OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based smoking cessation intervention. METHODS: This study was a randomized trial conducted from January 2006 to September 2007 at an urban ED that treats 90,000 adults per year. Discharged adults who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were randomized to 1) usual care, receiving a smoking cessation brochure; or 2) enhanced care, receiving the brochure, a motivational interview (MI), nicotine patches, and a phone call at 3 days. Interventions were performed by a peer educator trained in tobacco treatment. Blinded follow-up was performed at 3 months. RESULTS:A total of 338 subjects were enrolled, mean (±SD) age was 40.2 (±12.0) years, 51.8% were female, and 56.5% were either self-pay or Medicaid. Demographic and clinical variables were comparable between groups. Enhanced and usual care arms showed similar cessation rates at 3 months (14.7% vs. 13.2%, respectively). The proportion of subjects making a quit attempt (69.2% vs. 66.5%) and decrease in daily cigarette use (five vs. one; all p > 0.05) were also similar. In logistic modeling, factors associated with quitting included any tobacco-related International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9), code for the ED visit (odds ratio [OR]= 3.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.61 to 7.26) or subject belief that the ED visit was tobacco-related (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.17 to 5.21). Conversely, subjects who reported having a preexisting tobacco-related illness were less likely to quit (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint was negative, reflecting a higher-than-expected quit rate in the control group. Subjects whose ED visit was tobacco-related, based either on physician diagnosis or subject perception, were more than twice as likely to quit. These data suggest that even low-intensity screening and referral may prompt substantial numbers of ED smokers to quit or attempt to quit.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based smoking cessation intervention. METHODS: This study was a randomized trial conducted from January 2006 to September 2007 at an urban ED that treats 90,000 adults per year. Discharged adults who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were randomized to 1) usual care, receiving a smoking cessation brochure; or 2) enhanced care, receiving the brochure, a motivational interview (MI), nicotine patches, and a phone call at 3 days. Interventions were performed by a peer educator trained in tobacco treatment. Blinded follow-up was performed at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 338 subjects were enrolled, mean (±SD) age was 40.2 (±12.0) years, 51.8% were female, and 56.5% were either self-pay or Medicaid. Demographic and clinical variables were comparable between groups. Enhanced and usual care arms showed similar cessation rates at 3 months (14.7% vs. 13.2%, respectively). The proportion of subjects making a quit attempt (69.2% vs. 66.5%) and decrease in daily cigarette use (five vs. one; all p > 0.05) were also similar. In logistic modeling, factors associated with quitting included any tobacco-related International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9), code for the ED visit (odds ratio [OR]= 3.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.61 to 7.26) or subject belief that the ED visit was tobacco-related (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.17 to 5.21). Conversely, subjects who reported having a preexisting tobacco-related illness were less likely to quit (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint was negative, reflecting a higher-than-expected quit rate in the control group. Subjects whose ED visit was tobacco-related, based either on physician diagnosis or subject perception, were more than twice as likely to quit. These data suggest that even low-intensity screening and referral may prompt substantial numbers of ED smokers to quit or attempt to quit.
Authors: Anthony Spirito; Peter M Monti; Nancy P Barnett; Suzanne M Colby; Holly Sindelar; Damaris J Rohsenow; William Lewander; Mark Myers Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: S R Lowenstein; J Koziol-McLain; M Thompson; E Bernstein; K Greenberg; L W Gerson; P Buczynsky; M Blanda Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: John R Hughes; Josue P Keely; Ray S Niaura; Deborah J Ossip-Klein; Robyn L Richmond; Gary E Swan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Steven L Bernstein; Edwin D Boudreaux; Lisa Cabral; Rita K Cydulka; David Schwegman; Gregory L Larkin; Annette L Adams; Lynne B McCullough; Karin V Rhodes Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Sandra J Japuntich; Stevens S Smith; Douglas E Jorenby; Megan E Piper; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: David A Katz; John E Holman; Andrew S Nugent; Laurence J Baker; Skyler R Johnson; Stephen L Hillis; David G Tinkelman; Marita G Titler; Mark W Vander Weg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Steven L Bernstein; Gail D'Onofrio; June Rosner; Stephanie O'Malley; Robert Makuch; Susan Busch; Michael V Pantalon; Benjamin Toll Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Esther K Choo; Caron Zlotnick; David R Strong; Daniel D Squires; Chantal Tapé; Michael J Mello Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Esther K Choo; Gillian Beauchamp; Francesca L Beaudoin; Edward Bernstein; Judith Bernstein; Steven L Bernstein; Kerryann B Broderick; Robert D Cannon; Gail D'Onofrio; Marna R Greenberg; Kathryn Hawk; Rashelle B Hayes; Gabrielle A Jacquet; Melanie J Lippmann; Karin V Rhodes; Susan H Watts; Edwin D Boudreaux Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Iris Chandler; Lisa Rosenthal; Amy Carroll-Scott; Susan M Peters; Catherine McCaslin; Jeannette R Ickovics Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2015-08
Authors: Steven L Bernstein; Nina Cooperman; Saba Jearld; Alyson Moadel; Polly Bijur; E John Gallagher Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 2.469