Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain. Objective: To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022. Interventions: TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Results: A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

Understanding engagement behaviors and rapport building in tobacco cessation telephone counseling: An analysis of audio-recorded counseling calls.

INTRODUCTION: Though telephone counseling is a modality commonly used to promote health behavior change, including tobacco cessation, specific counselor and participant behaviors that indicate engagement and therapeutic alliance remain poorly characterized in the literature. We sought to explore smokers' and counselors' engagement and rapport-building behaviors in telephone counseling for smoking cessation and patterns of these behaviors by smokers' psychiatric symptoms. METHODS: The study team transcribed, audio-recorded tobacco cessation counseling calls for the presence of engagement and rapport-building behaviors among recently hospitalized participants enrolled in a smoking cessation randomized controlled trial (RCT). The study used baseline data from the RCT to explore frequencies of counselors' and smokers' behaviors among smokers who had reported more (vs. fewer) symptoms of depression (PHQ8 ≥ 10) or anxiety (GAD7 ≥ 10) at study entry. RESULTS: Participants (n = 37) were mostly female (23/37), White (26/37), with a median age of 58. At study entry while hospitalized, moderate-to-severe symptoms of depression (18/37) and anxiety (22/37) were common. Participant-led engagement behaviors included referencing past quit attempts, asking questions, elaborating response to yes/no questions, expressing commitment to behavior change, and assigning importance to nonautomated calls. Counselor-led behaviors included building off prior interaction, empathy, normalizing challenges, reframing and summarizing, validating achievements, and expressing shared experience. Both participants and counselors engaged via general discussion and humor. Participant-led engagement behaviors appeared more often in call transcripts among patients with higher baseline depression and anxiety symptoms compared to those with lower symptom scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study classified participant-led, counselor-led, and shared engagement behaviors during tobacco cessation counseling calls. Increased engagement via telephone counseling may be important for individuals with psychiatric symptoms identified at the start of treatment.

Smartphone health apps for tobacco Cessation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Given the low retention and lack of persistent support by traditional tobacco cessation programs, evidence-based smartphone app-supported interventions can be an important tobacco control component. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the types of studies that use smartphone apps for interventions in tobacco cessation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed (1946-2019), EMBASE (1974-2019), and PsycINFO (1806-2019) databases with keywords related to smartphone-supported tobacco cessation. Included articles were required to meet 3 baseline screening criteria: 1) be written in English, 2) include an abstract, and 3) be a full, peer-reviewed manuscript. The criteria for the second level of review were: 1) primary outcome of tobacco cessation, 2) intervention study, and 3) smartphone app as primary focus of study. RESULTS: Of 1973 eligible manuscripts, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 17) recruited adult participants (18 + years); one included teens (16 + years). Tobacco cessation was usually self-reported (n = 11), compared to biochemical verification (n = 3) or both (n = 4). There were 11 randomized controlled trials, 4 of which reported statistically significant results, and 7 single-arm trials that reported a mean abstinence rate of 33.9%. DISCUSSION: The majority of studies that use tobacco cessation apps as an intervention delivery modality are mostly at the pilot/feasibility stage. The growing field has resulted in studies that varied in methodologies, study design, and inclusion criteria. More consistency in intervention components and larger randomized controlled trials are needed for tobacco cessation smartphone apps.

Correction to: Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: Study protocol for the Helping HAND 4 randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: Study protocol for the Helping HAND 4 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the US. A hospital admission provides smokers with a unique opportunity to stop smoking because it requires temporary tobacco abstinence while illness may enhance motivation to quit. Hospital interventions must continue post-discharge to increase tobacco abstinence long-term, but how best to accomplish this remains unclear. Building on two previous randomized controlled trials, each of which tested smoking cessation interventions that began in hospital and continued after discharge, this trial compares two interventions that provide sustained smoking cessation treatment after hospital discharge with the goal of improving long-term smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers. METHODS/DESIGN: Helping HAND 4 is a three-site randomized controlled trial that compares the effectiveness of two active interventions for producing validated past 7-day tobacco abstinence 6 months after hospital discharge. Smokers who are admitted to three hospitals receive a standard in-hospital smoking intervention, and those who plan to quit smoking after discharge are recruited and randomly assigned to two interventions that begin at discharge, Personalized Tobacco Care Management (PTCM) or Quitline eReferral. Each lasts 3 months. At discharge, PTCM provides 8 weeks of free nicotine replacement (NRT; a participant's choice of patch, gum, lozenge, or a combination) and then proactive smoking cessation support using an automated communication platform and live contact with a tobacco treatment specialist who is based in the health care system. In the eReferral condition, a direct referral is made from the hospital electronic health record to a community-based resource, the state's telephone quitline. The quitline provides up to 8 weeks of free NRT and offers behavioral support via a series of phone calls from a trained coach. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The study hypothesis is that PTCM will produce higher quit rates than eReferral. DISCUSSION: Helping HAND 4 is a pragmatic trial that aims to evaluate interventions in real-world conditions. This project will give hospital systems critical evidence-based tools for meeting National Hospital Quality Measures for tobacco treatment and maximizing their ability to improve cessation rates and overall health for the millions of smokers hospitalized annually in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered prior to start of enrollment at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03603496 (July 27, 2018). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S00084MJ&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00002G7&ts=2&cx=ff0oxn.

Using a Quitline to Deliver Opt-Out Smoking Cessation for Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Although smoking by patients with cancer and survivors causes adverse outcomes, many patients with cancer do not receive access to evidence-based tobacco use treatment. The purpose of this article is to report on delivery of tobacco use treatment to patients with cancer using a state-supported Quitline. METHODS: Statewide agencies in Michigan partnered with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium to develop and implement a clinical quality improvement initiative with the goal of addressing tobacco use by patients with cancer across Michigan oncology practices. The collaborative designed an opt-out approach for identifying tobacco users and referring them to the Michigan Tobacco Quitline (hereafter known as Quitline) within participating practices. As the initiative progressed, patients with cancer who were not referred through the initiative also became eligible for enrollment in the Quitline program. RESULTS: A total of 4,347 patients with cancer enrolled in the Quitline between 2012 and 2017, and annual referrals from oncology practices increased from 364 (5% of Quitline participants) to 876 (17% of Quitline participants). The 2013-2016 Michigan Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System also demonstrated an increase from 60% to 80% of cancer survivors receiving smoking cessation resources. Of 3,892 patients with cancer who had Quitline follow-up data through 2017, 79% completed one or more counseling calls. The 6-month self-reported quit rate for patients with cancer assessed between 2013 and 2016 was 26%. CONCLUSION: Using statewide resources to increase access to evidence-based smoking cessation assistance to patients with cancer is achievable. In an increasingly cost-conscious health care environment, collaborative initiatives that use or enhance existing resources should be considered and refined to deliver effective evidence-based care.