Implementation of Multi-level Interventions to Mitigate Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant at a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY in Southern United States.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, navigating the implementation of public health measures in a politically charged environment for a large state entity was challenging. However, Louisiana State University (LSU) leadership developed and deployed an effective, multi-layered mitigation plan and successfully opened in-person learning while managing cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the fourth surge. We describe the plan to provide a framework for other institutions during this and future responses. The goals were 3-fold: maintain a quality learning environment, mitigate risk to the campus community, and ensure that LSU operations did not contribute to health-care stress. As of September 2022, LSU has achieved high compliance with interventions and relatively low virus activity on campus compared with peer institutions. This university model can serve as a template for similar implementation plans in the context of complex socio-political and economic considerations.

Patient preferences for emergency department-initiated tobacco interventions: a multicenter cross-sectional study of current smokers.

BACKGROUND: The emergency department (ED) visit provides a great opportunity to initiate interventions for smoking cessation. However, little is known about ED patient preferences for receiving smoking cessation interventions or correlates of interest in tobacco counseling. METHODS: ED patients at 10 US medical centers were surveyed about preferences for hypothetical smoking cessation interventions and specific counseling styles. Multivariable linear regression determined correlates of receptivity to bedside counseling. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-five patients were enrolled; 46% smoked at least one pack of cigarettes per day, and 11% had a smoking-related diagnosis. Most participants (75%) reported interest in at least one intervention. Medications were the most popular (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy, 54%), followed by linkages to hotlines or other outpatient counseling (33-42%), then counseling during the ED visit (33%). Counseling styles rated most favorably involved individualized feedback (54%), avoidance skill-building (53%), and emphasis on autonomy (53%). In univariable analysis, age (r=0.09), gender (average Likert score=2.75 for men, 2.42 for women), education (average Likert score=2.92 for non-high school graduates, 2.44 for high school graduates), and presence of smoking-related symptoms (r=0.10) were significant at the p<0.10 level and thus were retained for the final model. In multivariable linear regression, male gender, lower education, and smoking-related symptoms were independent correlates of increased receptivity to ED-based smoking counseling. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, smokers reported receptivity to ED-initiated interventions. However, there was variability in individual preferences for intervention type and counseling styles. To be effective in reducing smoking among its patients, the ED should offer a range of tobacco intervention options.