Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lindson N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8543670 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.
Lindson Nicola N Pritchard Gillian G Hong Bosun B Fanshawe Thomas R TR Pipe Andrew A Papadakis Sophia S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20210906
<h4>Background</h4>Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of a locally adapted evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to implementation of smoking cessation guidelines into routine practice.Data sources/study settingWe used patient questionnaires, practice surveys, and administrative data in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care practices across five southwestern states.Study designIn a group-randomized trial of 18 VA facilities, matched on size and academic affiliation, we evaluated intervention practices' abilities to implement evidence-based smoking cessation care following structured evidence review, local priority setting, quality improvement plan development, practice facilitation, expert feedback, and monitoring. Control practices received mailed guidelines and VA audit-feedback reports as usual care.Data collectionTo represent the population of primary care-based smokers, we randomly sampled and screened 36,445 patients to identify and enroll eligible smokers at baseline (n=1,941) and follow-up at 12 months (n=1,080). We used computer-assisted telephone interviewing to collect smoking behavior, nicotine dependence, readiness to change, health status, and patient sociodemographics. We used practice surveys to measure structure and process changes, and administrative data to assess population utilization patterns.Principal findingsIntervention practices adopted multifaceted EBQI plans, but had difficulty implementing them, ultimately focusing on smoking cessation clinic referral strategies. While attendance rates increased (p<.0001), we found no intervention effect on smoking cessation.ConclusionsEBQI stimulated practices to increase smoking cessation clinic referrals and try other less evidence-based interventions that did not translate into improved quit rates at a population level.
| S-EPMC2653889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInternationally, there is an 'evidence-practice gap' in the rate healthcare professionals assess tobacco use and offer cessation support in clinical practice, including primary care. Evidence is needed for implementation strategies enacted in the 'real-world'.AimTo identify implementation strategies aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care, their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and any perceived facilitators and barriers for effectiveness.Methods'Embase', 'Medline', 'PsycINFO', 'CINAHL', 'Global Health', 'Social Policy & Practice', 'ASSIA Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts' databases, and grey literature sources were searched from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated an implementation strategy implemented on a nation-/state-wide scale, targeting any type of healthcare professional within the primary care setting, aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision.Primary outcome measuresimplementation strategy identification, and effectiveness (practitioner-/patient-level).Secondary outcome measuresperceived facilitators and barriers to effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsOf 49 included papers, half were of moderate/low risk of bias. The implementation strategy domains identified involved utilizing financial strategies, changing infrastructure, training and educating stakeholders, and engaging consumers. The first three increased practitioner-level smoking status recording and cessation advice provision. Interventions in the utilizing financial strategies domain also appeared to increase smoking cessation (patient-level). Key facilitator: external policies/incentives (tobacco control measures and funding for public health and cessation clinics). Key barriers: time and financial constraints, lack of free cessation medications and follow-up, deprioritisation and unclear targets in primary care, lack of knowledge of healthcare professionals, and unclear messaging to patients about available cessation support options. No studies assessed cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsSome implementation strategy categories increased the rate of smoking status recording and cessation advice provision in primary care. We found some evidence for interventions utilizing financial strategies having a beneficial impact on cessation. Identified barriers to effectiveness should be reduced. More pragmatic approaches are recommended, such as hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs and utilising Multiphase Optimization Strategy methodology.Protocol registrationPROSPERO:CRD42021246683.
| S-EPMC9875430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.Design, setting, and participantsA matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.ResultsDelivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).Conclusions and relevanceAssist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.
| S-EPMC5089370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized efficacy clinical trials conducted in research settings may not accurately reflect the benefits of tobacco dependence treatments when used in real-world clinical settings. Effectiveness trials (eg, in primary care settings) are needed to estimate the benefits of cessation treatments in real-world use.MethodsA total of 1346 primary care patients attending routine appointments were recruited by medical assistants in 12 primary care clinics. Patients were randomly assigned to 5 active pharmacotherapies: 3 monotherapies (nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, and bupropion hydrochloride sustained release [SR]) and 2 combination therapies (patch + lozenge and bupropion SR + lozenge). Patients were referred to a telephone quit line for cessation counseling. Primary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 6 months after quitting and number of days to relapse.ResultsAmong 7128 eligible smokers (> or =10 cigarettes per day) attending routine primary care appointments, 1346 (18.9%) were enrolled in the study. Six-month abstinence rates for the 5 active pharmacotherapies were the following: bupropion SR, 16.8%; lozenge, 19.9%; patch, 17.7%; patch + lozenge, 26.9%; and bupropion SR + lozenge, 29.9%. Bupropion SR + lozenge was superior to all of the monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.46-0.56); patch + lozenge was superior to patch and bupropion monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.56 and 0.54, respectively).ConclusionsOne in 5 smokers attending a routine primary care appointment was willing to make a serious quit attempt that included evidence-based counseling and medication. In this comparative effectiveness study of 5 tobacco dependence treatments, combination pharmacotherapy significantly increased abstinence compared with monotherapies. Provision of free cessation medications plus quit line counseling arranged in the primary care setting holds promise for assisting large numbers of smokers to quit. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00296647.
| S-EPMC2891174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceParental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresThe trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs.ResultsThe study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.
| S-EPMC8017473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of death in the United States, resulting in significant public health and economic costs. Despite progress in reducing tobacco use through pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy smoking cessation interventions, additional treatment options are still needed to improve treatment effectiveness. As an adjunctive treatment, the US Food and Drug Administration recently cleared transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive brain stimulation technique, as an aid for smoking cessation in adults. Given that most smoking cessation interventions occur in the primary care setting, this article aims to introduce TMS, to provide an overview of the evidence of TMS for smoking cessation, and to outline the procedures for implementing TMS in the primary care setting when referral to an interventional psychiatrist is not possible. With growing scientific evidence and increasing regulatory approval of TMS for smoking cessation, this novel treatment option is now available for patients who want to quit smoking but have been unsuccessful with pharmacologic approaches.
| S-EPMC8607981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared the effectiveness of a ‘stepped care’ approach with increasing treatment intensity (‘Step Care’) to one with repeated treatments (‘Recycle’) among cigarette smokers interested in quitting smoking. Step 1 of the Step Care intervention consisted of a single counseling session, nicotine patch for six weeks and telephonic contact. For smokers not achieving tobacco abstinence 6 months after randomization with Step 1, the intensity of the intervention increased to four counseling sessions, bupropion sustained-release, nine telephone calls and three mailings (Step 2). For those not achieving tobacco abstinence 12 months after randomization, smokers received six behavioral counseling sessions, nicotine patch and nicotine gum, nine telephone calls and three mailings (Step 3). The Recycle participants received one session of health behavior counseling, six weeks of the nicotine patch and a telephone call at each step. 270 cigarette smokers were randomized. At 24 months after randomization using an intention to treat analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed in prolonged smoking abstinence between the Step Care and Recycle condition (16.9% versus 9.4%; adjusted OR = 1.88; 95% CI 0.88–4.01; P =0.10). Additional research is needed to explore whether a stepped care intervention increases long-term smoking abstinence rates compared with repeating the same intervention.
| S-EPMC5914340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Smokers unwilling to make a quit attempt can still benefit from smoking intervention. However, it is unclear what proportion of smokers will enter such a Motivation phase intervention, and whether such an intervention attracts different types of smokers than does abstinence oriented treatment. We conducted a study from June 2010 to October 2013 based on a chronic care model of tobacco treatment among study eligible primary care patients (N=1579; 58% women, 89% White) presenting for regular health care visits in southern Wisconsin, U.S. Medical assistants, prompted via the electronic health record (EHR), invited smokers (n=10,242) to learn more about treatment options to help them either reduce their smoking or quit. Of those invited to learn more who were then reached by study staff, 10.2% (n=1046) reported interest in reduction treatment and 24% (n=2465) reported interest in cessation treatment. Patients who selected and ultimately entered reduction (n=492) versus cessation (n=1087) were more likely to report: older age; a history of anxiety; lower motivation to quit; lower primary dependence motives; more close friends or family who smoke; and a greater interval since their last quit attempt. Results suggest that Motivation phase treatment aimed at smoking reduction may increase the proportion and range of smokers inducted into tobacco treatment.
| S-EPMC6211191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:National guidelines for smoking cessation in primary care can be effective in improving clinical practice. This study assessed which parties are involved in the development of such guidelines worldwide, which national guidelines address primary care, what recommendations are made for primary care settings, and how these recommendations correlate with each other and with current evidence. We identified national guidelines using an online resource. Only the most recent version of a guideline was included. If an English version was not available, we requested a translation or summary of the recommendations from the authors. Two researchers independently extracted data on funding sources, development methodologies, involved parties, and recommendations made within the guidelines. These recommendations were categorised using the pile-sort method. Each recommendation was cross-checked with the latest evidence and was awarded an evidence-rating. We identified 43 guidelines from 39 countries and after exclusion, we analysed 26 guidelines (22 targeting general population, 4 targeted subpopulations). Twelve categories of recommendations for primary care were identified. There was almost universal agreement regarding the need to identify smokers, advice them to quit and offer behavioural and pharmacological quit smoking support. Discrepancies were greatest for specific recommendations regarding behavioural and pharmacological support, which are likely to be due to different interpretations of evidence and/or differences in contextual health environments. Based on these findings, we developed a universal checklist of guideline recommendations as a practice tool for primary care professionals and future guideline developers.Smoking cessation support in primary careUNIVERSAL GUIDELINES SOUGHT: An international team call for a universal guideline for primary-care practitioners who help patients to stop smoking. Although many nations have such guidelines, no studies have examined whether these guidelines are consistent with the current evidence. Marjolein Verbiest at the National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, New Zealand, and co-workers of the International Primary Care Respiratory Group and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training reviewed, evaluated and compared 26 national guidelines. Almost all guidelines place importance on identifying smokers, advising them to quit and providing behavioural and medication-based support. However, there were discrepancies in the support offered, which could be due to different interpretations of evidence, costs of medication and cultural differences. The authors offer a checklist for primary care that can inform future universal guidelines suitable for primary care.
| S-EPMC5434788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tobacco consumption is a risk factor for chronic diseases and worldwide around six million people die from long-term exposure to first- or second-hand smoke annually. One effective approach to tobacco control is smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians. However, research suggests that smoking cessation counseling is not sufficiently implemented in primary care. In order to understand and address the discrepancy between evidence and practice, an overview of counseling practices is needed. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the frequency of smoking cessation counseling in primary care. Self-reported counseling behavior by physicians is categorized according to the 5A's strategy (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange). An electronic database search was performed in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library and overall, 3491 records were identified. After duplicates were removed, the title and abstracts of 2468 articles were screened for eligibility according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The remaining 97 full-text articles reporting smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians were assessed for eligibility. Eligible studies were those that measured physicians' self-reported smoking cessation counseling activities via questionnaire. Thirty-five articles were included in the final review (1 intervention and 34 cross-sectional studies). On average, behavior corresponding to the 5A's was reported by 65% of physicians for "Ask", 63% for "Advise", 36% for "Assess", 44% for "Assist", and 22% of physicians for "Arrange", although the measurement and reporting of each of these counseling practices varied across studies. Overall, the results indicate that the first strategies (ask, advise) were more frequently reported than the subsequent strategies (assess, assist, arrange). Moreover, there was considerable variation in the items used to assess counseling behaviour and developing a standardized instrument to assess the counseling strategies implemented in primary care would help to identify and address current gaps in practice.
| S-EPMC5176294 | biostudies-literature