Dataset Information

Impact of Smoking Cessation Interventions Initiated During Hospitalization Among HIV-Infected Smokers.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Smoking is a key determinant of mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH). METHODS:To better understand the effects of smoking cessation interventions in PLWH, we conducted a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials of hospital-initiated smoking interventions conducted through the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART). In each study, cigarette smokers were randomly assigned to usual care or a smoking cessation intervention. The primary outcome was self-reported past 30-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Abstinence rates were compared between PLWH and participants without HIV and by treatment arm, using both complete-case and intention-to-treat analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of HIV status on 6-month tobacco abstinence and to determine predictors of smoking cessation within PLWH. RESULTS:Among 5550 hospitalized smokers, there were 202 (3.6%) PLWH. PLWH smoked fewer cigarettes per day and were less likely to be planning to quit than smokers without HIV. At 6 months, cessation rates did not differ between intervention and control groups among PLWH (28.9% vs. 30.5%) or smokers without HIV (36.1% vs. 34.1%). In multivariable regression analysis, HIV status was not significantly associated with smoking cessation at 6 months. Among PLWH, confidence in quitting was the only clinical factor independently associated with smoking cessation (OR 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.8, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS:HIV status did not alter likelihood of quitting smoking after hospital discharge, whether or not the smoker was offered a tobacco cessation intervention, but power was limited to identify potentially important differences. IMPLICATIONS:PLWH had similar quit rates to participants without HIV following a hospital-initiated smoking cessation intervention. The findings suggest that factors specific to HIV infection may not influence response to smoking cessation interventions and that all PLWH would benefit from efforts to assist in quitting smoking. TRIAL REGISTRATION:(1) Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial: NCT01305928. (2) Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient: NCT01277250. (3) Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: NCT01363245. (4) Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (HelpingHAND2): NCT01714323.

SUBMITTER: Triant VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7291801 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Smoking Cessation Interventions Initiated During Hospitalization Among HIV-Infected Smokers.

Triant Virginia A VA Grossman Ellie E Rigotti Nancy A NA Ramachandran Rekha R Regan Susan S Sherman Scott E SE Richter Kimber P KP Tindle Hilary A HA Harrington Kathleen F KF

Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 20200601 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Smoking is a key determinant of mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH).<h4>Methods</h4>To better understand the effects of smoking cessation interventions in PLWH, we conducted a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials of hospital-initiated smoking interventions conducted through the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART). In each study, cigarette smokers were randomly assigned to usual care or a smoking cessation intervention. The ...[more]

PMID: 31687769

Similar Datasets

Project description:The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment outcomes and poorer health outcomes. Nevertheless, a significant number of people continue to smoke following a cancer diagnosis. Little is understood of the smoking cessation services provided to smokers with cancer or their engagement with them. This systematic review aimed to identify existing smoking cessation interventions for this cohort diagnosed with breast, head and neck, lung and cervical cancers (linked to risk). Systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Psych Info and CINAHL from 1 January 2015 to 15 December 2020 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of smoking cessation interventions and impact on referrals and quit attempts. The impact on healthcare professionals was included if reported. Included studies were restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs, and narrative data synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD 42020214204, and reporting adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were screened, extracted in duplicate and an assessment of the quality of evidence undertaken using Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, Australia and including randomized controlled trials (9), observational studies (10), quality improvement (3), and one qualitative study. Hospital and cancer clinics [including a dental clinic] were the settings for all studies. 43% (10/23) of studies reported interventions for smokers diagnosed with head and neck cancer, 13% (3/23) for smokers diagnosed with lung cancer, one study provides evidence for breast cancer, and the remaining nine studies (39%) report on multiple cancers including the ones specified in this review. Methodological quality was variable. There were limited data to identify one optimal intervention for this cohort. Key elements included the timing and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, pharmacotherapy including extended use of varenicline, increased counselling sessions and a service embedded in oncology departments. More studies are required to ensure tailored smoking cessation pathways are co-developed for smokers with a diagnosis of cancer to support this population.

Project description:IntroductionThis study evaluated whether introducing performance obligations (a policy intervention) to service agreements between hospitals (n = 15) and their local health authority: (1) improved provision of an evidence-based tobacco cessation intervention (the "Ottawa Model" for Smoking Cessation) and (2) changed the quality of the cessation intervention being delivered.MethodsInterrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the change in the proportion of smoker patients provided the Ottawa Model 3 years before and 3 years after introducing the performance obligations. Changes in secondary outcomes related to program quality were described using mean differences, risk differences, and risk ratios, as appropriate.ResultsThe proportion and number of patients provided the Ottawa Model doubled in the 3-year period following introduction of the new policy-from 3453 patients (33.7%) in the year before to 6840 patients (62.8%) in the final assessment year. This resulted in a signification slope change (+9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5%, 13.9%; p = .01) between the pre- and post-obligation assessment periods, signifying the policy had a positive impact on performance. Quality and effectiveness of the in-hospital intervention remained steady.ConclusionsImplementation of performance obligations by a healthcare funder increased delivery of an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention across multiple hospitals. Given the known health and economic impacts of smoking cessation interventions, health authorities and hospitals should consider pairing adoption of systematic interventions, like the Ottawa Model, with policy to enhance reach and impact.Implications• The hospital-based Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention has been shown to increase smoking abstinence, while reducing mortality and healthcare utilization.• The uptake of systematic, evidence-based interventions, like the OMSC, by hospitals has been relatively low despite the known positive impacts.• The introduction of smoking cessation performance obligations by a healthcare funder resulted in more patients receiving an OMSC intervention while in hospital, with no corresponding change in intervention quality or effectiveness.• Healthcare funders and hospitals should consider pairing the adoption of effective, systematic interventions, like the OMSC, with policy to enhance reach and impact.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Main resultsFifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Dataset Information

Impact of Smoking Cessation Interventions Initiated During Hospitalization Among HIV-Infected Smokers.

Publications

Impact of Smoking Cessation Interventions Initiated During Hospitalization Among HIV-Infected Smokers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets