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.

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.

Outcomes of a randomized trial evaluating two approaches for promoting pharmacy-based referrals to the tobacco quitline.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term impact of 2 promising intervention approaches to engage pharmacy personnel (pharmacists, technicians) in referring patients who want to quit smoking to the tobacco quitline. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Community pharmacies in Connecticut (n = 32) and Washington (n = 32). INTERVENTION: Two intervention approaches were evaluated: academic detailing (AD), which involved on-site training for pharmacy staff about the quitline, versus mailed quitline materials (MM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the overall percentage of quitline registrants who reported hearing about the quitline from any pharmacy during the 6-month baseline monitoring period versus the 12-month intervention period, and between-group comparisons of a) the number of quitline registrants who reported hearing about the quitline from one of the study pharmacies during the 12-month intervention period, and b) the number of quitline cards and brochures distributed to patients during the first 6 months of the intervention period. RESULTS: The percentage of quitline callers who reported having heard about the quitline from a pharmacy increased significantly, from 2.2% during the baseline monitoring period to 3.8% during the 12-month intervention (P < 0.0001). In addition, comparisons controlled for seasonal effects also revealed significant increases in referrals. Across all 64 pharmacies, 10,013 quitline cards and 4755 brochures were distributed. The number of quitline cards distributed and the number registrants who reported hearing about the quitline from a pharmacy did not differ by intervention approach (AD vs. MM), although AD pharmacies distributed more quitline brochures (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Brief cessation interventions are feasible in community pharmacies, and the 2 approaches evaluated for engaging pharmacy personnel were similarly effective and collectively led to meaningful increases in the number and proportion of all patients who called the quitline. Involvement of community pharmacy personnel in tobacco cessation presents a significant opportunity to promote quitline services by connecting patients with an effective publicly available resource.

Using Diverse Communication Strategies to Re-Engage Relapsed Tobacco Quitline Users in Treatment, New York State, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Most smoking cessation programs lack strategies to reach relapsed participants and encourage a new quit attempt. We used a multimodal intervention to encourage past quitline registry participants to recycle into services. METHODS: We invited 3,510 past quitline participants back to quitline services, using messages consecutively delivered through Interactive Voice Response (IVR), followed by postcard and email reminders, 2 Short Messaging Services (SMS) texts, and a final cycle of IVR. The primary study outcome was recycling into a new quitline-assisted quit attempt. We used statistical analyses to assess rates and predictors of recycling (socioeconomic, health- and tobacco-related variables) with study participants and compared the study sample with registry participants not selected for the study (comparison group). RESULTS: Quitline services were re-initiated by 12.2% of the intervention sample and 1.9% of the comparison group (z = 6.03, P < .001, effect size of 0.44). Most re-enrollments were done via direct IVR-transfer to the quitline. Predictors of re-enrollment were age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 for every 10 years of age; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-1.57), number of years smoking (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.36), and reporting cancer (OR = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.47-3.68) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.16-2.10). Living with other smokers was correlated with a lower chance of recycling into treatment (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91). CONCLUSION: Recycling previous quitline participants using a proactive, IVR-based intervention is effective in reinitiating quitline-assisted quit attempts. Older, long-term smokers reporting chronic conditions are more likely than younger smokers to re-engage in quitline support when these methods are used.

Using Internet to recruit immigrants with language and culture barriers for tobacco and alcohol use screening: a study among Brazilians.

Limited English proficient (LEP) individuals face disparities in accessing substance abuse treatment, but little is known on how to reach this population. This study aimed to test online recruitment methods for tobacco and alcohol screening among LEP Portuguese speakers. The study was advertised in Portuguese using Facebook, Google, online newsletters and E-mail. Participants clicked ads to consent and access a screening for tobacco and alcohol dependence. Ads yielded 690 screening responses in 90 days. Respondents had a mean age of 42.7 (SD 12), with a higher proportion of women than men, 95% born in Brazil with high levels of LEP and low levels of acculturation. Facebook ads yielded 41.4% of responses, and were the lowest cost recruitment channel ($8.9, $31.10 and $20.40 per respondent, hazardous drinker and smoker, respectively). Online recruitment of LEP populations is feasible. Future studies should test similar strategies in other LEP groups.

Weight gain and smoking: perceptions and experiences of obese quitline participants.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain that commonly accompanies smoking cessation can undermine a person's attempt to quit and increase the risk for metabolic disorders. Research indicates that obese smokers have more weight concerns and gain more weight after quitting than non-obese smokers, yet little is known about possible reasons for these outcomes. We sought to gain an understanding of obese smokers' experiences of quitting and their attitudes and beliefs about the association between smoking and weight gain. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with obese smokers who called a state tobacco quitline. Interviewers elicited discussion of obese smokers' thoughts about smoking, the effects of quitting on change in weight, challenges they faced with quitting, and how quitlines might better serve their needs. RESULTS: Participants (n = 29) discussed their fear of gaining weight after quitting, their beliefs about smoking and their weight and significant experiences related to quitting. Participants' awareness of weight gain associated with quitting was based on prior experience or observation of others who quit. Most viewed cessation as their primary goal and discussed other challenges as being more important than their weight, such as managing stress or coping with a chronic health condition. Although weight gain was viewed as less important than quitting, many talked about changes they had made to mitigate the anticipated weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: Weight gain is a concern for obese smokers interested in quitting. Understanding the relative importance of body weight and other challenges related to smoking cessation can help tailor interventions for the specific group of smokers who are obese and interested in smoking cessation.

Impact of baseline weight on smoking cessation and weight gain in quitlines.

BACKGROUND: The use and effectiveness of tobacco quitlines by weight is still unknown. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine if baseline weight is associated with treatment engagement, cessation, or weight gain following quitline treatment. METHODS: Quitline participants (n = 595) were surveyed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Baseline weight was not associated with treatment engagement. In unadjusted analyses, overweight smokers reported higher quit rates and were more likely to gain weight after quitting than obese or normal weight smokers. At 3 months, 40 % of overweight vs. 25 % of normal weight or obese smokers quit smoking (p = 0.01); 42 % of overweight, 32 % of normal weight, and 33 % of obese quitters gained weight (p = 0.05). After adjusting for covariates, weight was not significantly related to cessation (approaching significance at 6 months, p = 0.06) or weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: In the first quitline study of this kind, we found no consistent patterns of association between baseline weight and treatment engagement, cessation, or weight gain.

The Ask-Advise-Connect approach for smokers in a safety net healthcare system: a group-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Because smoking has a profound impact on socioeconomic disparities in illness and death, it is crucial that vulnerable populations of smokers be targeted with treatment. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends that all patients be asked about their smoking at every visit and that smokers be given brief advice to quit and referred to treatment. PURPOSE: Initiatives to facilitate these practices include the 5A's (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange) and Ask-Advise-Refer (AAR). Unfortunately, primary care referrals are low, and most smokers referred fail to enroll. This study evaluated the efficacy of the Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC) approach to linking smokers with treatment in a large, safety net public healthcare system. DESIGN: The study design was a pair-matched group-randomized trial with two treatment arms. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ten safety net clinics in Houston TX. INTERVENTION: Clinics were randomized to AAC (n=5; intervention) or AAR (n=5; control). Licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) were trained to assess and record the smoking status of all patients at all visits in the electronic health record. Smokers were given brief advice to quit. In AAC, the names and phone numbers of smokers who agreed to be connected were sent electronically to the Texas quitline daily, and patients were proactively called by the quitline within 48 hours. In AAR, smokers were offered a quitline referral card and encouraged to call on their own. Data were collected between June 2010 and March 2012 and analyzed in 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was impact, defined here as the proportion of identified smokers that enrolled in treatment. RESULTS: The impact (proportion of identified smokers who enrolled in treatment) of AAC (14.7%) was significantly greater than the impact of AAR (0.5%), t(4)=14.61, p=0.0001, OR=32.10 (95% CI=16.60, 62.06). CONCLUSIONS: The AAC approach to aiding smoking cessation has tremendous potential to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

Ask-Advise-Connect: a new approach to smoking treatment delivery in health care settings.

IMPORTANCE: Several national health care-based smoking cessation initiatives have been recommended to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based treatments, such as quitline (telephone-based tobacco cessation services) assistance. The most notable examples are the 5 As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) and Ask. Advise. Refer. (AAR) programs. Unfortunately, rates of primary care referrals to quitlines are low, and most referred smokers fail to call for assistance. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new approach--Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC)--designed to address barriers to linking smokers with treatment. DESIGN: A pair-matched, 2-treatment-arm, group-randomized design in 10 family practice clinics in a single metropolitan area. Five clinics were randomized to the AAC (intervention) and 5 to the AAR (control) conditions. In both conditions, clinic staff were trained to assess and record the smoking status of all patients at all visits in the electronic health record, and smokers were given brief advice to quit. In the AAC clinics, the names and telephone numbers of smokers who agreed to be connected were sent electronically to the quitline daily, and patients were called proactively by the quitline within 48 hours. In the AAR clinics, smokers were offered a quitline referral card and encouraged to call on their own. All data were collected from February 8 through December 27, 2011. SETTING: Ten clinics in Houston, Texas. PARTICIPANTS: Smoking status assessments were completed for 42,277 patients; 2052 unique smokers were identified at AAC clinics, and 1611 smokers were identified at AAR clinics. INTERVENTIONS: Linking smokers with quitline-delivered treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Impact was based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) conceptual framework and defined as the proportion of all identified smokers who enrolled in treatment. RESULTS: In the AAC clinics, 7.8% of all identified smokers enrolled in treatment vs 0.6% in the AAR clinics (t4 = 9.19 [P < .001]; odds ratio, 11.60 [95% CI, 5.53-24.32]), a 13-fold increase in the proportion of smokers enrolling in treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The system changes implemented in the AAC approach could be adopted broadly by other health care systems and have tremendous potential to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.