A systematic review of nonpharmacological interventions to reduce procedural anxiety among patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer.

Procedural anxiety is a concern for a number of patients undergoing radiation therapy. While procedural anxiety is often treated pharmacologically, there is a clinical need for effective alternative strategies for patients who are contraindicated from medication use, and those who prefer not to take unnecessary medications. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer, in the radiation oncology department, just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self-reported procedural anxiety. The secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of these interventions in reducing physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety and anxiety-related treatment disruptions. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception up until February 2022. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Population: Adult patients with cancer undergoing external beam radiation therapy. INTERVENTION: Nonpharmacological interventions delivered within the radiation therapy department. Comparison: standard care controls, or standard care plus an alternative intervention. OUTCOMES: level of self-reported procedural anxiety (primary), physiological symptoms of anxiety (secondary) and measures of anxiety-related treatment disruptions (secondary). DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data. A meta-analysis was originally planned but deemed not feasible as the studies could not be confidently pooled for meta-analysis, due to the variability in the interventions, study designs and the generally low number of studies. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. RESULTS: Screening of 2363 records identified nine studies that met inclusion criteria: six studies of music interventions, two of video-based patient education and one of aromatherapy. Overall, three studies received a global rating of strong methodological quality and low risk of bias. Three studies reported a significant effect of the intervention on reducing the primary outcome of self-reported procedural anxiety: two music interventions (both strong methodological quality), and one video-based patient education (moderate methodological quality). One of the studies (a music intervention) also reported a significant reduction in the secondary outcome of physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety (systolic blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self-reported procedural anxiety is limited, with very few well-designed studies. There is a need for interventions for procedural anxiety during radiation therapy to be evaluated through rigorous randomised controlled trials.

Smoking Cessation Interventions and Abstinence Outcomes for People Living in Rural, Regional, and Remote Areas of Three High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco smoking rates in high-income countries are greater in rural, regional, and remote (RRR) areas compared to cities. Yet, there is limited knowledge about interventions targeted to RRR smokers. This review describes the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for RRR smokers in supporting smoking abstinence. AIMS AND METHODS: Seven academic databases were searched (inception-June 2022) for smoking cessation intervention studies to include if they reported on RRR residents of Australia, Canada, or the United States, and short- (<6 months) or long-term (≥6 months) smoking abstinence outcomes. Two researchers assessed study quality, and narratively summarized findings. RESULTS: Included studies (n = 26) were primarily randomized control (12) or pre-post (7) designs, from the United States (16) or Australia (8). Five systems change interventions were included. Interventions included cessation education or brief advice, and few included nicotine monotherapies, cessation counseling, motivational interviewing, or cognitive behavioral therapy. Interventions had limited short-term effects on RRR smoking abstinence, decreasing markedly beyond 6 months. Short-term abstinence was best supported by contingency, incentive, and online cessation interventions, and long-term abstinence by pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Cessation interventions for RRR smokers should include pharmacotherapy and psychological cessation counseling to establish short-term abstinence, and identify effective means of maintaining abstinence beyond 6 months. Contingency designs are a suitable vehicle for psychological and pharmacotherapy support for RRR people who smoke, and intervention tailoring should be explicitly considered. IMPLICATIONS: Smoking disproportionately harms RRR residents, who can encounter access barriers to smoking cessation support. High-quality intervention evidence and outcome standardization are still required to support long-term RRR smoking abstinence.

Prevalence of cannabis use among tobacco smokers: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the prevalence of cannabis use among tobacco smokers has important implications for research in terms of intervention effectiveness and measurement in smoking cessation trials. The co-use of these substances also has important implications for health service planning, specifically ensuring appropriate and adequate clinical treatment. To date, there have been no synthesis of the literature on the prevalence of tobacco and cannabis co-use in adult clinical populations. Improved understanding of the current prevalence, route of administration and specific subpopulations with the highest rates of tobacco and cannabis co-use will support future intervention development. We aim to provide a pooled estimate of the percentage of smokers who report using cannabis and to examine the prevalence of co-use by sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review using six scientific databases with published articles from 2000 to 2022 inclusive (CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Scopus). Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English that report on tobacco and cannabis use will be included. Rates of co-use (simultaneous or sequentially) and routes of administration will be assessed. Use in populations groups will be described. Quality assessments will be conducted for all included studies. Data will be synthesised using a narrative approach. This study will be conducted from June 2022 to the end of August 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is based on previously published data and, therefore, ethical approval or written informed consent will not be required. It is the intention of the research team to disseminate the results of the systematic review as a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020194051.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of abrupt versus gradual smoking cessation in combination with vaporised nicotine products for people receiving alcohol and other drug treatment.

BACKGROUND: Vaporised nicotine products (VNPs) may be a potential quit smoking strategy. Most research has permitted participants to use VNPs ad libitum. This is the first study to examine combining the use of a VNP with a gradual or abrupt cessation guideline. This study aims to test the potential feasibility of a quit smoking strategy (abrupt verses gradual cessation) in combination with vaporised nicotine products among people in AOD treatment. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial between April 2018 and July 2019. Participants were recruited from AOD programs located within one area health service in Australia. Participants were provided with two VNPs, a 12-week supply of nicotine e-liquid and randomised to either the abrupt (assigned a quit date the day they were provided their VNP) or gradual quit smoking strategy (reduce baseline number of cigarettes per day by 25% over a 4 week period), no further behavioral support was provided. Feasibility was assessed through successful recruitment rates, retention, and adherence to study conditions. Participant perceived helpfulness and satisfaction assessed acceptability. RESULTS: Among 80 interested individuals, 66 were eligible and consented (100% recruitment rate). From the 66 participants that consented and completed the baseline survey, 60 received the intervention assigned at a 1:1 ratio with 30 in the gradual cessation and 30 in the abrupt cessation group. Retention was 86.4% (n = 52) at 12-weeks post-intervention commencement. Ninety-six percent (n = 25) of participants in the gradual and 95.8% (n = 23) of participants in the abrupt group were using the VNPs at 12-weeks (p = 0.66). There was no difference in adherence to the assigned quit plan between gradual cessation 44% (n = 11) and abrupt cessation 71% (n = 17) groups (p = 0.117). Median perceived helpfulness of VNPs was high for both gradual (10/10) and abrupt (9/10) groups (p = 0.813). Similarly, median perceived satisfaction of VNPs was high for both gradual (9 /10) and abrupt (8/10) groups (p = 0.414). CONCLUSIONS: AOD participants found an intervention that involved VNPs to be satisfying and helpful. Future large scale trials are needed to elucidate whether a gradual or abrupt cessation guideline is more beneficial in main a quit attempt with a VNP.

Barriers and facilitators to using vaporised nicotine products as smoking cessation aids among people receiving treatment for substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Vaporised nicotine products (VNPs) may be useful smoking cessation aids for people in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, a population with high tobacco-related morbidity and mortality rates. This qualitative study aimed to examine the barriers and facilitators of using VNPs as part of a clinical trial to reduce or quit smoking among people in AOD treatment. METHODS: Thirteen people in AOD treatment who were participating in a trial of VNPs for smoking cessation (QuitENDs) completed a brief semi-structured interview examining experiences of using VNPs to reduce or quit smoking. Transcribed data was analysed using the iterative categorisation framework. RESULTS: Many participants expressed the benefit of having a smoking cessation aid that addressed nicotine cravings and the behavioural hand-to-mouth action to help them reduce or quit smoking. Although many participants reported that VNPs were easy to use, some found maintaining the device to be challenging. Some participants described Australian regulations limiting use of VNPs as reducing their desire to use the device as a cessation aid. Many participants attempting to reduce or quit tobacco and cannabis simultaneously stated that VNPs alone were insufficient to help them reduce or quit tobacco. CONCLUSIONS: VNPs hold significant promise as smoking cessation aids among people in AOD treatment because of their unique ability to satisfy both nicotine cravings and behavioural habits. However, multiple barriers, such as accessibility, maintenance, and the challenges of reducing other substance use simultaneously also need to be addressed for optimal engagement in clinical trials with VNPs to quit smoking.

Addressing smoking in sheltered homelessness with intensive smoking treatment (ASSIST project): A pilot feasibility study of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy and motivational interviewing.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of providing varenicline in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and motivational interviewing (MI) to adult male smokers attending a clinic in a hostel for homeless people. METHODS: A single group pre- and post-treatment (12 weeks following intervention commencement) design with embedded process evaluation (at weekly counselling and fortnightly safety check-ins). Participants were 20 male smokers attending a health clinic within a homelessness service in Sydney, Australia, between December 2019 and March 2020. Participants set a target quit date 7-days post intervention commencement. Adverse events, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes per day, treatment adherence and acceptability of the study interventions were assessed 12 weeks post intervention commencement. Abstinence was biochemically verified. Results are complete cases. RESULTS: Retention was 65% at 12-weeks post-intervention commencement (n = 13). No related adverse events were reported. Three participants (15%) reported continuous abstinence. Two participants self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (10%), confirmed by CO level. Participants who did not quit smoking (n = 10), reported a significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day (19.4 vs 4.7, p < .01). Cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and psychological distress significantly decreased from baseline to 12-week follow-up (all < 0.01). Adherence to the pharmacological interventions was good, most used combination NRT and varenicline. Adherence to the counselling sessions was low, attending three of 12 sessions. Both NRT and MI were rated as highly acceptable. Some participants expressed concerns about the safety of varenicline. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was feasible and acceptable and associated with short-term smoking cessation and significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked-per-day.

Feasibility of Audio-Recording Consultations with Pregnant Australian Indigenous Women to Assess Use of Smoking Cessation Behaviour Change Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Behavioural counselling is an effective method to improve smoking cessation during pregnancy. Audio recordings of consultations have been used previously to assess fidelity in specialized smoking cessation services, but not in primary care. AIMS: The study is aimed at assessing the feasibility of audio-recording smoking cessation counselling as part of an intervention in primary care settings and exploring the number and type of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) delivered. METHODS: This study was a nested feasibility study within a larger trial. Health providers (HPs) and pregnant women were asked to agree or decline audio recording their smoking-related consultations. Data collected included percentage providing consent, number of recordings performed, HP type, and date (pre/post intervention). Interviews were conducted to assess the trial procedures' acceptability. RESULTS: Two services provided seven recordings, all pre-intervention. Of the 22 recruited women, 14 consented to being audio recorded (64%) and five provided recordings; of the 23 recruited HPs, 16 agreed (69%), and two provided recordings. Qualitative data suggest that HPs found audio recording difficult to remember. HPs spent on average two minutes discussing smoking and used few BCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Audio recordings of smoking-related counselling were not feasible as planned. Future research will need to explore acceptable methods to assess BCT use in primary care.

Patterns and predictors of nicotine replacement therapy use among alcohol and other drug clients enrolled in a smoking cessation randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use to support client smoking quit attempts is low and inconsistent at alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. This study examined predictors of any NRT use and combination NRT use among AOD clients who were smokers. METHODS: The study was part of a cluster-RCT of an organisational change intervention to introduce smoking cessation support as part of routine treatment in 32 AOD services. The intervention provided AOD services with free NRT and training. Service clients completed baseline (n = 896), 8-week (n = 471) and 6.5-month (n = 427) follow-up surveys. Mixed-model logistic regression examined whether baseline socio-demographic and smoking variables were associated with single and combination NRT use. RESULTS: At 8-weeks follow-up 57% (n = 269/471), and at 6.5-months 33% (n = 143/427) of participants reported using at least one form of NRT. Odds of NRT use at 8-weeks follow-up were greater among participants from treatment vs control group (OR = 3.69, 95%CI 1.8-7.4; p < 0.001), higher vs lower nicotine dependence (OR = 1.74 95%CI 1.1-2.8; p = 0.024), or those motivated to quit (OR = 1.18 95%CI 1.0-1.4; p = 0.017). At 6.5-months, only the treatment arm remained significant. Combination NRT use at the 8-week follow-up was higher among those in treatment vs control group (OR = 2.75 95%CI 1.4-5.6; p = 0.005), or with higher vs lower nicotine dependence (OR = 2.12 95%CI 1.2-3.8; p = 0.014). No factors were associated with combination NRT use at 6.5-months. CONCLUSIONS: An organisational change intervention that supplied AOD services with NRT training and products to provide to clients during treatment significantly increases client single form and combination NRT use in the short term.

Alcohol and other drug health-care providers and their client's perceptions of e-cigarette use, safety and harm reduction.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarettes containing nicotine may potentially assist cessation in a heavily nicotine-dependent population with high relapse and tobacco-related burden. This study aims to determine alcohol and other drug (AOD) health-care provider and client awareness, use and attitudes regarding harm reduction and safety of e-cigarettes. METHODS: The study was part of a larger cluster randomised controlled trial with 32 Australian AOD services. At a post-intervention survey conducted October 2016, health-care providers were asked whether they believed e-cigarettes could help smokers quit tobacco, whether they believe e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco smoking and whether they would recommend e-cigarettes to clients who are interested in quitting smoking. At the 6-month follow-up survey conducted January 2015-March 2016, AOD clients were asked about their e-cigarette knowledge, ever use, current use, reasons for use and place of purchase. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty health-care providers and 427 AOD clients responded. A minority of health-care providers agreed with the statements that e-cigarettes could help smokers quit tobacco (30%), while just under one-third (25%) agreed that e-cigarettes were safer than tobacco smoking. However, only 19% would recommend e-cigarettes. Most AOD clients (93%) reported awareness of e-cigarettes, 39% reported ever use; however, only 7% reported current use. Of those reporting ever use, 52% used a nicotine e-cigarette. The most common reasons for e-cigarette use were 'wanted to try' (72%) and 'help cut down smoking' (70%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Both AOD health-care providers and clients are aware of e-cigarettes but are cautious in using and recommending their use.

QuitNic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Nicotine Vaping Products With Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation Following Residential Detoxification.

INTRODUCTION: The QuitNic pilot trial aimed to test the feasibility of providing a nicotine vaping product (NVP) compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers upon discharge from a smoke-free residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service. METHODS: QuitNic was a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial. At discharge from residential withdrawal, 100 clients received telephone Quitline behavioral support and either 12-week supply of NRT or an NVP. Treatment adherence and acceptability, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), frequency of cravings, and severity of withdrawal symptoms were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks. Results are reported for complete cases and for abstinence outcomes, penalized imputation results are reported where missing is assumed smoking. RESULTS: Retention on was 63% at 6 weeks and 50% at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, 68% of the NRT group reported using combination NRT while 96% of the NVP group used the device. Acceptability ratings for the products were high in both groups. At 12 weeks, 14% of the NVP group and 18% of the NRT group reported not smoking at all in the last 7 days. Mean CPD among continued smokers decreased significantly between baseline to 12 weeks in both groups; from 19.91 to 4.72 for the NVP group (p < .001) and from 20.88 to 5.52 in the NRT group (p < .001). Cravings and withdrawal symptoms significantly decreased for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clients completing residential withdrawal readily engaged with smoking cessation post-treatment when given the opportunity. Further research is required to identify the most effective treatments postwithdrawal for this population at elevated risk of tobacco-related harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000849392. IMPLICATIONS: This pilot study showed that smoking cessation support involving options for nicotine replacement and Quitline-delivered cognitive behavioral counseling is attractive to people after they have been discharged from SUD treatment. Both nicotine vaping products and nicotine replacement therapies were highly acceptable and used by participants who reported reductions in cravings for cigarettes and perceptions of withdrawal symptoms and reductions in number of cigarettes smoked. Some participants self-reported abstinence from cigarettes-around one in five reported having quit smoking cigarettes at 12 weeks postdischarge. The results have significant public health implications for providing quit support following discharge from SUD treatment.

Smoking cessation interventions for people living in rural and remote areas: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking rates among people living in rural and remote areas are higher and quit rates are lower over the past 10 years compared with people living in suburban and urban areas. Higher smoking rates contribute to greater tobacco-related disease and morbidity in rural and remote areas. Physical and social isolation, greater exposure to pro-tobacco marketing, pro-tobacco social norms, and lower socioeconomic and educational levels are contributing to these higher smoking rates and lower quit rates. Smoking cessation interventions for people in rural and remote areas have been conducted, however little is known about their effectiveness or their mechanisms of action as well as the quality of such research. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are mechanisms of action derived from behaviour change theory, such as goal setting and reward. Improved understanding of the contribution of BCTs for smoking cessation in the rural and remote population will support future intervention development. We aim to review the literature on smoking cessation interventions for people living in rural and remote areas to inform evidence about intervention effectiveness and mechanisms of action. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review using seven scientific databases (EMBASE, MedLine, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Informit Health and Scopus). We will include peer-reviewed journal articles published in English that examine a smoking cessation intervention delivered to people living in rural and remote areas in the USA, Canada and Australia. We will examine outcome data relating to intervention effectiveness (eg, point prevalence abstinence or continuous abstinence), as well as the BCTs used in included interventions and their relationship with intervention outcomes. We will also assess the feasibility, acceptability and quality of research interventions of included articles, and provide graded recommendations based on the review outcomes. Data will be synthesised using narrative approaches and interpreted using content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics was not required for this systematic review. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at conferences by presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 177398.

Non-pharmacological approaches to procedural anxiety reduction for patients undergoing radiotherapy for cancer: systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Procedural anxiety relates to an affective state of anxiety or fear in relation to a medical procedure. Various treatment-related factors may elicit anxiety among oncology patients, including fear of diagnostic imaging (such as MRI scans) and impending treatment and medical procedures (such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy). It is common in oncology settings to manage acute anxiety relating to medical procedures with anxiolytic medication. However, pharmacological approaches are not suitable for many patients. Despite this, non-pharmacological interventions are infrequently used. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether non-pharmacological interventions delivered prior to, or during, radiotherapy are effective in reducing procedural anxiety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data sources will include the bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (from inception onward). Eligible studies will include adult patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy treatment. Included studies will be those which employ a non-pharmacological intervention, delivered within existing radiotherapy appointments, with the aim of reducing procedural anxiety related to radiotherapy. All research designs with a control or other comparison group will be included. The primary outcome will be change in levels of self-reported procedural anxiety. Secondary outcomes will be changes in scores on physiological measures of anxiety and/or changes in treatment completion and/or changes in treatment duration and/or changes in psychological distress. Two investigators will independently complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. If appropriate, a meta-analyses will be performed. Any important amendments to this protocol will be updated in the PROSPERO registration and documented in the resulting review publication. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are anticipated from this review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at conferences by presentation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019112941.

Same same but different: A comparison of LGB and non-LGB client preferences and reported receipt of smoking care in alcohol and other drug treatment services.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are more likely to use tobacco and other substances than non-LGB people. A limited body of research has examined LGB people in the alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment setting. This study aims to examine the tobacco smoking behaviours of LGB people receiving AOD treatment, their receipt and preferences for quit support compared to non-LGB, as well as the factors associated with receipt of quit smoking support strategies for LGB people. DESIGN AND METHODS: We examined baseline survey responses (February to August 2014) from a longitudinal RCT, with clients who were current smokers from 32 AOD treatment services in four states and territories of Australia. RESULTS: Among 896 respondents, 100 respondents identified as LGB. Nearly all LGB (94%) respondents identifies as daily tobacco smokers. On average, LGB respondents had made more quit attempts in the last 12 months (3 vs 2, p = 0.012). Both LGB and non-LGB respondents reported receiving similar rates of quit smoking support however more LGB respondents reported receiving a prescription of varenicline (31.5% vs 36.4%, p = 0.04). Higher motivation to quit (OR 1.39 95% CI 1.07, 1.78) and older age of LGB respondents were associated with greater receipt of quit smoking support. Both LGB and non-LGB respondents reported similar preferences for quit support. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: LGB smokers in AOD treatment are attempting to quit smoking yet both LGB and non-LGB smokers are not receiving adequate treatment despite openness to receive multiple types of quit support.

Effect of increasing the delivery of smoking cessation care in alcohol and other drug treatment centres: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Aims were to test the effectiveness of an organizational change intervention integrating smoking cessation treatment into usual alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, compared with usual care, on (1) 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 8 weeks follow-up; (2) prolonged abstinence; (3) cigarettes smoked per day; (4) number of quit attempts; and (5) offer and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). All outcomes were assessed at 8 weeks and 6.5 months follow-up. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial, with AOD service as unit of randomization, conducted January 2015-March 2016. SETTING: Thirty-two eligible services (provided face-to-face client sessions to ≥ 50 clients/year) in Australia were randomized to control (usual care; n = 15) or intervention (n = 17) groups by an independent blinded biostatistician. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants (≥ 16 years, current smoker) completed surveys at the service at baseline (n = 896) and telephone follow-up surveys (conducted by blinded assessors) at 8 weeks (n = 471; 53%) and 6.5 months (n = 427; 48%). INTERVENTION: Intervention services received an intervention to establish routine screening, assessment and delivery of smoking cessation care. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day PPA at 8-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included verified and self-reported prolonged abstinence, self-reported 7-day PPA, cigarettes/day, quit attempts and offer and use of NRT. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed, assuming missing participants were not abstinent. FINDINGS: At 8 weeks, the findings in verified 7-day PPA between groups [2.6 versus 1.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5-5.7, P = 0.373] were inconclusive as to whether a difference was present. Significantly lower mean cigarettes/day were reported in the intervention group compared to the usual care group at 8 weeks [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.8-0.95, P = 0.001] but were similar at 6.5 months (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.9-1.02, P = 0.240) follow-up. At both follow-ups the intervention group reported higher rates of NRT use. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating smoking cessation treatment into addiction services did not significantly improve short-term abstinence from smoking.

Electronic cigarettes: Ever use, current use and attitudes among alcohol and other drug clients.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are becoming popular and may be a potential harm reduction and quit smoking aid for people who use other drugs. Data on e-cigarette use and perceptions among people who use drugs is limited. The current study examines tobacco smoking status, use and attitudes towards e-cigarettes among people in drug and alcohol treatment. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected through a standardised Patient Experience Tracking System device installed in the waiting room of six drug and alcohol clinical service programs located within one area health service in New South Wales, Australia during April to June 2017. Participants were clients of participating services aged 18 years and older. RESULTS: Five hundred and eleven participants completed the survey, 85% were current smokers, 9% were ex-smokers and 6% were non-smokers. Over half of all participants (53%) had tried e-cigarettes in their lifetime, 26% reported current use and 77% of those were using them with nicotine. Just less than half of all participants believed that e-cigarettes were helpful for quitting or cutting down smoking tobacco cigarettes (48%). More than half of all respondents (59%) believed that tobacco cigarettes were more harmful than e-cigarettes (59%) and believed that e-cigarettes were an acceptable quit smoking aid for patients of drug and alcohol services (64%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Most participants were current tobacco smokers and had tried an e-cigarette though a minority were currently using e-cigarettes. Participant attitudes were favourable towards the use of e-cigarettes as quit smoking aids.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Care into a Medically Supervised Injecting Facility Using an Organizational Change Intervention: A Qualitative Study of Staff and Client Views.

Background: Clients accessing supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) smoke at high rates. An SIF piloted an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care as routine treatment. This study aims to explore staff acceptability, perceived facilitators, and perceived barriers to implementing six core components of an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care in an SIF. Staff and client views on the acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to the provision of smoking cessation care were also examined. Methods: This paper presents findings from the qualitative component conducted post-intervention implementation. Face-to-face semi-structured staff interviews (n = 14) and two client focus groups (n = 5 and n = 4) were conducted between September and October 2016. Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was employed to synthesise and combine respondent views and identify key themes. Results: Staff viewed the organizational change intervention as acceptable. Commitment from leadership, a designated champion, access to resources, and the congruence between the change and the facility's ethos were important facilitators of organizational change. Less engaged staff was the sole barrier to the intervention. Smoking cessation care was deemed suitable. Key facilitators of smoking cessation care included: Written protocols, ongoing training, and visually engaging information. Key barriers of smoking cessation care included: Lack of access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) outside of business hours, practical limitations of the database, and concerns about sustainability of NRT. Conclusion: This study develops our understanding of factors influencing the implementation of an organisational change intervention to promote sustainable provision of smoking cessation care in the SIF setting.

Overcoming Challenges to Treating Tobacco use During Pregnancy - A Qualitative study of Australian General Practitioners Barriers.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners can play an important role in addressing smoking among pregnant women but studies suggest they rarely do so. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioners perceptions about the management of smoking in pregnancy, and what would enable them to provide better care. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted (Feb-July 2017), with 19 Australian general practitioners recruited from a sample that participated in a national survey on managing smoking during pregnancy; and through a national conference. The interview guide was structured using the theoretical domains framework, exploring previously reported barriers and two specific components of smoking cessation care - nicotine replacement therapy prescription and Quitline referral. RESULTS: Participants reported high confidence and knowledge to provide pregnant patients adequate support for quitting. Nonetheless, participants reported lacking communication skills, focusing on providing information on smoking harm, accepting cutting down cigarettes as adequate, while following the 'Stages of Change' model and only providing treatment options to motivated patients. Lack of time, nicotine replacement therapy cost and safety concerns, and being unfamiliar with the Quitline (particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pregnant smokers) were perceived as challenges. Participants reported needing better communication skills, clear detailed nicotine replacement therapy guidelines for special populations, and visual resources they could use to discuss treatment options with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Difficulty communicating with pregnant patients about smoking, using the 'Stages of Change' model to guide support provision and concerns regarding nicotine replacement therapy safety are barriers to providing cessation support to pregnant patients for general practitioners. Training on specific effective behaviour change techniques, clear guidance for nicotine replacement therapy use, and practical visual patient education tools may facilitate smoking cessation care provision to pregnant women.

Improving health providers smoking cessation care in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Health providers are lacking in their provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to systematically review all available global studies on the effectiveness of interventions in improving health providers' provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy. METHODS: Five databases were searched, Inclusion criteria included all intervention study types. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts independently. Interventions were characterized according to the Effective Practice Of Care taxonomy. Random-effects meta-analyses examined intervention effects on smoking cessation care components based on the 5As. Estimates were number of participants reporting each outcome, or mean score, transformed into Cohen's d. Crude meta-regressions, and meta-analysis subgrouping, were performed to examine whether intervention effects for 'Ask', 'Advise' and 'Assist' differed by intervention components. RESULTS: Of 3165 manuscripts, 16 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed significant small to large intervention effects on the different care components (Cohen's d ranging from 0.47 for 'Ask' (95%CI 0.13-0.81) to 1.12 (95%CI 0.45-1.79) for 'Setting a quit date'). Crude meta-regression suggested that for 'Ask', having a theoretical basis may improve effectiveness (Cohen's d difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.12-1.1). Subgrouping the meta-analysis suggested that audit and feedback possibly increases intervention effectiveness for 'Advise' and 'Assist'. CONCLUSION: Interventions designed to improve provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy show a small increase in care components. Studies vary substantially in design, intervention components, and outcome measurement, impacting ability to synthesize available data. Audit and feedback and enhancing intervention design by using behaviour change theories may improve effectiveness. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016030143.

Comorbid tobacco and other substance use and symptoms of anxiety and depression among hospitalised orthopaedic trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: No study has examined the prevalence of tobacco, other substance use, and symptoms of anxiety and depression, and rates of comorbidities among the orthopaedic trauma population, despite the impact they have on recovery from surgery. This study aims to 1) describe the rates of symptoms and substance use; 2) compare rates of symptoms and substance use among smokers versus non-smokers; and 3) examine the relationship between symptoms and substance use with smoking status. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of orthopaedic trauma patients was conducted in two Australian public hospitals. Demographic characteristics, smoking status, alcohol consumption, recent cannabis use, and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression were examined. Differences between current and non-smokers were compared using Pearson Chi2 tests. Multivariate logistic regression explored variables related to tobacco smoking. RESULTS: Eight hundred nineteen patients participated. Over one-fifth (21.8%) identified as a current smoker, half (51.8%) reported consuming alcohol at hazardous levels in the last 12 months, and about 10% stated that they had used cannabis in the last 30 days (9.7%), or experienced symptoms of either anxiety (12.4%), or depression (12.9%) in the last two weeks. Over one-fifth of current tobacco smokers (21.8%) reported drinking heavily in the last 12 months and using cannabis recently. Males, with a lower educational attainment, who were unmarried, had used cannabis recently, and report drinking heavily were more likely to be current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour interventions addressing comorbidities are warranted among the orthopaedic trauma population given the high rate of comorbidity and impact these may have on recovery.

Internet-Based Programs Incorporating Behavior Change Techniques Are Associated With Increased Smoking Cessation in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background and aims: This study aims to (i) examine the effectiveness of internet-based smoking cessation programs; (ii) describe the number and type of behavior change techniques (BCTs) employed; and (iii) explore whether BCTs included in internet-based smoking cessation programs are related to program effectiveness. Methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials were included if they described the study of a smoking cessation program delivered via the internet; included current adult tobacco smokers from the general population; and were written in English. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to examine program effectiveness (pooled odds ratios, by outcome measure, i.e., 7 day point prevalence abstinence [PPA], 30 day PPA, other abstinence measure) in short- and long-term outcomes, and examine the associations between BCT number and type (individual BCTs and BCT domain) and program effectiveness. Results: Results from 45 studies were included (n = 65,736). Intervention effectiveness was found in the short term for all outcome measures (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12, 1.50, p = .001), for "prolonged abstinence" (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.09, 1.87, p = .009), and "30 day PPA" (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.13, 2.72, p = .013). Internet-based programs were effective in the long term for all outcome measures (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.06, 1.35, p = .004) and for "prolonged abstinence" (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.19, 1.63, p < .001). On average, interventions used more BCTs than comparison groups (6.6 vs. 3.1, p = .0002). The impact of specific individual BCTs and BCT domains on effectiveness was examined and is reported. Conclusions: Internet-based smoking cessation interventions increased the odds of cessation by 29 per cent in the short term and by 19 per cent in the long term. Internet-based smoking cessation intervention development should incorporate BCTs to increase effectiveness. Registration: CRD42015014676.