Process and effect evaluation of a referral aid for smoking cessation counselling in primary care: Findings of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study explored the use and effects of a smoking cessation referral in: 1) practice nurses (PNs), and 2) smokers. The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) can double the likelihood of a successful smoking cessation attempt. A referral aid was developed to aid Dutch PNs in primary care in deciding which smokers are the most suitable for EBSCI. METHODS: Two different studies were conducted: 1) a randomized controlled trial with a process evaluation (n=82) and effect evaluation (n=285) among smoking patients recruited by PNs (n=73), and 2) a process evaluation among a subgroup of PNs (n=40) from January 2019 to September 2020. RESULTS: Overall, the response in both groups was low. PNs found the referral aid materials clear and understandable. Smokers had similar but (slightly) less-positive opinions. The smokers in both groups did not differ in the amount of discussion and use of EBSCIs, nor on smoking abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: Further research should assess how to better involve PNs and smokers when recruiting for an RCT and how to foster effective counselling. Additional research should also look deeper into barriers to referral of both PNs and smokers, and how to stimulate referral to EBSCIs best and help smokers to make a decision; for example by implementing a simplified strategy both within the primary care setting and outside, by involving other healthcare professionals or options outside healthcare such as the workplace and social domain. Trial registration: The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7020).

How to persuade more primary care professionals to adopt a valued smoking cessation referral aid: a cross-sectional study of facilitators and barriers.

BACKGROUND: To study the factors associated with the intention of primary care professionals (PCPs) to use or not use a referral aid (RA) for selecting an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention (EBSCI). METHODS: Participants (n = 85) were recruited from June to September 2020 to complete an online questionnaire based on the I-Change Model to assess the factors associated with the adoption of RA. The differences between PCPs with (n = 37) and without (n = 48) the intention to adopt in terms of demographics, motivational factors, and post-motivational factors were subsequently assessed. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors associated with the intention to adopt. RESULTS: Both groups indicated that they highly appreciated the RA. However, PCPs without the intention to adopt expressed a more negative attitude towards the RA, experienced less social support, showed low self-efficacy, and encountered barriers such as lack of time and skills. The factors most strongly associated with the intention to adopt were advantages, disadvantages, self-efficacy, less barriers, working in a solo practice and age. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of RA can be facilitated in two ways. The first one is by increasing the added value of the tool through a second round of co-creation focusing on the adoptability of the RA in practice. The second approach is by communicating the added value of referring to EBSCIS and thereby using the RA by implementing it in smoking cessation training for PCPs, which could also help to improve the attitude, social support, self-efficacy, and perceived skills in terms of RA usage among PCPs. IMPACT: This study is the first work in the Netherlands to investigate the willingness of PCPs to actively refer patients to other EBSCIs in addition to providing face-to-face counseling themselves. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7020 ).

Do professional perspectives on evidence-based smoking cessation methods align? A Delphi study among researchers and healthcare professionals.

The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) can significantly increase the number of successful smoking cessation attempts. To obtain an overview of the knowledge and viewpoints on the effectiveness and use of SCIs, a three-round online Delphi study was conducted among researchers and primary care professionals (PCPs). The four objectives of this study are to gain an overview of (i) the criteria important for recommending SCIs, (ii) the perceptions of both groups on the effectiveness of SCIs, (iii) the factors to consider when counseling different (high-risk) groups of smokers and (iv) the perceptions of both groups on the use of e-cigarettes as an SCI. We found a high level of agreement within groups on which smoker characteristics should be considered when recommending an SCI to smokers. We also found that PCPs display a lower degree of consensus on the effectiveness of SCIs. Both groups see a value in the use of special protocols for different (high-risk) groups of patients, but the two groups did not reach consensus on the use of e-cigarettes as a means to quit. Making an inventory of PCPs' needs regarding SCIs and their usage may provide insight into how to facilitate a better uptake in the primary care setting.

The Usability of an Online Tool to Promote the Use of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions.

To increase usage of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) among smokers, an online decision aid (DA) was developed. The aims of this study were (1) to conduct a usability evaluation; (2) to conduct a program evaluation and evaluate decisional conflict after using the DA and (3) to determine the possible change in the intention to use EBSCIs before and directly after reviewing the DA. A cross-sectional study was carried out in September 2020 by recruiting smokers via the Internet (n = 497). Chi-squared tests and t-tests were conducted to test the differences between smokers who differed in the perceived usability of the DA on the program evaluation and in decisional conflict. The possible changes in intention to use EBSCIs during a cessation attempt before and after reviewing the DA were tested using t-tests, McNemar's test and χ2 analysis. The participants evaluated the usability of the DA as moderate (MU; n = 393, 79.1%) or good (GU; n = 104, 20.9%). GU smokers rated higher on all the elements of the program evaluation and experienced less decisional conflict, but also displayed a higher intention to quit. After reviewing the DA, the participants on average had a significantly higher intention to use more EBSCIs, in particular in the form of eHealth. Recommendations to make the DA more usable could include tailoring, using video-based information and including value clarification methods. Furthermore, a hybrid variant in which smokers can use the DA independently and with the guidance of a primary care professional could aid both groups in choosing a fitting EBSCI option.

A referral aid for smoking cessation interventions in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To expedite the use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) in primary care and to thereby increase the number of successful quit attempts, a referral aid was developed. This aid aims to optimize the referral to and use of EBSCIs in primary care and to increase adherence to Dutch guidelines for smoking cessation. METHODS: Practice nurses (PNs) will be randomly allocated to an experimental condition or control condition, and will then recruit smoking patients who show a willingness to quit smoking within six months. PNs allocated to the experimental condition will provide smoking cessation guidance in accordance with the referral aid. Patients from both conditions will receive questionnaires at baseline and after six months. Cessation effectiveness will be tested via multilevel logistic regression analyses. Multiple imputations as well as intention to treat analysis will be performed. Intervention appreciation and level of informed decision-making will be compared using analysis of (co)variance. Predictors for appreciation and informed decision-making will be assessed using multiple linear regression analysis and/or structural equation modeling. Finally, a cost-effectiveness study will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the study design for the development and evaluation of an information and decision tool to support PNs in their guidance of smoking patients and their referral to EBSCIs. The study aims to provide insight into the (cost) effectiveness of an intervention aimed at expediting the use of EBSCIs in primary care.

Decision aids to facilitate decision making around behavior change in the field of health promotion: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed. METHODS: Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively. RESULTS: Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking.