Sex-specific Outcomes in a Substance Use Intervention Program.

PURPOSE: We performed an emergency department (ED)-based substance use screening, motivational interview-based intervention, and treatment referral program with the goal of determining sex-specific outcomes. Specifically, in this quality improvement project, we aimed to determine whether there was a difference among sexes in the type of substances used; the frequency of positive screening results for substance use disorder; agreeing to an intervention; the type of follow-up evaluation, participation, and referral; and attempts to change substance use after intervention. METHODS: We prospectively studied a convenience sample of patients at 3 hospitals in Northeastern Pennsylvania from May 2017 through February 2018. Inclusion criteria for participation in this study were age ≥18 years; ability to answer survey questions; willingness and ability (not being too ill) to participate in intervention(s); and when screened, admitting to use of alcohol, tobacco, potentially addictive prescription drugs, or street drugs. Practitioners in the ED screened patients. For those with unhealthy substance use, a brief motivational interview was performed. Participants were each given referrals and information in accordance with the particular substance used and their assessed readiness to change. Individuals who completed the intervention were contacted by telephone for follow-up. Self-reported outcomes and the frequency of successful warm hand-off referrals were assessed. FINDINGS: Of the 2209 individuals screened, 976 (44.2%) were male. Overall, 547 patients screened positive for at least 1 of the unhealthy substances for a prevalence of 24.8% (95% confidence interval, 22.9%-26.6%). In this population, a greater proportion of men screened positive than women (30.5% vs 20.2%, P = 0.01). Although the finding was not statistically significant, men (106 [35.6%]) were more likely than women (81 [32.5%]) to agree to an ED intervention. At telephone follow-up, men were more likely to report participating in a treatment or support program than women (32.9% vs 18.2%, P = 0.035). Frequencies of warm hand-off referrals were 11 of 106 (10.4%) for men and 2 of 81 (2.5%) for women. IMPLICATIONS: Our small study found that unhealthy substance use rates were greater overall in men than women. Overall participation differences between men and women who agreed to take part in substance intervention and accepted a referral for follow-up treatment were not statistically significant. At telephone follow-up, more men reported participating in a treatment program than women. Direct referral (warm hand-off) rates to treatment programs were small in both sexes but greater in men than women.

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. RESULTS: Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories. CONCLUSIONS: Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.