Efficacy of a universal smoking cessation intervention initiated in inpatient psychiatry and continued post-discharge: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Interventions are required to redress the disproportionate tobacco-related health burden experienced by persons with a mental illness. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a universal smoking cessation intervention initiated within an acute psychiatric inpatient setting and continued post-discharge in reducing smoking prevalence and increasing quitting behaviours. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken across four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Participants ( N = 754) were randomised to receive either usual care ( n = 375) or an intervention comprising a brief motivational interview and self-help material while in hospital, followed by a 4-month pharmacological and psychosocial intervention ( n = 379) upon discharge. Primary outcomes assessed at 6 and 12 months post-discharge were 7-day point prevalence and 1-month prolonged smoking abstinence. A number of secondary smoking-related outcomes were also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on psychiatric diagnosis, baseline readiness to quit and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Seven-day point prevalence abstinence was higher for intervention participants (15.8%) than controls (9.3%) at 6 months post-discharge (odds ratio = 1.07, p = 0.04), but not at 12 months (13.4% and 10.0%, respectively; odds ratio = 1.03, p = 0.25). Significant intervention effects were not found on measures of prolonged abstinence at either 6 or 12 months post-discharge. Differential intervention effects for the primary outcomes were not detected for any subgroups. At both 6 and 12 months post-discharge, intervention group participants were significantly more likely to smoke fewer cigarettes per day, have reduced cigarette consumption by ⩾50% and to have made at least one quit attempt, relative to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Universal smoking cessation treatment initiated in inpatient psychiatry and continued post-discharge was efficacious in increasing 7-day point prevalence smoking cessation rates and related quitting behaviours at 6 months post-discharge, with sustained effects on quitting behaviour at 12 months. Further research is required to identify strategies for achieving longer term smoking cessation.

Impact of a postdischarge smoking cessation intervention for smokers admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persons with a mental disorder smoke at higher rates and suffer disproportionate tobacco-related burden compared with the general population. The aim of this study was to determine if a smoking cessation intervention initiated during a psychiatric hospitalization and continued postdischarge was effective in reducing smoking behaviors among persons with a mental disorder. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at an Australian inpatient psychiatric facility. Participants were 205 patient smokers allocated to a treatment as usual control (n = 101) or a smoking cessation intervention (n = 104) incorporating psychosocial and pharmacological support for 4 months postdischarge. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 1 week, 2, 4, and 6 months postdischarge and included abstinence from cigarettes, quit attempts, daily cigarette consumption, and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Rates of continuous and 7-day point prevalence abstinence did not differ between treatment conditions at the 6-month follow-up; however, point prevalence abstinence was significantly higher for intervention (11.5%) compared with control (2%) participants at 4 months (OR = 6.46, p = .01). Participants in the intervention condition reported significantly more quit attempts (F[1, 202.5] = 15.23, p = .0001), lower daily cigarette consumption (F[4, 586] = 6.5, p < .001), and lower levels of nicotine dependence (F[3, 406] = 8.5, p < .0001) compared with controls at all follow-up assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge cessation support was effective in encouraging quit attempts and reducing cigarette consumption up to 6 months postdischarge. Additional support strategies are required to facilitate longer-term cessation benefits for smokers with a mental disorder.

The impact of a smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization on patient smoking outcomes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Smoke-free policies have been introduced in inpatient psychiatric facilities in most developed nations. Such a period of supported abstinence during hospitalization may impact smoking behaviours post discharge, yet little quantitative evidence exists. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of the research evidence examining the impact of a smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization on patients' smoking-related behaviours, motivation, and beliefs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to June 2013. Studies were included if they were conducted in an inpatient psychiatric facility with a smoke-free policy and if they examined any change in patients' smoking-related behaviours, motivation, or beliefs either during admission, post discharge, or both. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review. Of the four studies that assessed change in smoking from admission to post discharge, two indicated a significant decline in cigarette consumption up to 3 months post discharge. Positive changes in motivation to quit and beliefs about quitting ability were identified in two studies. One study reported an increase in the rate of quit attempts and one reported a decline in nicotine dependence levels. CONCLUSIONS: A smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization may have a positive impact on patients' smoking-related behaviours, motivation, and beliefs, both during admission and up to 3 months post discharge. Further controlled studies with more rigorous designs are required to confirm this potential.

Readiness to quit smoking and quit attempts among Australian mental health inpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health inpatients smoke at higher rates than general population smokers. However, provision of nicotine-dependence treatment in inpatient settings is low, with barriers to the provision of such care including staff views that patients do not want to quit. This paper reports the findings of a survey of mental health inpatients at a psychiatric hospital in New South Wales, Australia, assessing smoking and quitting motivations and behaviors. METHODS: Smokers (n = 97) were surveyed within the inpatient setting using a structured survey tool, incorporating the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, Reasons for Quitting Scale, Readiness and Motivation to Quit Smoking Questionnaire, and other measures of smoking and quitting behavior. RESULTS: Approximately 47% of smokers reported having made at least one quit attempt within the past 12 months, despite nearly three quarters (71.2%) being classified as in a "precontemplative" stage of change. Multinomial logistic regressions revealed that self-reporting "not enjoying being a smoker" and having made a quit attempt in the last 12 months predicted having advanced beyond a precontemplative stage of change. A high self-reported desire to quit predicted a quit attempt having been made in the last 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of smokers had made several quit attempts, with a large percentage occurring recently, suggesting that the actual quitting behavior should be considered as an important indication of the "desire to quit." This paper provides further data supporting the assertion that multimodal smoking cessation interventions combining psychosocial and pharmacological support should be provided to psychiatric inpatients who smoke.

A randomised controlled trial linking mental health inpatients to community smoking cessation supports: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health inpatients smoke at higher rates than the general population and are disproportionately affected by tobacco dependence. Despite the advent of smoke free policies within mental health hospitals, limited systems are in place to support a cessation attempt post hospitalisation, and international evidence suggests that most smokers return to pre-admission smoking levels following discharge. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial that will test the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of linking inpatient smoking care with ongoing community cessation support for smokers with a mental illness. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will be conducted as a randomised controlled trial. 200 smokers with an acute mental illness will be recruited from a large inpatient mental health facility. Participants will complete a baseline survey and will be randomised to either a multimodal smoking cessation intervention or provided with hospital smoking care only. Randomisation will be stratified by diagnosis (psychotic, non-psychotic). Intervention participants will be provided with a brief motivational interview in the inpatient setting and options of ongoing smoking cessation support post discharge: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); referral to Quitline; smoking cessation groups; and fortnightly telephone support. Outcome data, including cigarettes smoked per day, quit attempts, and self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (validated by exhaled carbon monoxide), will be collected via blind interview at one week, two months, four months and six months post discharge. Process information will also be collected, including the use of cessation supports and cost of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This study will provide comprehensive data on the potential of an integrated, multimodal smoking cessation intervention for persons with an acute mental illness, linking inpatient with community cessation support.

Total smoking bans in psychiatric inpatient services: a survey of perceived benefits, barriers and support among staff.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of total smoking bans represents an important step in addressing the smoking and physical health of people with mental illness. Despite evidence indicating the importance of staff support in the successful implementation of smoking bans, limited research has examined levels of staff support prior to the implementation of a ban in psychiatric settings, or factors that are associated with such support. This study aimed to examine the views of psychiatric inpatient hospital staff regarding the perceived benefits of and barriers to implementation of a successful total smoking ban in mental health services. Secondly, to examine the level of support among clinical and non-clinical staff for a total smoking ban. Thirdly, to examine the association between the benefits and barriers perceived by clinicians and their support for a total smoking ban in their unit. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of both clinical and non-clinical staff in a large inpatient psychiatric hospital immediately prior to the implementation of a total smoking ban. RESULTS: Of the 300 staff, 183 (61%) responded. Seventy-three (41%) of total respondents were clinical staff, and 110 (92%) were non-clinical staff. More than two-thirds of staff agreed that a smoking ban would improve their work environment and conditions, help staff to stop smoking and improve patients' physical health. The most prevalent clinician perceived barriers to a successful total smoking ban related to fear of patient aggression (89%) and patient non-compliance (72%). Two thirds (67%) of all staff indicated support for a total smoking ban in mental health facilities generally, and a majority (54%) of clinical staff expressed support for a ban within their unit. Clinical staff who believed a smoking ban would help patients to stop smoking were more likely to support a smoking ban in their unit. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need to more effectively communicate to staff the evidence that consistently applied smoking bans do not increase patient aggression. There is also a need to communicate the benefits of smoking bans in aiding the delivery of smoking cessation care, and the benefits of both smoking bans and such care in aiding patients to stop smoking.

Synthetic cannabinoid use in an acute psychiatric inpatient unit.

In the present study, we explored the prevalence of new psychoactive substance use by people admitted into an Australian acute public mental health facility specializing in comorbid mental health and substance use. These substances have since been banned from retail outlets, but the pattern of uptake and reasons people use them is informative in terms of motivations and the management of substance use more generally. A cross-sectional study to explore the use of synthetic cannabis by people admitted to an acute adult mental health unit was undertaken. Associations with diagnostic, service use, and demographic profiles were explored. Fifty-six percent of people reported having used at least one type of new psychoactive substance, including 53.5% who reported using synthetic cannabis alone, and 18.8% who reported using both synthetic cannabis and other new psychoactive substances. Synthetic cannabis use was not associated with any demographic or diagnostic groups. Legality and availability (43% combined) were common reasons for use, along with the feeling of intoxication (20%). The high prevalence of new psychoactive substance use adds weight to the recommendation that clinicians should routinely screen for substances from the time of admission. Accurate information about these substances is required in order to provide accurate guidance and appropriate interventions to people in their care.

Implementation of a smoke-free policy in an inpatient psychiatric facility: Patient-reported adherence, support, and receipt of nicotine-dependence treatment.

The implementation of smoke-free policies in inpatient psychiatric facilities, including patient adherence, mental health nursing staff support, and provision of nicotine-dependence treatment to patients, has been reported to be poor. The extent to which the quality of smoke-free policy implementation is associated with patient views of a policy is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 181 patients (53.6%, n = 97 smokers; and 46.4%, n = 84 non-smokers) in an Australian inpatient psychiatric facility with a total smoke-free policy. Smokers' adherence to the policy was poor (83.5% smoked). Only half (53.6%) perceived staff to be supportive of the policy. Most smokers used nicotine-replacement therapy (75.3%); although few received optimal nicotine-dependence treatment (19.6%). Overall, 45.9% of patients viewed the smoke-free policy in the unit as positive (29.9% smokers; 64.3% non-smokers). For smokers, adhering to the ban, perceiving staff to be supportive, and reporting that the nicotine-replacement therapy reduced cravings to smoke were associated with a more positive view towards the smoke-free policy. These findings support the importance of patient adherence, mental health nursing staff support, and adequate provision of nicotine-dependence treatment in strengthening smoke-free policy implementation in inpatient psychiatric settings.

Evaluation of a motivational interview for substance use within psychiatric in-patient services.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of a motivational interview among hospitalized psychiatric patients with comorbid substance use disorder in reducing alcohol and other drug (AOD) use. DESIGN: Subjects were assigned randomly to receive an individual motivational interview (n=79) or a self-help booklet (control condition; n=81). SETTING: Subjects were volunteers recruited from a major public psychiatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects met abuse or dependence criteria on the structured clinical interview for diagnosis (SCID) for alcohol, cannabis or amphetamine or they reported hazardous use during the last month of one or more of these drug types on the opiate treatment index (OTI). INTERVENTION: Either one 30-45-minute motivational interview or brief advice. MEASUREMENTS: The SCID and OTI were the main measures. FINDINGS: There was a modest short-term effect of the motivational interview on an aggregate index of alcohol and other drug use (polydrug use on the OTI). Cannabis use remained high among the sample over the 12-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Although motivational interviewing appears feasible among in-patients in psychiatric hospital with comorbid substance use disorders, more extensive interventions are recommended, continuing on an out-patient basis, particularly for cannabis use.

Evaluating the efficacy of an integrated smoking cessation intervention for mental health patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking rates, and associated negative health outcomes, are disproportionately high among people with mental illness compared to the general population. Smoke-free policies within mental health hospitals can positively impact on patients' motivation and self-efficacy to address their smoking. However, without post-discharge support, preadmission smoking behaviours typically resume. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial that aims to assess the efficacy of linking mental health inpatients to community-based smoking cessation supports upon discharge as a means of reducing smoking prevalence. METHODS/DESIGN: Eight hundred participants with acute mental illness will be recruited into the randomised controlled trial whilst inpatients at one of four psychiatric inpatient facilities in the state of New South Wales, Australia. After completing a baseline interview, participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: 'Supported Care', a multimodal smoking cessation intervention; or 'Normal Care', consisting of existing hospital care only. The 'Supported Care' intervention will consist of a brief motivational interview and a package of self-help material for abstaining from smoking whilst in hospital, and, following discharge, 16 weeks of motivational telephone-based counselling, 12 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy, and a referral to the Quitline. Data will be collected at 1, 6 and 12 months post-discharge via computer-assisted telephone interview. The primary outcomes are abstinence from smoking (7-day point prevalence and prolonged cessation), and secondary outcomes comprise daily cigarette consumption, nicotine dependence, quit attempts, and readiness to change smoking behaviour. DISCUSSION: If shown to be effective, the study will provide evidence in support of systemic changes in the provision of smoking cessation care to patients following discharge from psychiatric inpatient facilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZTCN: ACTRN12612001042831. Date registered: 28 September 2012.

Smoking cessation care provision and support procedures in Australian community mental health centers.

OBJECTIVE: The study assessed the association of supportive clinical systems and procedures with smoking cessation care at community mental health centers. METHODS: Managers (N=84) of community mental health centers in New South Wales, Australia, were asked to complete a survey during 2009 about smoking cessation care. RESULTS: Of the 79 managers who responded, 56% reported that the centers assessed smoking for over 60% of clients, and 34% reported that more than 60% of clients received minimum acceptable smoking cessation care. They reported the use of guidelines and protocols (34%), the use of forms to record smoking status (65%), and the practice of always enforcing smoking bans (52%). Minimum acceptable smoking cessation care was associated with encouraging nicotine replacement therapy for staff who smoke (odds ratio [OR]=9.42), using forms for recording smoking status (OR=5.80), and always enforcing smoking bans (OR=3.82). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation care was suboptimal, and additional supportive systems and procedures are required to increase its delivery.

An audit of the prevalence of recorded nicotine dependence treatment in an Australian psychiatric hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of recorded smoking status, nicotine dependence assessment, and nicotine dependence treatment provision; and to examine the patient characteristics associated with the recording of smoking status. METHOD: A retrospective systematic medical record audit was conducted of all psychiatric inpatient discharges over a six-month period (1 September 2005 to 28 February 2006), at a large Australian psychiatric hospital, with approximately 2,000 patient discharges per year. A one-page audit tool identifying patient characteristics and prevalence of recorded nicotine dependence treatment, and requiring ICD-10-AM diagnoses coding was used. RESULTS: From 1,012 identified discharges, 1,000 medical records were available for audit (99%). Documentation of smoking status most frequently occurred on the admission form (28.8%) and diagnoses summary (41.6%). Documentation of nicotine dependence was not found in any record, and recording of any nicotine dependence treatment was negligible (0-0.5%). The rate of recorded smoking status on discharge summaries was 6%. Patients with a diagnosis of alcohol, cannabis, sedative use disorders or asthma were twice as likely to have their smoking status recorded compared to those who did not have these diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health services, by failing to diagnose and document treatment for nicotine dependence, do not conform to current clinical practice guidelines, despite nicotine dependence being the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorder. IMPLICATIONS: Considerable system change and staff support is required to provide an environment where a primary prevention approach such as smoking care can be sustained.

Smoking restrictions and treatment for smoking: policies and procedures in psychiatric inpatient units in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Australia. Even though smoking prevalence in the general population has been reduced (20% smoke), prevalence rates remain high among psychiatric inpatients (70%-90%). This study aimed to identify smoking policies and procedures in public psychiatric inpatient units in New South Wales, Australia; the provision of "smoking care" in such units (for example, quit-smoking advice or nicotine replacement therapy); and policies and procedures associated with the assessment of smoking status and provision of smoking care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to all public psychiatric inpatient units in New South Wales for completion by nurse unit managers. RESULTS: Of the 131 units, 123 units completed and returned surveys (94%). Over one-third (36%) of respondents reported instances in which inpatients began smoking during their admission. A similar proportion (39%) reported that staff provided cigarettes to patients who smoked when patients' supply was expended. Fifty percent of respondents reported that all patients were assessed for smoking status; however, 70% reported that nicotine dependence was not assessed. Units on which staff adhered to smoking restrictions were three times as likely to assess patients' smoking status as units where staff never adhered to restrictions (odds ratio=3.05, p=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate establishment of nonsmoking environments and of smoking restriction enforcement as well as inconsistencies in the provision of smoking care were evident. The findings suggest that failure of psychiatric services to provide smoking care is systemic and not related to particular types of services (for example acute versus nonacute or regional versus metropolitan).

Motivational interviewing among psychiatric in-patients with substance use disorders.

OBJECTIVE: There were three aims of the present study: 1) to document patterns of substance misuse among psychiatric in-patients with comorbid alcohol and other drug (AOD) use; 2) to examine associations among psychiatric and substance use diagnoses and readiness to change; and 3) to evaluate the effectiveness of an opportunistic motivational interview on engagement in a Specialist Substance Misuse Service (SSMS). METHOD: One hundred and sixty subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a motivational interview or no intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 66.3% of subjects met intervention threshold for cannabis, 60.6% for alcohol and 22.5% for amphetamines. There was a bimodal distribution of stage of change for cannabis use which was associated with age, with precontemplation being associated with older age and less frequent use. Attendance at the SSMS was low and unrelated to intervention status. CONCLUSION: A different approach to treatment is recommended, including early intervention among cannabis users.