.ConclusionsFindings did not support the superiority of ITM over telephone counseling for helping rural patients quit smoking. ITM increased utilization of cessation pharmacotherapy and produced higher participant satisfaction, but Phone counseling was significantly less expensive. Future interventions could combine elements of both approaches to optimize pharmacotherapy utilization, counseling adherence, and satisfaction. Such an approach could commence with a telemedicine-delivered clinic office visit for pharmacotherapy guidance, and continue with telephone or real-time video counseling delivered via mobile phones to flexibly deliver behavioral support to patients where they most need it-in their homes and communities.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00843505; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00843505 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YKSinVZ9).

Dataset Information

Clinical Efficacy of Telemedicine Compared to Face-to-Face Clinic Visits for Smoking Cessation: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

Publications

Clinical Efficacy of Telemedicine Compared to Face-to-Face Clinic Visits for Smoking Cessation: Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets