Evidence-based Smoking Cessation Treatment Research Articles

1442Implementation and outcomes of systematic approaches to tobacco treatment: the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation

Abstract Background/Introduction Tobacco use is a major risk factor for the leading chronic diseases, is a leading cause of preventable death worldwide, and is a large cost driver of healthcare spending. Quitting smoking is the single most effective thing a patient can do to improve their health. The Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) is a systematic, comprehensive approach to clinical tobacco dependence treatment. It provides support to healthcare settings in establishing a high quality tobacco treatment protocol and addressing common barriers to ensure optimal delivery of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions. Purpose The OMSC assists healthcare professionals to transform clinical practices through knowledge translation, implementation support, and quality evaluation. It promotes the delivery of evidence-based interventions to a greater number of smokers using a systematic approach, ultimately increasing cessation rates. The OMSC assists providers to identify smoking status, provide strategic advice to quit, support patients in making a quit attempt, and provide follow-up support. Methods OMSC Outreach Facilitators work with healthcare setting to assist with implementing evidence-based smoking cessation interventions. This is guided by an OMSC workplan which covers planning, implementing, evaluating and sustainability. Pre and post implementation along with program-level data is collected and used to determine rates of smoking status documentation, brief advice to stop smoking, delivery of cessation support and patient quit rates. Results The OMSC program has worked with approximately 450 healthcare settings, trained over 20,000 healthcare professionals, and supported approximately 500,000 patients with quitting smoking. Of those not ready to quit, 45% of patients seen in primary care were supported in reducing the amount they smoke. For OMSC hospital and specialty care patients receiving follow-up support, the six month responder-quit rate was 48%. For OMSC primary care patients, the two month responder-quit rate was 57%. Patients who had previously been supported by their OMSC primary care practice but had not presented to their provider in at least 6 months were contacted to assess their smoking status. Of those reached, 44% were smoke-free. Of those who relapsed, 53% indicated they would be willing to make another quit attempt, 37% of which went back to their healthcare provider to try again. Conclusion The OMSC has shown to be a simple, systematic step-by-step approach to addressing tobacco use in healthcare settings. It provides a way to create clinical efficiencies while increasing the rates at which evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are being delivered to patients, which leads to more patients making further quit attempts. The OMSC continues to expand across Canada and internationally in hopes of creating a wider smoking cessation network to support more patients with quitting smoking. Acknowledgement/Funding Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Parents' Self-efficacy for Tobacco Exposure Protection and Smoking Abstinence Mediate Treatment Effects on Child Cotinine at 12-Month Follow-up: Mediation Results from the Kids Safe and Smokefree Trial.

Compared with the general smoking population, low-income smokers face elevated challenges to success in evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Moreover, their children bear increased disease burden. Understanding behavioral mechanisms related to successful reduction of child tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) could inform future smoking interventions in vulnerable, underserved populations. Smoking parents were recruited from pediatric clinics in low-income communities and randomized into a multilevel intervention including a pediatric clinic intervention framed in best clinical practice guidelines ("Ask, Advise, Refer" [AAR]) plus individualized telephone counseling (AAR + counseling), or AAR + control. Mediation analysis included treatment condition (independent variable), 12-month child cotinine (TSE biomarker, criterion), and four mediators: 3-month end-of-treatment self-efficacy to protect children from TSE and smoking urge coping skills, and 12-month perceived program (intra-treatment) support and bioverified smoking abstinence. Analyses controlled for baseline nicotine dependence, depressive symptoms, child age, and presence of other residential smokers. Participants (n = 327) included 83% women and 83% African Americans. Multilevel AAR + counseling was associated with significantly higher levels of all four mediators (ps < .05). Baseline nicotine dependence (p < .05), 3-month self-efficacy (p < .05) and 12-month bioverified smoking abstinence (p < .001) related significantly to 12-month child cotinine outcome. The indirect effects of AAR + counseling intervention on cotinine via self-efficacy for child TSE protection and smoking abstinence (ps < .05) suggested mediation through these pathways. Compared with AAR + control, multilevel AAR + counseling improved all putative mediators. Findings suggest that fostering TSE protection self-efficacy during intervention and encouraging parental smoking abstinence may be key to promoting long-term child TSE-reduction in populations of smokers with elevated challenges to quitting smoking. Pediatric harm reduction interventions to protect children of smokers from tobacco smoke have emerged to address tobacco-related health disparities in underserved populations. Low-income smokers experience greater tobacco-related disease burden and more difficulty with smoking behavior change in standard evidence-based interventions than the general population of smokers. Therefore, improving knowledge about putative behavioral mechanisms of smoking behavior change that results in lower child exposure risk could inform future intervention improvements.

Care-paradigm shift promoting smoking cessation treatment among cancer center patients via a low-burden strategy, Electronic Health Record-Enabled Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment.

Tobacco smoking is an important risk factor for cancer incidence, an effect modifier for cancer treatment, and a negative prognostic factor for disease outcomes. Inadequate implementation of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in cancer centers, a consequence of numerous patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers, contributes to tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. This study provides data for a paradigm shift from a frequently used specialist referral model to a point-of-care treatment model for tobacco use assessment and cessation treatment for outpatients at a large cancer center. The point-of-care model is enabled by a low-burden strategy, the Electronic Health Record-Enabled Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment program, which was implemented in the cancer center clinics on June 2, 2018. Five-month pre- and post-implementation data from the electronic health record (EHR) were analyzed. The percentage of cancer patients assessed for tobacco use significantly increased from 48% to 90% (z = 126.57, p < .001), the percentage of smokers referred for cessation counseling increased from 0.72% to 1.91% (z = 3.81, p < .001), and the percentage of smokers with cessation medication significantly increased from 3% to 17% (z = 17.20, p < .001). EHR functionalities may significantly address barriers to point-of-care treatment delivery, improving its consistent implementation and thereby increasing access to and quality of smoking cessation care for cancer center patients.

Sharpening our focus on designing for dissemination: Lessons from the SPRINT program and potential next steps for the field.

Few patients who smoke receive evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in outpatient clinics. A novel electronic referral to SmokefreeTXT, the National Cancer Institute stop-smoking text program, referred 14.4% of outpatients who smoke.

Supporting cancer patients quit smoking: the initial evaluation of our tobacco cessation intervention program

AbstractBackground:Tobacco is a known addictive consumer product and its use has been reported to be associated with several health problems as well as the leading cause of premature, preventable mortality worldwide. For patients undergoing cancer treatment, tobacco smoking can potentially compromise treatment effectiveness; however, there is sufficient evidence suggesting numerous health benefits of smoking cessation interventions for cancer patients.Methods:The Grand River Regional Cancer Centre (GRRCC) smoking cessation program began in October 2013 to provide evidence-based intensive tobacco intervention to patients. All new patients are screened for tobacco use and those identified as active smokers are advised of the benefits of cessation and offered referral to the program where a cessation nurse offers counseling. Patients’ disease site, initial cessation goal, quit date, number of quit attempts and mode of contact are collected by the cessation nurse. This study reports on the initial evaluation of the smoking cessation program activities at GRRCC.Results:There are 1,210 patients who were screened, accepted a referral and counseled in the program. The referral pattern shows a modest increase every year and most of the patients (58%) indicated readiness to quit smoking. Overall, 29 and 26% of patients either quit or cut-back smoking, respectively. Among 348 patients who quit smoking, 300 (86%) were able to quit at the first attempt. The data indicated that 309 (44%) out of the 698 patients who indicated their initial intent to quit smoking were able to quit, whereas about 242 (35%) were able to cutback. A total of 15 patients out of 32 who indicated initial readiness to ‘cutback’ smoking were able to reduce tobacco use and three patients actually ended up quitting, although their initial goal was ‘ready-to-cut-back’.Conclusions:GRRCC smoking cessation program started in October 2013 to provide evidence-based intensive smoking cessation interventions for patients with cancer. Most patients referred to the program indicated a readiness to quit smoking affirming that if patients become aware of the various risks associated with continual smoking or if they are informed of the benefits associated with cessation with regard to their treatment, they will be more likely to decide to quit. Therefore, it is essential that patients, their partners and families are counseled on the health and treatment benefits of smoking cessation and sustainable programs should be available to support them to quit smoking. It is imperative then, that oncology programs should consistently identify and document the smoking status of cancer patients and support those who use tobacco at the time of diagnosis to quit. Evidence-based smoking cessation intervention should be sustainably integrated into the cancer care continuum in all oncology programs from prevention of cancer through diagnosis, treatment, survivorship and palliative care.

Smoking cessation care can translate to lower hazard of death in the short-run in cancer patients - a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate the value of smoking cessation services within the treatment phase of cancer

BackgroundSmoking cessation is a key step towards improving cancer care and outcomes. However, smoking cessation interventions are underprovided in oncology settings. Within Jordan’s only comprehensive oncology center, we sought to evaluate receipt of care at a smoking cessation clinic and the effect of assisted abstinence through the smoking cessation clinic on short-term (two-year) survival after a cancer diagnosis.MethodsWe employed a retrospective cohort study design. Cancer registry and smoking cessation clinic data for adult Jordanian cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016, who also were cigarette smokers, and who received full treatment at King Hussein Cancer Center, were analyzed. Specifically, descriptive statistics of patients who visited the smoking cessation clinic were generated, and short-term (two-year) hazard of death of patients based on whether or not smoking cessation clinic-assisted abstinence occurred, were evaluated.ResultsThere were 3403 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Approximately 21% of cancer patients were seen at the smoking cessation clinic, and significant demographic and clinical disparities in who was being seen [at the smoking cessation clinic] existed. In 2387 patients with available survival data, smokers who never went to the smoking cessation clinic (or were seen only once, or seen a year or more from diagnosis) had a hazard of death 2.8 times higher than smokers who had visited the smoking cessation clinic and who also confirmed they had not smoked on atleast two of their 3-, 6- or 12-month follow-up visits (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7–4.6). Non-abstainers at the smoking cessation clinic exhibited a similar disadvantage (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4–5.0).ConclusionsAlthough evidence-based smoking cessation interventions increase the likelihood of abstinence and can lower the short-term hazard of death during cancer treatment, there is a deprioritization of smoking cessation interventions during cancer care, as indicated by low proportions of patients seen at the smoking cessation clinic. Our findings emphasize the importance of promoting interventions to avail smoking cessation interventions in oncology settings within the cancer treatment phase.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Mindfulness-Based Group Visits for Smoking Cessation in Low-Socioeconomic Status and Minority Smokers with Cancer.

Objective: Smoking cessation studies tailored for low-income and racial/ethnic minority cancer patients are limited. African American and low-socioeconomic status (SES) smokers have higher cancer mortality rates and are less likely to use evidence-based smoking cessation treatments compared with white and higher SES counterparts. Mindfulness training is a promising approach to address racial and SES disparities in smoking cessation. The authors assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a mindfulness-based smoking cessation (MBSC) medical group visit for low-income and racially diverse smokers with cancer. Design and intervention: The authors adapted the integrative medical group visit model used for chronic pain and included the You Can Quit smoking cessation curriculum used at the study site, Tobacco Treatment Center. The program was conducted in eight weekly 2-h visits. The authors then tested the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention for actively smoking cancer patients and cancer survivors in two pilot groups (N = 18) using a pre-post design. Setting/Location: This study took place at Boston Medical Center, a large urban safety net academic teaching hospital. Outcome measures: The authors used a medical group visit intake form to collect data on weekly cigarette intake and home practice. They also gathered additional qualitative data from focus groups and in-depth interviews. Results: Over 50% of participants (n = 10) self-identified as black and 56% reported an annual income of $20,000 or less. Over two-thirds of the participants attended four or more of the eight group visits. There was a significant decrease in weekly cigarette intake from 75.1 cigarettes at baseline to 44.3 at 3 months (p = 0.039). None of the participants quit smoking. Participants were satisfied with the program and reported positive lifestyle changes. Conclusion: MBSC group visits are feasible and acceptable among racially diverse and low-SES smokers with cancer and should be further studied in a larger cohort.

Financial incentives to Medicaid smokers for engaging tobacco quit line treatment: maximising return on investment

BackgroundLow-income smokers experience greater difficulty in quitting smoking than do other smokers. Providing financial incentives for treatment engagement increases smoking cessation success. This study models the cost-effectiveness of varying levels...

A review of the effects of tobacco smoking on cancer treatment: smoking cessation intervention should be integrated into the cancer care continuum

AbstractBackground:The adverse health effects associated with smoking tobacco have been well investigated, and its detrimental effects on cancer treatment outcomes, efficacy and quality of life (QOL) for cancer patients have also been well documented. Tobacco smoke contains many thousands of chemicals, including a plethora of carcinogens, and the exposure of human cells to these carcinogens, and their metabolic activation, is the main mechanism by which smoking-related cancer is initiated.Materials and Methods:This paper reports on a narrative review of recent studies in the field of effects of tobacco smoking on cancer treatment, including the effects of carcinogens in smoke on carcinogenesis, cell mutations and the immune system. The health effects of smokeless tobacco, effects of tobacco smoking on cancer treatment, and its impact on surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy are reported. The potential risks of second primary cancers or recurrence from tobacco use, the effects of second-hand smoking and cancer treatment, the impact of smoking on the QOL after cancer treatment and the need to integrate smoking cessation programs into the cancer care continuum are also reported.Conclusions:Tobacco use has a direct impact on cellular function by inhibiting apoptosis, stimulating proliferation and decreasing the efficacy of cancer treatment; therefore, quitting its use has the potential to improve treatment response rates and survival, as well as reduces the risk of developing second cancers and potentially improves the QOL after treatment. Smoking cessation is one of the most important interventions to prevent cancer and is also essential after the diagnosis of cancer to improve clinical outcomes. Due to the numerous benefits of smoking cessation, it should become a critical component of the cancer care continuum in all oncology programs – from prevention of cancer through diagnosis, treatment, survivorship and palliative care. Evidence-based smoking cessation intervention should be sustainably integrated into any comprehensive cancer program, and the information should be targeted to the specific benefits of cessation in cancer patients.

A Qualitative Examination of Stay Quit Coach, A Mobile Application for Veteran Smokers With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Smoking is a lethal public health problem that is common in US military veterans, particularly those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Mobile applications (apps) to promote smoking cessation are a scalable and low-cost approach that may facilitate treatment engagement. This qualitative study examined the acceptability, user experience, and perceptions of a smoking cessation app, Stay Quit Coach (SQC), when incorporated into evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. US military veterans with PTSD who smoked at least five cigarettes per day for 15 of the past 30 days and stated an interested in cessation were eligible to participate. Participants' baseline comfort levels with mobile technology was measured using the Perceptions of Mobile Phone Interventions Questionnaire-Patient version (PMPIQ-P). At treatment end, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Twenty participants were enrolled and 17 (85.0%) participated in the qualitative interview at treatment end. PMPIQ-P scores at baseline ranged from 4.97 to 5.25 (SDs = 0.73-1.04), reflecting moderately high comfort with mobile technology among participants. Qualitative analyses indicated that most participants: (1) endorsed mobile technology as an appealing format for smoking cessation treatment, due to convenience and instantaneous access; and (2) expressed highest perceived helpfulness for interactive app features. Recommendations to improve SQC clustered into four thematic areas: (1) increasing personalization, (2) including more self-tracking features, (3) increasing visual cues, and (4) sharing progress with peers. SQC was perceived as an acceptable and useful tool to support smoking cessation in a sample of veteran smokers with PTSD. Qualitative data provided valuable insights that can inform the continued development of SQC and other apps for smoking cessation. Given the high lethality associated with cigarette smoking, it is crucial to identify scalable, low-risk strategies to promote smoking cessation, particularly in high-risk populations. Mobile technology is a promising approach that can be used to augment evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Results of this qualitative study support the use of the SQC mobile app when incorporated into evidence-based smoking cessation treatment for veterans with PTSD and provide future directions for refinement of the SQC app. These findings also highlight the importance of using a patient-centered approach in designing apps intended for a clinical population.

E-cigarettes and Tobacco Exposure Biomarkers among American Indian Smokers.

Objective We assessed associations between electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use and smoking-related measures among American Indians (AIs) who smoke. MethodsWe collected baseline survey and smoking biomarker data in a cohort of 375 adult AI smokers at a Cherokee Nation healthcare facility in Oklahoma. We used multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses to determine associations between e-cigarette use and smoking-related characteristics, including biomarkers. ResultsCurrent e-cigarette users were more likely than never users to report a quit attempt in the past 12 months (current vs never adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.24 [95% CI 1.20-4.16]). Current and past e-cigarette users were more likely than never users to report a likelihood to quit smoking (current vs never AOR = 2.97 [95% CI 1.34-6.56]; past vs never AOR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.08-2.91]). E-cigarette use was not significantly associated with confidence to quit smoking, cigarette packs smoked per day, or cotinine levels. ConclusionsE-cigarette use was associated with previous and future quit attempts, but not with reductions in cigarette smoking or confidence in quitting. This suggests that many dual users might benefit from the addition of evidence-based smoking cessation treatments.

Public health impact of a novel smoking cessation outreach program in Ontario, Canada

BackgroundProvision of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may contribute to health disparities if barriers to treatment are greater for more disadvantaged groups. We describe and evaluate the public health impact of a novel outreach program to improve access to smoking cessation treatment in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe partnered with Public Health Units (PHUs) located across the province to deliver single-session workshops providing standardized evidence-based content and 10 weeks (2007–2008) or 5 weeks (2008–2016) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Participants completed a baseline assessment and were followed up by phone or e-mail at 6 months. We used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework to evaluate the public health impact of the program from 2007 to 2016. Given the iterative design and changes in implementation over time, data is presented annually or bi-annually.ResultsThere were 26,122 enrollments from 2007 to 2016. Between 31 and 442 workshops were held annually. The annual reach was estimated to be 0.1–0.3% of eligible smokers in Ontario. Participants were older, smoked more heavily, had a lower household income, were more likely to be female and be diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder, and less likely to have a postsecondary degree compared to average Ontario smokers eligible for participation. The intervention was effective; at 6-month follow-up 22–33% of respondents reported abstinence from smoking. Adoption by PHUs was 81% by the second year of operation and remained high (72–97%) thereafter, with the exception of 2009–2010 (33–56%) when the program was temporarily unavailable to PHUs due to lack of funding. Implementation at the organizational level was not tracked; however, at the individual level, approximately half of participants used most or all of the NRT received. On average, maintenance of the program was high, with PHUs conducting workshops for 7 of the 10 years (2007–2016) and 4 of the 5 most recent years (2012–2016).ConclusionsThe smoking cessation program had a high rate of adoption and maintenance, reached smokers over a large geographic area, including individuals more likely to experience disparities, and helped them make successful quit attempts. This novel model can be adopted in other jurisdictions with limited resources.

A Collaborative Model for Facilitating the Delivery of Smoking Cessation Treatments to Cancer Patients: Results From Three Oncology Practices in South Carolina

Introduction: Continued smoking by cancer patients causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes, but few patients receive evidence-based smoking cessation as a standard of care.Aim: To evaluate practical strategies to promote wide-scale dissemination and implementation of evidence-based tobacco cessation services within state cancer centers.Methods: A Collaborative Learning Model (CLM) for Quality Improvement was evaluated with three community oncology practices to identify barriers and facilitate practice change to deliver evidence-based smoking cessation treatments to cancer patients using standardized assessments and referrals to statewide smoking cessation resources. Patients were enrolled and tracked through an automated data system and received follow-up cessation support post-enrollment. Monthly quantitative reports and qualitative data gathered through interviews and collaborative learning sessions were used to evaluate meaningful quality improvement changes in each cancer center.Results: Baseline practice evaluation for the CLM identified the lack of tobacco use documentation, awareness of cessation guidelines, and awareness of services for patients as common barriers. Implementation of a structured assessment and referral process demonstrated that of 1,632 newly registered cancer patients,1,581 (97%) were screened for tobacco use. Among those screened, 283 (18%) were found to be tobacco users. Of identified tobacco users, 207 (73%) were advised to quit. Referral of new patients who reported using tobacco to an evidence-based cessation program increased from 0% at baseline across all three cancer centers to 64% (range = 30%–89%) during the project period.Conclusions: Implementation of quality improvement learning collaborative models can dramatically improve delivery of guideline-based tobacco cessation treatments to cancer patients.

Low-Burden Strategies to Promote Smoking Cessation Treatment Among Patients With Serious Mental Illness.

Patients with serious mental illness have high smoking prevalence and early mortality. Inadequate implementation of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in community mental health centers (CMHCs) contributes to this disparity. This column describes a study of the effects of quality improvement strategies on treatment and cessation outcomes among patients with serious mental illness at four CMHCs. Two low-burden strategies, decision support and academic detailing with data-driven feedback, were implemented in the CMHCs' clinics from 2014 to 2016. Pre- and postimplementation data from pharmacy and medical records were analyzed. The percentage of patients receiving cessation medication increased from 5% to 18% (p≤.001), and smoking prevalence decreased from 57% to 54% (p≤.001). This quality improvement approach holds great potential for increasing the level of smoking cessation care for patients treated in CMHC settings. Decision support and academic detailing with feedback may be effective strategies to promote best practices.

Seeing New Opportunities to Help Smokers Quit: A UK National Survey of Optometrist-Delivered Smoking Cessation Behavioral Support Interventions.

Smoking is a risk factor for various eye conditions. Brief smoking cessation interventions have demonstrated effectiveness when delivered by a range of health care professionals. Optometrists are well placed in the community to advise otherwise healthy smokers to quit, yet remain relatively neglected in smoking cessation research and policy. In a national survey, this study investigated self-reported practices of UK optometrists for delivering brief tobacco smoking cessation interventions to patients. A randomly selected sample of 1200 optometrists out of the 9000 optometrists registered on the UK College of Optometrists database were invited to complete a 40-item, web-based survey assessing: training related to smoking cessation, current practice (ie, the proportion of patients to which components of very brief advice [Ask, Advise, Assist] and other evidence-based smoking cessation behavior change techniques were delivered), and barriers/enablers to intervention delivery. In total, 408 (34%) responses were received. Most (83%) optometrists received no training in practical skills for delivering smoking cessation support. A third (34%) routinely assessed smoking status. Fewer self-reported advising smokers to quit (22%), offering assistance (via referral to dedicated services) (3%), or advice on smoking cessation medications (2%). Perceived barriers included insufficient knowledge/training (81%) and time (65%). Optometrists were more likely to assess and advise on smoking cessation if they practiced in Scotland, χ2(2) = 32.95, p < .001; an independent optometry practice, χ2(1) = 4.27, p = .39; or had received smoking cessation training, χ2(1) = 13.1, p < .001. Substantial gaps exist in UK optometrists' current smoking cessation training and practice. Evidence-based training resources are needed to support the implementation of smoking cessation interventions into routine optometry practice. Optometrists are well placed in the community to deliver brief advice interventions to a large population of smokers. This survey provides a comprehensive description of current UK optometry practice related to the provision of evidence-based brief tobacco smoking cessation interventions to patients. Although optometrists perceive advising on smoking cessation as part of their role, numerous substantial gaps in current practice and training remain, which need to be addressed through targeted interventions to increase implementation.

Egocentric social networks and smoking among adults with serious mental illness.

Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment is safe and effective for smokers with serious mental illness (SMI); however, quit rates remain low in this population. We explored how social networks influence smoking outcomes among people with SMI who participated in smoking cessation treatment at community mental health centers. We conducted egocentric social network interviews with 41 individuals with SMI who participated in a statewide Medicaid demonstration project of smoking cessation treatment. We estimated the proportions of current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers in participants' (i.e., egos') networks and examined support for quitting from alters, defined as family, friends, peers, or significant others. We used logistic regression and mixed-effect logistic regression to explore the relationship between social network variables and ego's smoking status following cessation treatment. Egos reported an average of 5.9 ± 2.2 alters; 52% of alters were current smokers; 18% were former smokers; and 30% never smoked. The majority (57%) of alters helped an ego quit smoking. The presence of former smokers in the network was associated with decreased odds that the ego was smoking post-treatment. Egos whose friends were highly interconnected were less likely to smoke after treatment. Former smokers in the network may be a valuable resource for quitting particularly for vulnerable groups where there is a high prevalence and acceptability of smoking. Our initial findings suggest that a highly interconnected friendship network structure may be beneficial for people with SMI who are trying to quit smoking.

T92. QUITLINK: ACCESSIBLE SMOKING CESSATION SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH SEVERE AND ENDURING MENTAL ILLNESS

BackgroundPeople with severe mental illness (SMI) typically die 20 years earlier than the general population, largely due to smoking related diseases. Their smoking rate is alarmingly high and persistent, which contrasts sharply with the steady decline in the general population’s smoking rate. Smokers with SMI are equally motivated to quit smoking, but report less encouragement to quit by health professionals and are less able to succeed. When engaged in a program, some can quit successfully, but at lower rates than for the general population. Evidence-based smoking cessation interventions, such as quitlines, are underutilised by smokers with SMI. There is an urgent need to develop highly accessible, appropriately tailored cessation services for smokers with SMI to which mental health services can routinely refer smokers, and to explore why low smoking cessation rates persist among people with SMI receiving cessation treatment.Quitlink will utilise peer workers to identify, support, and refer smokers with SMI in mental health services to Quitline, who will deliver a tailored, proactive and accessible smoking cessation intervention. Additionally, we wish to investigate participant and health worker perceptions of the support provided by Quitlink, the nature of barriers encountered and their impact on initiating and succeeding with cessation.MethodsDesign: A multi-centre prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) design will be utilised to compare standard smoking care alone against Quitlink. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, end of treatment, 3 months post treatment and 6 months post treatment.Setting and sample: 382 smokers will be recruited from three mental health services in Victoria: Mind Australia, Neami and Melbourne’s St Vincent’s hospital.InterventionThe manual guided Quitlink intervention consists of standard smoking care plus: Referral to Quitline, Quitline counselling, Quitline provision of NRT, Quitline engagement with mental health services, Quitline engagement of support network and peer worker help with participant contact.ResultsAs recommended by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco expert workgroup, the primary outcome measure in this study will be 6 months prolonged abstinence at the 8-month follow-up (allowing participants up to 2 months to stop). Prolonged 6-month abstinence will be defined as per the Russell Standard, i.e. self-report of abstinence for 6 months (allowing up to 5 cigarettes in total) and biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence (validated in a face-to-face visit using expired CO monitoring using a Micro+ Smokelyzer, with a reading of over 8ppm defined as a treatment failure).DiscussionOutcomes of the project will determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel and highly translatable intervention resulting from linking two existing services (Quitline and mental health peer workers). This will be the world first RCT of a Quitline intervention delivered to people with SMI that also includes a concurrent economic evaluation. As smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in people with SMI, if Quitlink is shown to be effective, it has the potential to greatly improve individuals’ longevity, quality of life, mental health and reduce health care costs. This is an innovative and practical service delivery model that has the potential to ensure that smokers with SMI have access to best-practice smoking cessation treatment. Secondly, regardless of effectiveness outcomes, the project’s qualitative study will provide greater insights into the barriers faced by smokers with SMI and will assist in the development of even more effective interventions.

Global Bridges Healthcare Alliance for Tobacco Dependence Treatment: implementing evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in mental health and addiction care units in Brazil and Portugal

Global Bridges Healthcare Alliance for Tobacco Dependence Treatment: implementing evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in mental health and addiction care units in Brazil and Portugal

Changes and Clinical Consequences of Smoking Cessation in Patients With COPD: A Prospective Analysis From the CHAIN Cohort

Despite the existing evidence-based smoking cessation interventions, chances of achieving that goal in real life are still low among patients with COPD. We sought to evaluate the clinical consequences of changes in smoking habits in a large cohort of patients with COPD. CHAIN (COPD History Assessment in Spain) is a Spanish multicenter study carried out at pulmonary clinics including active and former smokers with COPD. Smoking status was certified by clinical history and co-oximetry. Clinical presentation and disease impact were recorded via validated questionnaires, including the London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). No specific smoking cessation intervention was carried out. Factors associated with and clinical consequences of smoking cessation were analyzed by multivariate regression and decision tree analyses. One thousand and eighty-one patients with COPD were included (male, 80.8%; age, 65.2 [SD 8.9] years; FEV1, 60.2 [20.5]%). During the 2-year follow-up time (visit 2, 906 patients; visit 3, 791 patients), the majority of patients maintained the same smoking habit. Decision tree analysis detected chronic expectoration as the most relevant variable to identify persistent quitters in the future, followed by an LCADL questionnaire (cutoff 9 points). Total anxiety HADS score was the most relevant clinical impact associated with giving up tobacco, followed by the LCADL questionnaire with a cutoff value of 10 points. In this real-life prospective COPD cohort with no specific antismoking intervention, the majority of patients did not change their smoking status. Our study also identifies baseline expectoration, anxiety, and dyspnea with daily activities as the major determinants of smoking status in COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov; No. NCT01122758; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Evaluation of a population-level strategy to promote tobacco treatment use among insured smokers: a pragmatic, randomized trial

BackgroundMost smokers do not use evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Increasing utilization of these services is an important public health goal. Health care systems and insurers are well positioned to support this goal within their patient populations. We tested whether a brief, mail-based intervention increased utilization of tobacco cessation services among insured smokers.MethodsAdult smokers were identified via automated health plan data and randomized to one of five treatment arms (n = 4767). Randomization was stratified by gender, age, and type of health plan coverage. Three arms received a letter containing motivational content and treatment referral information. Motivational content emphasized either the financial, health, or values-based benefits of quitting. One arm received a referral letter with no motivational content, and one arm received no letter. Enrollment in the referred tobacco cessation program was monitored for 5 months. Treatment was available to all participants through their insurance.ResultsAcross all four letter conditions, 0.8% of participants enrolled in tobacco treatment compared to 0.9% in the no letter reference group (p = .69). No single letter condition was superior to the others (p = .71), but treatment uptake was greater among participants who received their care and coverage from the health plan versus those with insurance coverage only (1.2% vs. 0.3%, p < .01).ConclusionsA one-time, mailed letter is not a cost-effective strategy for promoting use of covered smoking cessation treatment within large health plan populations, particularly when the message source is an insurance provider only and does not also provide clinical care. Health plans and insurers should consider alternative outreach efforts to promote treatment uptake among smokers.Trial registrationsTRN registered retrospectively with ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com). Registered on 11/01/2018. Registration number: ISRCTN32311137.