A critical review of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale-Global and Thematic Apperception Test in clinical practice and research: Psychometric limitations and ethical implications.

The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale-Global (SCORS-G) has been used increasingly in multimethod psychological assessment contexts as a framework for eliciting personality information from narrative data collection techniques, the most popular of which is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Although research on the reliability and validity of the SCORS system has evolved over the last decade, there are numerous psychometric and procedural shortcomings (and corresponding ethical issues) that should be considered when applying this methodology to the TAT in clinical and research settings. Chief among these concerns is a lack of normative benchmarking, variability in TAT card batteries that are administered across contexts (which limit generalization and direct research comparisons), ambiguous reliability and validity evidence (and lack of incremental validity), and redundancy in published studies (i.e., versions of the same data/samples presented repeatedly across research). There is also a dearth of information about how SCORS-G data are influenced by factors such as culture, language, cognitive functioning, and other variables that may impact narrative output, word count, and richness (and subsequent interpretation and clinical decision making). The review concludes with a discussion of the ethical implications of using the SCORS-G in clinical practice, and recommendation for a moratorium on its use until minimum psychometric standards can be established and greater clarity is achieved surrounding its use with diverse and vulnerable populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Helping low-income smokers quit: findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing specialized quitline services with and without social needs navigation.

Background: Quitting smoking is especially challenging for low-income smokers due to high stress, high smoking prevalence around them, and limited support for quitting. This study aimed to determine whether any of three interventions designed specifically for low-income smokers would be more effective than standard tobacco quitline services: a specialized quitline, the specialized quitline with social needs navigation, or the standard quitline with social needs navigation. Methods: Using a randomized 2 × 2 factorial design, low-income daily cigarette smokers (n = 1944) in Missouri, USA who called a helpline seeking assistance with food, rent or other social needs were assigned to receive Standard Quitline alone (n = 485), Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 484), Specialized Quitline alone (n = 485), or Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 490). The target sample size was 2000, 500 per group. The main outcome was 7-day self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Multiple imputation was used to impute outcomes for those missing data at 6-month follow-up. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to assess differences between study groups. Findings: Participants were recruited from June 2017 to November 2020; most were African American (1111 [58%]) or White (666 [35%]), female (1396 [72%]), and reported <$10,000 (957 [51%]) or <$20,000 (1529 [82%]) annual pre-tax household income. At 6-month follow-up (58% retention), 101 participants in the Standard Quitline group reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (20.8% of those assigned at baseline, 38.1% after imputation). Quit rates in the Specialized Quitline (90 quitters, 18.6%, 38.1%) and Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (103 quitters, 21.0%, 39.8%) were not different from the Standard Quitline. Quit rates for Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (74 quitters, 15.3%, 30.1%) were significantly lower than Standard Quitline (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.50-0.98). Interpretation: A specialized version of a state tobacco quitline was no more effective than standard quitline services in helping low-income smokers quit. Adding social needs navigation to a standard quitline decreased its effectiveness. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03194958. Funding: National Cancer Institute: R01CA201429.

Eating disorders in weight-related therapy (EDIT): Protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis of eating disorder risk in behavioural weight management.

The Eating Disorders In weight-related Therapy (EDIT) Collaboration brings together data from randomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions to identify individual participant risk factors and intervention strategies that contribute to eating disorder risk. We present a protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis which aims to identify participants at risk of developing eating disorders, or related symptoms, during or after weight management interventions conducted in adolescents or adults with overweight or obesity. We systematically searched four databases up to March 2022 and clinical trials registries to May 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials of weight management interventions conducted in adolescents or adults with overweight or obesity that measured eating disorder risk at pre- and post-intervention or follow-up. Authors from eligible trials have been invited to share their deidentified IPD. Two IPD meta-analyses will be conducted. The first IPD meta-analysis aims to examine participant level factors associated with a change in eating disorder scores during and following a weight management intervention. To do this we will examine baseline variables that predict change in eating disorder risk within intervention arms. The second IPD meta-analysis aims to assess whether there are participant level factors that predict whether participation in an intervention is more or less likely than no intervention to lead to a change in eating disorder risk. To do this, we will examine if there are differences in predictors of eating disorder risk between intervention and no-treatment control arms. The primary outcome will be a standardised mean difference in global eating disorder score from baseline to immediately post-intervention and at 6- and 12- months follow-up. Identifying participant level risk factors predicting eating disorder risk will inform screening and monitoring protocols to allow early identification and intervention for those at risk.

Tobacco Quitlines May Help Exclusive Vapers Quit: An Analysis of Data From an Employer-Sponsored Quitline.

Numerous studies have supported the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of quitlines for cigarette smoking cessation, but how effective they are for vaping cessation has not been established. Our secondary analysis examined quitline data on participants in employer-sponsored quitlines in the US run by Optum, Inc to compare quit rates among callers who were exclusive vapers (n = 1,194) with those who were exclusive smokers (n = 22,845). We examined data from the time of quitline enrollment, January 2017, through October 2020. Before adjusting for differences in demographics, quitline treatment engagement, and unadjusted quit rates, the quit rates for vapers were significantly higher. However, after adjusting for demographic and treatment engagement variables, 6-month quit rates among vapers did not differ significantly from rates among smokers.

Enhancing Tobacco Quitline Outcomes for African American Adults: An RCT of a Culturally Specific Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: This study tested the effectiveness of a culturally specific tobacco cessation video intervention among African American quitline enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: This was a 3-arm semipragmatic RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: African American adults (N=1,053) were recruited from the North Carolina tobacco quitline and data were collected between 2017 and 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive (1) quitline services only; (2) quitline services plus a standard, general audience video intervention; or (3) quitline services plus Pathways to Freedom (PTF), a culturally specific video intervention designed to promote cessation among African American persons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included 7-day and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence at 3 months, 28-day continuous abstinence, and intervention engagement. Data analyses occurred in 2020 and 2022. RESULTS: At 6 months, 7-day point prevalence abstinence was significantly greater in the Pathways to Freedom Video arm compared with quitline-only (OR=1.5, CI=1.11, 2.07). Twenty four-hour point prevalence abstinence was significantly greater in the Pathways to Freedom (than in quitline-only) group at 3 (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.03, 2.15) and 6 (OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.10, 2.28) months. At 6 months, 28-day continuous abstinence (OR=1.60, 95% CI=1.17, 2.20) was significantly greater in the Pathways to Freedom Video arm than in the quitline-only arm. Views of the Pathways to Freedom Video were 76% higher than views of the standard video. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally specific tobacco interventions delivered through state quitlines can increase cessation and thus have the potential to decrease health disparities among African American adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03064971.

Expanding population-level interventions to help more low-income smokers quit: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-income Americans have higher rates of smoking and a greater burden of smoking-related disease. In the United States, smokers in every state can access evidence-based telephone counseling through free tobacco quitlines. However, quitlines target smokers who are ready to quit in the next 30 days, which can exclude many low-income smokers. A smoke-free homes intervention may help engage smokers in tobacco control services who are not yet ready to quit. Previous research in low-income populations suggests that receiving a smoke-free homes intervention is associated with higher quit rates. This study tests whether, at a population level, expanding on quitlines to include a smoke-free homes intervention for smokers not ready to quit could engage more low-income smokers and increase long-term cessation rates. METHODS: In a Hybrid Type 2 design, participants are recruited from 211 helplines in 9 states and randomly assigned to standard quitline or quitline plus smoke-free homes intervention arms. Participants in both arms are initially offered quitline services. In the quitline plus smoke-free homes condition, participants who decline the quitline are then offered a smoke-free homes intervention. Participants complete a baseline and follow-up surveys at 3 and 6 months. Those who have not yet quit at the 3-month follow-up are re-offered the interventions, which differ by study arm. The primary study outcome is self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: This real-world cessation trial involving 9 state tobacco quitlines will help inform whether offering smoke-free homes as an alternative intervention could engage more low-income smokers with evidence-based interventions and increase overall cessation rates. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Identifier: NCT04311983).

Appeal of Tobacco Quitline Services Among Low-Income Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: State tobacco quitlines are delivering cessation assistance through an increasingly diverse range of channels. However, offerings vary from state to state, many smokers are unaware of what is available, and it is not yet clear how much demand exists for different types of assistance. In particular, the demand for online and digital cessation interventions among low-income smokers, who bear a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related disease, is not well understood. METHODS: We examined interest in using 13 tobacco quitline services in a racially diverse sample of 1,605 low-income smokers in 9 states who had called a 2-1-1 helpline and participated in an ongoing intervention trial from June 2020 through September 2022. We classified services as standard (used by ≥90% of state quitlines [eg, calls from a quit coach, nicotine replacement therapy, printed cessation booklets]) or nonstandard (mobile app, personalized web, personalized text, online chat with quit coach). RESULTS: Interest in nonstandard services was high. Half or more of the sample reported being very or somewhat interested in a mobile app (65%), a personalized web program (59%), or chatting online with quit coaches (49%) to help them quit. In multivariable regression analyses, younger smokers were more interested than older smokers in digital and online cessation services, as were women and smokers with greater nicotine dependence. CONCLUSION: On average, participants were very interested in at least 3 different cessation services, suggesting that bundled or combination interventions might be designed to appeal to different groups of low-income smokers. Findings provide some initial hints about potential subgroups and the services they might use in a rapidly changing landscape of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Approaches in Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Americans of lower SES use tobacco products at disproportionately high rates and are over-represented as patients of emergency departments. Accordingly, emergency department visits are an ideal time to initiate tobacco treatment and aftercare for this vulnerable and understudied population. This research estimates the costs per quit of emergency department smoking-cessation interventions and compares them with those of other approaches. METHODS: Previously published research described the effectiveness of 2 multicomponent smoking cessation interventions, including brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral, and follow-up communication. Study 1 (collected in 2010-2012) only analyzed the combined interventions. Study 2 (collected in 2017-2019) analyzed the intervention components independently. Costs per participant and per quit were estimated separately, under distinct intervention with dedicated staff and intervention with repurposed staff assumptions. The distinction concerns whether the intervention used dedicated staff for delivery or whether time from existing staff was repurposed for intervention if available. RESULTS: Data were analyzed in 2021-2022. In the first study, the cost per participant was $860 (2018 dollars), and the cost per quit was $11,814 (95% CI=$7,641, $25,423) (dedicated) and $227 per participant and $3,121 per quit (95% CI=$1,910, $7,012) (repurposed). In Study 2, the combined effect of brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, and quitline cost $808 per participant and $6,100 per quit (dedicated) (95% CI=$4,043, $12,274) and $221 per participant and $1,669 per quit (95% CI=$1,052, $3,531) (repurposed). CONCLUSIONS: Costs varied considerably per method used but were comparable with those of other smoking cessation interventions.

Leveling the Playing Field: Mailing Pharmacotherapy to Medicaid Members Who Smoke.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking rates differ by insurance type; rates are often double for Medicaid and uninsured compared with that for Medicare or privately insured. State-funded tobacco quitlines' provision of free nicotine replacement therapy varies. In some states, Medicaid beneficiaries must obtain nicotine replacement therapy from a physician, whereas others get nicotine replacement therapy mailed to them. METHODS: This secondary analysis examined the differences in the source and use of cessation treatment by insurance type and their impacts on cessation. The parent trial excluded people who were pregnant, had private insurance, or were not ready to quit. From June 1, 2017 to November 15, 2020, a total of 1,944 low-income people who smoke daily completed a baseline survey and were enrolled in a quitline program; 1,380 (71%) completed a 3-month follow-up. Analyses were completed in August 2022. Participants were classified as Medicaid/dual (55%), Medicare/Veterans Affairs (14%), or uninsured (31%). Nine months into the trial, owing to a system error, the quitline provided nicotine replacement therapy to all study participants regardless of insurance type. RESULTS: Before error versus after error, Medicaid participants reported lower nicotine replacement therapy receipt (3.2% vs 50.8%) and use (32.4% vs 52.6%). The odds of quitting (7-day point prevalence) by 3 months increased for people who smoke who completed more quitline calls and used any (36% quit) versus used no (20% quit) pharmacotherapy, but quitting did not differ by insurance classifications (27%-29%). Getting and using nicotine replacement therapy from the quitline produced the highest quit rates (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Results illustrate the benefit of receiving nicotine replacement therapy from the quitline on cessation. Mailing nicotine replacement therapy to all people who smoke should be standard practice to reduce smoking disparities.

A Randomized Pilot of a Tailored Smoking Cessation Quitline Intervention for Individuals Who Smoke and Vape.

INTRODUCTION: Although e-cigarettes are not a federally approved tobacco cessation aid in the United States, many smokers use them to quit or cut down on smoking. Tailored behavioral support could improve rates of complete smoking cessation for those individuals. AIMS AND METHODS: A novel behavioral treatment to help dual cigarette and e-cigarette users quit smoking was tested in a randomized pilot with a state tobacco quitline. Ninety-six dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were recruited from incoming state quitline callers and randomized to receive enhanced e-cigarette coaching (EEC) or quitline treatment as usual (TAU) to examine EEC feasibility and acceptability. Outcomes at 3 months were treatment satisfaction, engagement, beliefs, and smoking cessation. This pilot was not powered to detect differences in quit rates. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent responded to the 3-month survey. EEC treatment satisfaction was noninferior to TAU: 93.8% (30/32) of EEC and 73.5% (25/34) of TAU reported being "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with treatment, respectively. EEC participants completed more coaching calls than TAU (M = 3.4 vs. M = 2.7, p = .03), and the majority in both groups elected to receive nicotine replacement therapy (EEC: 100%, TAU: 94%, p = .24). With missing data imputed as smoking, intent-to-treat 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rates were 41.3% (19/46) for EEC and 28.0% (14/50) for TAU (p = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The EEC quitline intervention for dual cigarette and e-cigarette users demonstrated high levels of treatment satisfaction and engagement. This pilot was not powered to detect significant differences in smoking cessation; however, cessation rates were promising and warrant evaluation in a fully powered trial. IMPLICATIONS: If this scalable behavioral treatment to help dual cigarette and e-cigarette users quit smoking proves to be effective in a larger trial, quitlines could implement this harm reduction approach to improve outcomes for callers who already use e-cigarettes and are planning to use them while quitting smoking.

Full-scale Randomized Trial Comparing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Telephone-Delivered Coaching With Standard Telephone-Delivered Coaching Among Medicare/Uninsured Quitline Callers.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) telephone-delivered coaching with standard quitline (QL) telephone-delivered coaching. METHODS: Medicare/uninsured adults (analyzable sample N = 1170) who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were recruited from Optum, a major US provider of QL services, in a two-arm stratified double-blind randomized trial with main outcome of self-reported missing = smoking 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 12-month follow-up. Participants were mean (SD) age 47.4 (12.7), 61% female, and 72% white race. Five sessions of telephone-delivered ACT or QL interventions were offered. Both arms included combined nicotine patch (4 weeks) and gum or lozenge (2 weeks). RESULTS: The 12-month follow-up data retention rate was 67.8%. ACT participants reported their treatment was more useful for quitting smoking (92.0% for ACT vs. 82.3% for QL; odds ratio [OR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 4.00). Both arms had similar 12-month cessation outcomes (missing = smoking 30-day PPA: 24.6% for ACT vs. 28.8% for QL; OR =.81; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.05) and the ACT arm trended toward greater reductions in number cigarettes smoked per day (-5.6 for ACT vs. -1.7 QL, among smokers; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: ACT telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching. ACT may help those who fail to quit after standard coaching or who choose not to use nicotine replacement therapy. IMPLICATIONS: In a sample of Medicare and uninsured QL callers, a large randomized trial with long-term follow-up showed that ACT) telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching-which has followed the same behavior change approach since the 1990s. This newer model of coaching might be a welcome addition to QL services.

Stress, depression, sleep problems and unmet social needs: Baseline characteristics of low-income smokers in a randomized cessation trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-income Americans smoke cigarettes at higher rates and quit less than other groups. METHODS: To increase their engagement in and success using evidence-based cessation methods, we tested two interventions using a 2x2 randomized factorial design: (1) telephone navigation to reduce financial strain and address social needs such as food, rent and utility payment; and (2) a specialized tobacco quitline designed for low-income smokers. From June 2017 to November 2020, we enrolled 1,944 low-income smokers in Missouri, USA, recruited through the Missouri 2-1-1 helpline, into the trial. This paper describes recruitment, key characteristics and life circumstances of this high-risk population. RESULTS: After eligibility screening, 1,944 participants completed baseline and were randomized. Participants were racially diverse (58% African American), poor (51% < $10,000 annual pre-tax household income) and many reported less than high school education (30%). They reported a mean of 2.5 unmet social needs, especially childcare and paying bills, had high rates of stress, depressive symptoms and sleep problems, and most were in fair or poor health. There were few differences between these variables, and no differences between tobacco use and cessation variables, across the four study groups and between participants recruited pre and during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Trial recruitment through the 2-1-1 helpline is feasible for reaching a population of low-income smokers. Low-income smokers face myriad daily challenges beyond quitting smoking. Cessation interventions need to account for and address these life circumstances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03194958.

Treatment development, implementation, and participant baseline characteristics: A randomized pilot study of a tailored quitline intervention for individuals who smoke and vape.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 57,000 dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes call state tobacco quitlines in the U.S. each year. METHODS: This paper describes a behavioral intervention for dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes designed to increase cigarette abstinence. It also presents baseline data from a randomized pilot comparing the Enhanced E-cigarette Coaching (EEC) intervention with quitline treatment as usual (TAU). Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline callers were recruited at registration and randomized to EEC (n = 46) or TAU (n = 50). Treatment included 5 coaching calls and free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). EEC treatment included enhanced e-cigarette assessment, education, a shared decision-making quit plan development approach, and tailored behavioral support. RESULTS: Participants averaged 40.6 years of age and 19.2 cigarettes per day; 85% smoked daily, 48% vaped daily, and 53% reported medium to high e-cigarette dependence. Most reported using e-cigarettes to quit (43%) or to cut down (26%) on smoking. Most had previously tried to quit smoking (91%) and had tried FDA-approved cessation medications (79%). Beliefs about vaping, NRT, and smoking included misinformation. After discussing the relative risks of NRT, vaping, and smoking, most EEC participants (89%) selected a quit plan that incorporated both NRT and vaping. CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, most participants reported a history of failed quit attempts with NRT and were vaping to quit or cut down on smoking, but they may need more support to completely quit smoking. If the EEC improves smoking outcomes, it would provide needed guidance on behavioral support best practices for individuals who vape and want to quit smoking.

Sustained Care Smoking Cessation Intervention for Individuals Hospitalized for Psychiatric Disorders: The Helping HAND 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smoking among individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) represents a major public health problem. Intervening during a psychiatric hospital stay may provide an opportunity to aid engagement in smoking cessation treatment and facilitate success in quitting. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a multicomponent, sustained care (SusC) smoking cessation intervention in adults with SMI receiving inpatient psychiatric care. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Helping HAND 3 randomized clinical trial compared SusC with usual care (UC) among individuals with SMI who smoked daily and were receiving inpatient psychiatric care in Austin, Texas, in a single hospital. The study was conducted from July 2015 through August 2019. Interventions: The UC intervention involved brief smoking cessation information, self-help materials and advice from the admitting nurse, and an offer to provide nicotine replacement therapy during hospitalization. The SusC intervention included 4 main components designed to facilitate patient engagement with postdischarge smoking cessation resources: (1) inpatient motivational counseling; (2) free transdermal nicotine patches on discharge; (3) an offer of free postdischarge telephone quitline, text-based, and/or web-based smoking cessation counseling, and (4) postdischarge automated interactive voice response calls or text messages. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. A secondary outcome was self-reported smoking cessation treatment use at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Results: A total of 353 participants were randomized, of whom 342 were included in analyses (mean [SD] age, 35.8 [12.3] years; 268 White individuals [78.4%]; 280 non-Hispanic individuals [81.9%]; 169 women [49.4%]). They reported smoking a mean (SD) of 16.9 (10.4) cigarettes per day. Participants in the SusC group evidenced significantly higher 6-month follow-up point-prevalence abstinence rates than those in the UC group (8.9% vs 3.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.95 [95% CI, 1.24-6.99]; P = .01). The number needed to treat was 18.5 (95% CI, 9.6-306.4). A series of sensitivity analyses confirmed effectiveness. Finally, participants in the SusC group were significantly more likely to report using smoking cessation treatment over the 6 months postdischarge compared with participants in the UC group (74.6% vs 40.5%; relative risk, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.51-2.25]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this randomized clinical trial provide evidence for the effectiveness of a scalable, multicomponent intervention in promoting smoking cessation treatment use and smoking abstinence in individuals with SMI following hospital discharge. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02204956.

Vaping and E-Cigarettes Within the Evolving Tobacco Quitline Landscape.

This article summarizes the vaping research literature as it pertains to tobacco quitlines and describes vaping assessment, treatment, and evaluation quitline practices. It also presents 2014-2018 registration data (vaping in the past 30 days, number of use days, use for quitting smoking, and intentions to quit vaping) from 24 public quitlines (23 states and District of Columbia) and 110,295 enrollees to employer-sponsored quitlines. Trends in vaping rates over time, by state, and by age group are described. Approximately 57,000 adult public quitline enrollees in the U.S. reported vaping at registration in 2018 (14.7% of enrollees). Most quitline participants who vape also smoke cigarettes and contact the quitline for smoking cessation support. Rates of reporting vaping and no combustible or smokeless tobacco use in the past 30 days are 0.5% of all public quitline participants (<3% of public quitline vaping product users). Data are not systematically available regarding the number of quitline participants who are seeking help quitting vaping and only vape (do not use combustible or smokeless tobacco). Few quitline participants (<1%) are youth aged <18 years, but more than a third (35%) report vaping. This paper outlines research and evaluation priorities to inform the future quitline treatment landscape with respect to vaping. The quitline community is positioned to increase the likelihood that vaping has a positive impact for adults who smoke through harm reduction or supporting cessation and has opportunities to expand impacts on youth and young adult vaping prevention and cessation.

Using a group development framework to maximize leadership strategies in the inaugural session of the Society of Behavioral Medicine Leadership Institute.

The 2016-2017 Inaugural Class of the Society of Behavioral Medicine Leadership Institute (SBM LI) debuted to an eager team of 36 mid-career fellows led by energetic mentors, professional coaches, and career development experts. Fellows were divided into learning communities of eight participants for deeper engagement. Our "Green Team" learning community bonded quickly and actively committed to our collective progress and projects. Upon returning home from the in-person sessions, our activities included monthly team conference calls and consultation with our mentors and selected coaches. The Green Team regularly communicated throughout the year, giving feedback to each other about our projects to be presented at the 2017 SBM Annual Meeting. We also discussed our mentoring and coaching experiences, leadership skills put to use at our institutions, and personal development. Contact continued via social media, email, teleconferencing, and collaborations at other professional meetings. The Green Team utilized the Tuckman and Jensen model of small group development to describe how we developed into a high-functioning group that maximized the resources afforded by the SBM LI to yield successful leadership outcomes. This commentary will offer an example of how a productive SBM LI team works collaboratively to utilize its mentors and resources for professional development.

Marijuana Use and Adherence to Smoking Cessation Treatment Among Callers to Tobacco Quitlines.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco kills over half a million adults annually in the United States. Most smokers want to quit, and over 400,000 call state-funded quitlines for help each year. Marijuana use among tobacco users is common and may impede quitting, but co-use rates among quitline callers are unknown. The purpose of our observational study was to describe marijuana use among quitline callers in states with legalized marijuana. METHODS: Participants were 1,059 smokers aged 21 or older from Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, DC, who called quitlines from September through December 2016. Data on quitline callers' demographics, tobacco and marijuana use, and quitline use were collected. We used χ2 and regression analyses to compare marijuana users with nonusers on demographic characteristics and quitline use. RESULT: Among quitline callers in our study, 24% reported using marijuana in the past 30 days: 28.9% in Alaska, 16.7% in Washington, DC, and 25.0% in Oregon (P = .009). Current users, compared with non-users (n = 772), were less likely to be women (48.4% vs 62.0%, respectively, P < .001). Current marijuana users were less likely to be given nicotine replacement therapy (68.4%) than current nonusers (74.1%) (P < .001), but more likely to complete 3 or more counseling calls (P = .005). Of those who used marijuana in the past 30 days, 62.3% used marijuana on 1 to 19 days, 9.0% used on 20 to 29 days, and 28.7% on all 30 days. Among current marijuana users, the percentage who wanted to quit or reduce marijuana use (42.6%) was higher in Alaska (54.6%) and the District of Columbia (56.8%) than in Oregon (37.9%), P = .03. CONCLUSION: One in 4 quitline callers reported past 30-day marijuana use. Given that nearly half (43%) wanted to reduce marijuana use, addressing co-use may be an important addition to quitline treatment. Future studies should assess co-use effects on tobacco cessation outcomes and explore combined treatment or bidirectional referrals between quitlines and marijuana treatment providers.

Web-Based Tobacco Cessation Interventions and Digital Inequality across US Racial/Ethnic Groups.

Introduction: Internet-based tobacco cessation programs have increased in use and popularity in recent years. To examine evidence for racial/ethnic digital inequality in web-only tobacco cessation services offered by US tobacco quitlines, we conducted an analysis of quitline enrollees in five states. We hypothesized that racial/ethnic minorities would demonstrate lower enrollment and utilization of a web-only tobacco cessation program. Methods: The sample includes enrollees into five state quitlines whose service options included a web-only program in 2015 (N=32,989). Outcomes included web-entry into the quitline, web-only enrollment, establishment of a web account, and the number of times users logged into the program. Regression models tested associations with race/ethnicity. Results: Compared with Whites, African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and "others" were less likely to enter the quitline via the web (Ps<.01) and enroll in a web-only (vs counseling) program (Ps<.01). Among web-only program enrollees, all racial/ethnic minority groups were significantly less likely than Whites to establish an online account (Ps<.03), and African Americans were less likely than Whites to log in to the web-only service (P<.01). Conclusions: This study suggests that digital inequalities exist in web-based tobacco cessation services. Findings have implications for the development and implementation of digital tobacco interventions for racial/ethnic minority communities. The proliferation of digital tobacco interventions could increase disparities, as members of racial/ethnic minority groups may not engage in these interventions. Implications: The proliferation of digital interventions has the potential to increase tobacco-related disparities, as members of racial/ethnic minority groups may not enroll in, or engage in, such interventions. As the field moves to digitize tobacco interventions, we must remain cognizant of persistent digital inequalities and the potential for widening racial/ethnic tobacco cessation disparities.

Adaptation of a sustained care cessation intervention for smokers hospitalized for psychiatric disorders: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke at disproportionately higher rates than those without SMI, have lifespans 25-32 years shorter, and thus bear an especially large burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Several recent studies demonstrate that smokers with SMI can successfully quit smoking with adequate support. Further evidence shows that using technology to deliver sustained care interventions to hospitalized smokers can lead to smoking cessation up to 6 months after discharge. The current comparative effectiveness trial adapts a technology-assisted sustained care intervention designed for smokers admitted to a general hospital and tests whether this approach can produce higher cessation rates compared to usual care for smokers admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. METHODS: A total of 353 eligible patients hospitalized for psychiatric illness are randomized by cohort into one of two conditions, Sustained Care (SusC) or Usual Care (UC), and are followed for six months after discharge. Participants assigned to UC receive brief tobacco education delivered by a hospital nurse during or soon after admission. Those assigned to SusC receive a 40-min, in-hospital motivational counseling intervention. Upon discharge, they also receive up to 8 weeks of free nicotine patches, automated interactive voice response (IVR) telephone and text messaging, and access to cessation counseling resources lasting 3 months post discharge. Smoking cessation outcomes are measured at 1-, 3- and 6-months post hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Results from this comparative effectiveness trial will add to our understanding of acceptable and effective smoking cessation approaches for patients hospitalized with SMI.

Feasibility and Early Outcomes of a Tailored Quitline Protocol for Smokers With Mental Health Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with mental health conditions (MHCs) smoke at higher rates, are more nicotine dependent, and have more trouble quitting smoking than those without MHCs. About half of smokers who call state-funded quitlines report MHCs, and those with such conditions have cessation rates 8%-10% lower than those without MHCs. This article describes a clinical pilot of a tailored protocol for quitline callers with MHCs. METHODS: Callers to the Texas Tobacco Quit Line who self-reported MHCs were offered a tailored quitline program, offering up to 12 weeks of combination nicotine replacement (nicotine patch plus gum or lozenge) and seven counseling calls. Characteristics, program engagement, and 7-month outcomes for these pilot participants were compared to callers in the standard Texas Tobacco Quit Line program with and without MHCs not offered the tailored program. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of eligible quitline callers accepted enrollment in the tailored pilot. Pilot enrollees (n = 311) had high rates of comorbidity and serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder (59%). Those in the pilot sample participated in more coaching calls and used more nicotine replacement versus comparison groups. Early cessation outcomes showed numerically higher quit rates for pilot participants than those with MHCs in the standard program, but small sample size and low response rates prevent definitive statements about efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a tailored quitline protocol for callers with MHCs was feasible and acceptable to quitline callers and increased engagement in treatment. A larger study is needed to determine if the protocol increases cessation among this group. IMPLICATIONS: Nearly half of all quitline callers report a MHC. This clinical quality improvement pilot shows that delivering a tailored tobacco cessation program for smokers with MHCs is feasible and acceptable to quitline callers. Participants in the pilot group had higher engagement in treatment, doubling the number of coaching calls received and using more nicotine replacement than comparison groups. Further investigation is needed to determine the effect of this program on cessation rates, although preliminary outcomes are promising.