State Tobacco Quitline Research Articles

Short Communication: Radon testing via a state tobacco quitline

ObjectiveExposure to radon gas at home is the second largest cause of lung cancer after smoking and dramatically increases smokers’ risk of lung cancer. State tobacco quitlines are uniquely positioned to inform smokers about radon, yet, to our knowledge, none does so. We explored the feasibility of introducing free radon tests via the tobacco quitline in North Dakota, a state with one of the highest radon levels in the U.S. MethodsFive hundred consecutive callers to the ND Quits Tobacco quitline from February 2021 to February 2023 were invited to complete a brief radon questionnaire and receive a free radon test kit. Radon tests were bar-coded so that the return rate of the tests and the radon levels could be determined. ResultsTwo hundred fifty-one (51 %) callers completed the questionnaire and seventy-five radon tests were successfully returned to the laboratory. More than one third of the test results were ≥ 4.0 pCi/L, the action level recommended by the EPA. Only 1 in 5 participants reported knowing that radon caused lung cancer. ConclusionRadon knowledge among ND smokers is poor. Radon test distribution via quitlines is feasible and may be a valuable addition to quitline services, particularly in states with high radon levels.

Tobacco Quitline Callers Who Use Cannabis and Their Likelihood of Quitting Cigarette Smoking

Cigarette smoking continues to decline in the U.S., but cannabis use is increasing. Many people who smoke cigarettes also use cannabis. This study examines the characteristics of persons who co-use and those who do not co-use and the likelihood of quitting cigarettes for callers to Kick It California, a large state tobacco quitline. Data were examined from Kick It California callers from January 2020 through December 2023 (N=45,151), including those from a subgroup randomly sampled and reached for evaluation at 7 months after quitline enrollment (n=3,545). The rate of cigarette smoking cessation at 7 months after enrollment for people who co-use cannabis was compared with that for people who do not. Analyses started in 2023 and concluded in January 2024. More than a quarter (27.2%) of Kick It California callers co-used cannabis. They were more likely to be male, to be younger, and to have a mental health condition than those who did not. Those who co-use cannabis and those who do not have similar rates of receiving quitline counseling or using Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation aids. Controlled for effects of personal characteristics and use of smoking-cessation services, people who co-use cannabis were less likely to quit cigarette smoking 7 months after enrollment (23.2% vs 28.9%; p<0.001). Among those who co-use, 42.9% intended to quit using cannabis in the next 30 days. A substantial percentage of tobacco quitline callers use cannabis. Those who do co-use quit cigarette smoking at a lower rate than those who do not. Over 40% of people who co-use reported intention to quit cannabis, making tobacco quitlines a rich environment to learn about people who co-use and develop strategies for intervention.

A smoking cessation intervention for rural veterans tailored to individual risk factors: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

IntroductionRates of cigarette use remain elevated among those living in rural areas. Depressive symptoms, risky alcohol use, and weight concerns frequently accompany cigarette smoking and may adversely affect quitting. Whether treatment for tobacco use that simultaneously addresses these issues affects cessation outcomes is uncertain. MethodsThe study was a multicenter, two-group, randomized controlled trial involving mostly rural veterans who smoke (N = 358) receiving treatment at one of five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The study randomly assigned participants to a tailored telephone counseling intervention or referral to their state tobacco quitline. Both groups received guideline-recommended smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, selected using a shared decision-making approach. The primary outcome was self-reported seven-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at three and six months. The study used salivary cotinine to verify self-reported quitting at six months. ResultsSelf-reported PPA was significantly greater in participants assigned to Tailored Counseling at three (OR = 1.66; 95 % CI: 1.07–2.58) but not six (OR = 1.35; 95 % CI: 0.85–2.15) months. Post hoc subgroup analyses examining treatment group differences based on whether participants had a positive screen for elevated depressive symptoms, risky alcohol use, and/or concerns about weight gain indicated that the cessation benefit of Tailored Counseling at three months was limited to those with ≥1 accompanying concern (OR = 2.02, 95 % CI: 1.20–3.42). Biochemical verification suggested low rates of misreporting. ConclusionsA tailored smoking cessation intervention addressing concomitant risk factors enhanced short-term abstinence but did not significantly improve long-term quitting. Extending the duration of treatment may be necessary to sustain treatment effects.

Randomized clinical trial examining financial incentives for smoking cessation among mothers of young children and possible impacts on child secondhand smoke exposure

This randomized clinical trial examined whether financial-incentives increase smoking cessation among mothers of young children and potential impacts on child secondhand-smoke exposure (SHSe). 198 women-child dyads were enrolled and assigned to one of three treatment conditions: best practices (BP, N = 68), best practices plus financial incentives (BP + FI, N = 63), or best practices, financial incentives, and nicotine replacement therapy (BP + FI + NRT, N = 67). The trial was completed in Vermont, USA between June 2015 and October 2020. BP entailed staff referral to the state tobacco quitline; financial incentives entailed mothers earning vouchers exchangeable for retail items for 12 weeks contingent on biochemically-verified smoking abstinence; NRT involved mothers receiving 10 weeks of free transdermal nicotine and nicotine lozenges/gum. Baseline, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 48-week assessments were conducted. Primary outcomes were maternal 7-day point-prevalence abstinence and child SHSe through the 24-week assessment with the 48-week assessment exploratory. Results were analyzed using mixed model repeated measures for categorical data. Odds of maternal abstinence were greater among mothers in BP + FI and BP + FI + NRT compared to BP at the 6- and 12-week assessments (ORs ≥ 7.30; 95% CIs: 2.35–22.71); only abstinence in BP + FI remained greater than BP at the 24-week assessment (OR = 2.95; 95% CIs: 1.06–8.25). Abstinence did not differ significantly between treatment conditions at the 48-week assesssment. There was a significant effect of treatment condition (F[2109] = 3.64, P = .029) on SHSe with levels in BP and BP + FI significantly below BP + FI + NRT (ts[109] ≥ −2.30, Ps ≤ 0.023). Financial incentives for smoking abstinence are efficacious for increasing maternal cessation but that alone was insufficient for reducing child SHSe.ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05740098

Helping low-income smokers quit: findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing specialized quitline services with and without social needs navigation

Quitting 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. Using 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. Participants 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). A 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03194958. National Cancer Institute: R01CA201429.

Expanding population-level interventions to help more low-income smokers quit: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundLow-income Americans have higher rates of smoking and a greater burden of smoking-related disease. In the United States, smokers in every state can access evidence-based telephone counseling through free tobacco quitlines. However, quitlines target smokers who are ready to quit in the next 30 days, which can exclude many low-income smokers. A smoke-free homes intervention may help engage smokers in tobacco control services who are not yet ready to quit. Previous research in low-income populations suggests that receiving a smoke-free homes intervention is associated with higher quit rates. This study tests whether, at a population level, expanding on quitlines to include a smoke-free homes intervention for smokers not ready to quit could engage more low-income smokers and increase long-term cessation rates. MethodsIn a Hybrid Type 2 design, participants are recruited from 211 helplines in 9 states and randomly assigned to standard quitline or quitline plus smoke-free homes intervention arms. Participants in both arms are initially offered quitline services. In the quitline plus smoke-free homes condition, participants who decline the quitline are then offered a smoke-free homes intervention. Participants complete a baseline and follow-up surveys at 3 and 6 months. Those who have not yet quit at the 3-month follow-up are re-offered the interventions, which differ by study arm. The primary study outcome is self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6-month follow-up. ConclusionThis real-world cessation trial involving 9 state tobacco quitlines will help inform whether offering smoke-free homes as an alternative intervention could engage more low-income smokers with evidence-based interventions and increase overall cessation rates.This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Identifier: NCT04311983).

Appeal of Tobacco Quitline Services Among Low-Income Smokers.

State tobacco quitlines are delivering cessation assistance through an increasingly diverse range of channels. However, offerings vary from state to state, many smokers are unaware of what is available, and it is not yet clear how much demand exists for different types of assistance. In particular, the demand for online and digital cessation interventions among low-income smokers, who bear a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related disease, is not well understood. We examined interest in using 13 tobacco quitline services in a racially diverse sample of 1,605 low-income smokers in 9 states who had called a 2-1-1 helpline and participated in an ongoing intervention trial from June 2020 through September 2022. We classified services as standard (used by ≥90% of state quitlines [eg, calls from a quit coach, nicotine replacement therapy, printed cessation booklets]) or nonstandard (mobile app, personalized web, personalized text, online chat with quit coach). Interest in nonstandard services was high. Half or more of the sample reported being very or somewhat interested in a mobile app (65%), a personalized web program (59%), or chatting online with quit coaches (49%) to help them quit. In multivariable regression analyses, younger smokers were more interested than older smokers in digital and online cessation services, as were women and smokers with greater nicotine dependence. On average, participants were very interested in at least 3 different cessation services, suggesting that bundled or combination interventions might be designed to appeal to different groups of low-income smokers. Findings provide some initial hints about potential subgroups and the services they might use in a rapidly changing landscape of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation.

Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline Utilization and Outcomes by Diabetes Status.

Diabetes and cigarette smoking are major causes of morbidity and mortality. Individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who smoke are at an increased risk of smoking- and diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. We examined utilization patterns, satisfaction, and tobacco cessation outcomes among persons with T2D to determine whether the Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline is an equally effective intervention for tobacco users with T2D compared with those without diabetes. This study was a retrospective cohort design using registration and follow-up data from a state tobacco quitline. We examined Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline registration data from July 2015 to June 2021 to compare Helpline utilization among individuals who self-reported a previous diagnosis of T2D compared with those not reporting a diagnosis of diabetes. Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline registrants enrolled in a call program, either the single- or multiple-call program, who reported diabetes status at baseline. We compared tobacco use history, program enrollment, and services received for individuals self-reporting T2D with those without diabetes. We compared 30-day point-prevalence abstinence at 7 months and evaluated program satisfaction. Registrants with T2D were more likely to receive a higher intensity of services including the number of coaching calls and the amount of nicotine replacement therapy. At 7-month follow-up, 32.3% of registrants with T2D and 35.1% of those without diabetes reported 30-day point-prevalence abstinence, but the differences were not statistically significant. While findings demonstrate similar effectiveness, more research is needed to better understand why the prevalence of tobacco use remains high among individuals with T2D and how to improve cessation in this population.

Electronic health record closed-loop referral (“eReferral”) to a state tobacco quitline: a retrospective case study of primary care implementation challenges and adaptations

BackgroundHealth system change can increase the reach of evidence-based smoking cessation treatments. Proactive electronic health record (EHR)-enabled, closed-loop referral (“eReferral”) to state tobacco quitlines increases the rates at which patients who smoke accept cessation treatment. Implementing such system change poses many challenges, however, and adaptations to system contexts are often required, but are understudied. This retrospective case study identified adaptations to eReferral EHR tools and implementation strategies in two healthcare systems.MethodsIn a large clustered randomized controlled trial (C-RCT; NCT02735382) conducted in 2016–2017, 11 primary care clinics in two healthcare systems implemented quitline eReferral, starting with 1 pilot clinic per system followed by 2 phases of implementation (an experimental phase in 5–6 test clinics per system and then a system-wide dissemination phase in both systems). Adaptations were informed by stakeholder input from live trainings, follow-up calls and meetings in the first month after eReferral launch, emails, direct observation by researchers, and clinic staff survey responses. Retrospective, descriptive analysis characterized implementation strategy modifications and adaptations using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). A pre- and post-implementation survey assessed staff ratings of eReferral acceptability and implementation barriers and facilitators.FindingsMajor modifications to closed-loop eReferral implementation strategies included aligning the eReferral initiative with other high-priority health system objectives, modifying eReferral user interfaces and training in their use, modifying eReferral workflows and associated training, and maintaining and enhancing interoperability and clinician feedback functions. The two health systems both used Epic EHRs but used different approaches to interfacing with the quitline vendor and integrating eReferral into clinician workflows. Both health systems engaged in iterative refinement of the EHR alert prompting eReferral, the eReferral order, trainings, and workflows. Staff survey comments suggested moderate acceptability of eReferral processes and identified possible targets for future modifications in eReferral, including reducing clinician burden related to EHR documentation and addressing clinicians’ negative beliefs about patient receptivity to cessation treatment.ConclusionsSystem-wide implementation of tobacco quitline eReferral in primary care outpatient clinics is feasible but requires extensive coordination across stakeholders, tailoring to local health system EHR configurations, and sensitivity to system- and clinic-specific workflows.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02735382. Registered on 12 August 2016.

Hospital-based tobacco treatment for inpatients with a history of cancer

ObjectiveTo describe treatment engagement and outcomes of patients who smoke with cancer and received tobacco cessation treatment during hospitalization. MethodWe analyzed treatment engagement and cessation outcomes for hospitalized patients who smoke with a current or former history of cancer receiving treatment from an inpatient tobacco treatment service between July, 2018 to October, 2019. ResultsThe service treated 407 inpatients. Patients had an overall high level of interest in quitting (7.6, 0–10 scale). One in three accepted cessation pharmacotherapies during hospitalization or at discharge (35%) and/or referral to the state tobacco quitline (37%). Of 189 patients reached at one-month post-discharge, 73 (39%) reported tobacco abstinence (18% intent to treat—ITT—quit rate); 35.5% had used cessation pharmacotherapy and 6.5% had engaged in quitline counseling. Of 151 patients reached at 6 months post-discharge, 29% reported abstinence (11%, ITT). ConclusionInpatients with a history of cancer are interested in quitting. Post-discharge quit rates and pharmacotherapy use were high but quitline use was low. Hospitalization is an under-utilized, prime treatment opportunity and teachable moment for people with a history of cancer who continue to use tobacco.

Treatment development, implementation, and participant baseline characteristics: A randomized pilot study of a tailored quitline intervention for individuals who smoke and vape

BackgroundApproximately 57,000 dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes call state tobacco quitlines in the U.S. each year. MethodsThis paper describes a behavioral intervention for dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes designed to increase cigarette abstinence. It also presents baseline data from a randomized pilot comparing the Enhanced E-cigarette Coaching (EEC) intervention with quitline treatment as usual (TAU). Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline callers were recruited at registration and randomized to EEC (n = 46) or TAU (n = 50). Treatment included 5 coaching calls and free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). EEC treatment included enhanced e-cigarette assessment, education, a shared decision-making quit plan development approach, and tailored behavioral support. ResultsParticipants averaged 40.6 years of age and 19.2 cigarettes per day; 85% smoked daily, 48% vaped daily, and 53% reported medium to high e-cigarette dependence. Most reported using e-cigarettes to quit (43%) or to cut down (26%) on smoking. Most had previously tried to quit smoking (91%) and had tried FDA-approved cessation medications (79%). Beliefs about vaping, NRT, and smoking included misinformation. After discussing the relative risks of NRT, vaping, and smoking, most EEC participants (89%) selected a quit plan that incorporated both NRT and vaping. ConclusionsAt baseline, most participants reported a history of failed quit attempts with NRT and were vaping to quit or cut down on smoking, but they may need more support to completely quit smoking. If the EEC improves smoking outcomes, it would provide needed guidance on behavioral support best practices for individuals who vape and want to quit smoking.

Linkage of Maternal Caregiver Smoking Behaviors on Environmental and Clinical Outcomes of Children with Asthma: A Post-Hoc Analysis of a Financial Incentive Trial Targeting Reduction in Pediatric Tobacco Smoke Exposures.

(1) Background: Monthly variability in smoking behaviors in caregivers of pediatric asthmatics yields questions of how much and when does smoking reduction result in improved environmental and clinical outcomes. (2) Methods: Post hoc analysis of data from a 6 month pilot randomized-control trial occurring from May 2017 to May 2018 in Baltimore City (MD, USA). The initial trial’s primary intervention explored the utility of financial incentives in modifying caregiver smoking behaviors. Post hoc analyses examined all dyads independent of the initial trial’s randomization status. All caregivers received pediatric tobacco smoke harm reduction education, in addition to monthly encouragement to access the state tobacco quitline for individual phone-based counseling and nicotine replacement therapy. Maternal caregivers who were active cigarette smokers and their linked asthmatic child (aged 2–12 years) were grouped into two classifications (“high” versus “low”) based on the child and caregiver’s cotinine levels. A “low” cotinine level was designated by at least a 25% reduction in cotinine levels during 3 months of the trial period; achieving ≤2 months of low cotinine levels defaulted to the “high” category. Twenty-seven dyads (caregivers and children) (total n = 54) were assigned to the “high” category, and eighteen dyads (caregivers and children) (total n = 36) were allocated to the “low” category. The primary outcome measure was the correlation of caregiver cotinine levels with pediatric cotinine values. Secondary outcomes included asthma control, in addition to caregiver anxiety and depression. (3) Results: Caregivers with 3 months of ≥25% decrease in cotinine levels had a significantly greater mean change in child cotinine levels (p = 0.018). “Low” caregiver cotinine levels did not significantly improve pediatric asthma control (OR 2.12 (95% CI: 0.62–7.25)). Caregiver anxiety and depression outcomes, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-4 scores, was not significantly different based on cotinine categorization (p = 0.079); (4) Conclusion: Reduced pediatric cotinine levels were seen in caregivers who reduced their smoking for at least 3 months, but clinical outcome measures remained unchanged.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups. In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

An electronic health record-based interoperable eReferral system to enhance smoking Quitline treatment in primary care.

The study sought to determine whether interoperable, electronic health record-based referral (eReferral) produces higher rates of referral and connection to a state tobacco quitline than does fax-based referral, thus addressing low rates of smoking treatment delivery in health care. Twenty-three primary care clinics from 2 healthcare systems (A and B) in Wisconsin were randomized, unblinded, over 2016-2017, to 2 smoking treatment referral methods: paper-based fax-to-quit (system A =6, system B = 6) or electronic (eReferral; system A = 5, system B = 6). Both methods referred adult patients who smoked to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quitline. A total of 14 636 smokers were seen in the 2 systems (system A: 54.5% women, mean age 48.2 years; system B: 53.8% women, mean age 50.2 years). Clinics with eReferral, vs fax-to-quit, referred a higher percentage of adult smokers to the quitline: system A clinic referral rate = 17.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.2%-18.5%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 3.5%-4.2%) (P < .001); system B clinic referral rate = 18.9% (95% CI, 18.3%-19.6%) vs 5.2% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.6%) (P < .001). Average rates of quitline connection were higher in eReferral than F2Q clinics: system A = 5.4% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.8%) vs 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.5%) (P < .001); system B = 5.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.7%) vs 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) (P < .001). Electronic health record-based eReferral provided an effective, closed-loop, interoperable means of referring patients who smoke to telephone quitline services, producing referral rates 3-4 times higher than the current standard of care (fax referral), including especially high rates of referral of underserved individuals. eReferral may help address the challenge of providing smokers with treatment for tobacco use during busy primary care visits.ClinicalTrials.gov; No. NCT02735382.

Critical steps in the path to using cessation pharmacotherapy following hospital-initiated tobacco treatment

BackgroundHospital-initiated smoking cessation interventions utilizing pharmacotherapy increase post-discharge quit rates. Use of smoking cessation medications following discharge may further increase quit rates. This study aims to identify individual, smoking-related and hospitalization-related predictors of engagement in three different steps in the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy utilization process: 1) receiving medications as inpatient, 2) being discharged with a prescription and 3) using medications at 1-month post-hospitalization, while accounting for associations between these steps.MethodsStudy data come from a clinical trial (N = 1054) of hospitalized smokers interested in quitting who were randomized to recieve referral to a quitline via either warm handoff or fax. Variables were from the electronic health record, the state tobacco quitline, and participant self-report. Relationships among the predictors and the steps in cessation medication utilization were assessed using bivariate analyses and multivariable path analysis.ResultsTwenty-eight percent of patients reported using medication at 1-month post-discharge. Receipt of smoking cessation medications while hospitalized (OR = 2.09, 95%CI [1.39, 3.15], p < .001) and discharge with a script (OR = 4.88, 95%CI [3.34, 7.13], p < .001) were independently associated with medication use at 1-month post-hospitalization. The path analysis also revealed that the likelihood of being discharged with a script was strongly influenced by receipt of medication as an inpatient (OR = 6.61, 95%CI [4.66, 9.38], p < .001). A number of other treatment- and individual-level factors were associated with medication use in the hospital, receipt of a script, and use post-discharge.ConclusionsTo encourage post-discharge smoking cessation medication use, concerted effort should be made to engage smokers in tobacco treatment while in hospital. The individual and hospital-level factors associated with each step in the medication utilization process provide good potential targets for future implementation research to optimize treatment delivery and outcomes.Trial registrationNumber: NCT01305928.Date registered: February 24, 2011.

A randomized trial of decision support for tobacco dependence treatment in an inpatient electronic medical record: clinical results

BackgroundSmokers usually abstain from tobacco while hospitalized but relapse after discharge. Inpatient interventions may encourage sustained quitting. We previously demonstrated that a decision support tool embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) improved physicians’ treatment of hospitalized smokers. This report describes the effect on quit rates of this decision support tool and order set for hospitalized smokers.MethodsIn a single hospital system, 254 physicians were randomized 1:1 to receive a decision support tool and order set, embedded in the EHR. When an adult patient was admitted to a medical service, an electronic alert appeared if current smoking was recorded in the EHR. For physicians receiving the intervention, the alert linked to an order set for tobacco treatment medications and electronic referral to the state tobacco quitline. Additionally, “Tobacco Use Disorder” was added to the patient’s problem list, and a secure message was sent to the patient’s primary care provider (PCP). In the control arm, no alert appeared. Patients were contacted by phone at 1, 6, and 12 months; those reporting tobacco abstinence at 12 months were asked to return to measure exhaled carbon monoxide. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the data.ResultsFrom 2013 to 2016, the alert fired for 10,939 patients (5391 intervention, 5548 control). Compared to control physicians, intervention physicians were more likely to order tobacco treatment medication, populate the problem list with tobacco use disorder, refer to the quitline, and notify the patient’s PCP. In a subset of 1044 patients recruited for intensive follow-up, one-year quit rates for intervention and control patients were, respectively, 11.5% and 11.6%, (p = 0.94), after controlling for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance. Similarly, there were no differences in 1- and 6-month quit rates.ConclusionsAlthough we were able to improve processes of care, long-term tobacco quit rates were unchanged. This likely reflects, in part, the need for sustained quitting interventions, and higher-than-expected quit rates in controls. Future enhancements should improve prescription of medications for smoking cessation at discharge, engagement of primary care providers, and perhaps direct engagement of patients in a more longitudinal approach.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01691105. Registered on September 12, 2012

Factors associated with future dental care utilization among low-income smokers overdue for dental visits

BackgroundSmokers are at increased risk of oral disease. While routine dental care can help prevent and treat oral health problems, smokers have far lower rates of dental care utilization compared with non-smokers. We sought to better understand which factors may facilitate or hinder dental care utilization among low-income smokers participating in a randomized intervention trial in order to inform future intervention planning.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data collected between 2015 and 2017 as part of the OralHealth4Life trial. Participants were eligible callers to the Louisiana, Nebraska, and Oregon state tobacco quitlines who had no dental appointment in the prior or upcoming six months. We examined the association between participants’ baseline characteristics and their receiving professional dental care between baseline and the 6-month follow-up survey.ResultsParticipants were racially diverse (42% non-White) and two-thirds had an annual household income under $20,000. Most (86.7%) had not had a dental cleaning in more than one year. Commonly cited barriers to dental care included cost (83.7%) and no dental insurance (78.1%). Those with dental insurance were more likely to see a dentist at follow-up (RR 1.66). Similarly, those reporting a dental insurance barrier to care were less likely to see a dentist at follow-up (RR 0.69); however, there was no significant utilization difference between those reporting a cost barrier vs. those who did not. After controlling for these financial factors, the following baseline characteristics were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of dental care utilization at 6 months: higher motivation (RR 2.16) and self-efficacy (RR 1.80) to visit the dentist, having a disability (RR 1.63), having a higher education level (RR 1.52), and having perceived gum disease (RR 1.49). Factors significantly associated with a lower likelihood of dental care utilization included being married (RR 0.68) and not having a last dental cleaning within the past year (RR 0.47).ConclusionsOur findings provide important insight into factors that may facilitate or deter use of professional dental care among low-income smokers. This information could inform the development of future interventions to promote dental care utilization.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02347124; registered 27 January 2015.

Tobacco cessation outcomes: The case for milestone-based services.

INTRODUCTIONThis study focuses on a Midwest State’s tobacco quitline. The purpose was to understand possible relationships between services provided and cessation rates.METHODSThe data examined in this study came from aggregated intake/treatment data and follow-up interview data. The overall response rate was 22.9%. Measures included quit rate, quit duration, length of services, number of services, stage of change, confidence to quit, and source of referral.RESULTSThe dataset included 1452 cases; 77% enrolled in services only once, 17% enrolled twice and 6% enrolled three or more times. Use of medication was higher among those who quit [χ2(1)=7.1, p=0.009, Cramer’s V=0.07] than among those who did not. Use of e-cigarettes was lower among those who quit at the time of follow-up [χ2(1)=31.5, p<0.001, Cramer’s V=0.15]. Respondents who had quit at the time of the follow-up were significantly more likely to have reported a higher confidence to quit at intake [χ2(1)=24.1, p<0.001, Cramer’s V=0.13]. Among those who improved their stage of change during treatment, 35% had quit at follow-up, compared with 18% among those who did not improve.CONCLUSIONSStudy findings related to stage of change and associations between confidence and cessation may have meaningful implications. Cessation success may depend on what is accomplished during treatment and the intersection of clients’ motivation, satisfaction, confidence, and cessation status at the end of treatment.

A Novel Public Health Approach to Measuring Tobacco Cessation Needs Among Cancer Survivors in Alaska.

Cancer survivors who continue to smoke have poorer response to treatment, higher risk for future cancers and lower survival rates than those who quit tobacco after diagnosis. Despite the increased risk for negative health outcomes, tobacco use among Alaskan cancer survivors is 19%, among the highest in the nation. To characterize and address tobacco cessation needs among cancer survivors who called a quit line for help in quitting tobacco, Alaska's Comprehensive Cancer Control program initiated a novel partnership with the state's Tobacco Quit Line. Alaska's Tobacco Quit Line, a state-funded resource that provides confidential coaching, support, and nicotine replacement therapies for Alaskan adults who wish to quit using tobacco, was used to collect demographic characteristics, health behaviors, cessation referral methods and other information on users. From September 2013- December 2014, the Alaska Quit Line included questions about previous cancer status and other chronic conditions to assess this information from cancer survivors who continue to use tobacco. Alaska's Tobacco Quit Line interviewed 3,141 smokers, 129 (4%) of whom were previously diagnosed with cancer. Most cancer survivors who called in to the quit line were female (72%), older than 50 years of age (65%), white (67%), and smoked cigarettes (95%). Cancer survivors reported a higher prevalence of asthma, COPD and heart disease than the non-cancer cohort. Approximately 34% of cancer survivors were referred to the quit line by a health care provider. This report illustrates the need for health care provider awareness of persistent tobacco use among cancer survivors in Alaska. It also provides a sound methodologic design for assessing ongoing tobacco cessation needs among cancer survivors who call a quit line. This survey methodology can be adapted by other public health programs to address needs and increase healthy behaviors among individuals with chronic disease.

Design and implementation of decision support for tobacco dependence treatment in an inpatient electronic medical record: a randomized trial.

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01691105).