Sharon E Cummins1, Anthony C Gamst1, Kendra Brandstein2, Gregory B Seymann3, Hillary Klonoff-Cohen4, Carrie A Kirby5, Elisa K Tong6, Edward Chaplin7, Gary J Tedeschi5, Shu-Hong Zhu8. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Moores Cancer Center at University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista, Chula Vista, California. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego Health Sciences, La Jolla, California. 4. Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois. 5. Moores Cancer Center at University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California. 7. Department of Quality Services and Improvement, Scripps Mercy Hospital, San Diego, California. 8. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Moores Cancer Center at University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: szhu@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most smokers abstain from smoking during hospitalization but relapse upon discharge. This study tests the effectiveness of two proven treatments (i.e., nicotine patches and telephone counseling) in helping these patients stay quit after discharge from the hospital, and assesses a model of hospital-quitline partnership. STUDY DESIGN: This study had a 2×2 factorial design in which participants were stratified by recruitment site and smoking rate and randomly assigned to usual care, nicotine patches only, counseling only, or patches plus counseling. They were evaluated at 2 and 6 months post-randomization. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,270 hospitalized adult smokers were recruited from August 2011 to November 2013 from five hospitals within three healthcare systems. INTERVENTION: Participants in the patch condition were provided 8 weeks of nicotine patches at discharge (or were mailed them post-discharge). Quitline staff started proactively calling participants in the counseling condition 3 days post-discharge to provide standard quitline counseling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was self-reported 30-day abstinence at 6 months using an intention-to-treat analysis. Data were analyzed from September 2015 to May 2016. RESULTS: The 30-day abstinence rate at 6 months was 22.8% for the nicotine patch condition and 18.3% for the no-patch condition (p=0.051). Nearly all participants (99%) in the patch condition were provided nicotine patches, although 36% were sent post-discharge. The abstinence rates were 20.0% and 21.1% for counseling and no counseling conditions, respectively (p=0.651). Fewer than half of the participants in the counseling condition (47%) received counseling (mean follow-up sessions, 3.6). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of nicotine patches proved feasible, although their effectiveness in helping discharged patients stay quit was not significant. Telephone counseling was not effective, in large part because of low rates of engagement. Future interventions will need to be more immediate to be effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01289275.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Most smokers abstain from smoking during hospitalization but relapse upon discharge. This study tests the effectiveness of two proven treatments (i.e., nicotine patches and telephone counseling) in helping these patients stay quit after discharge from the hospital, and assesses a model of hospital-quitline partnership. STUDY DESIGN: This study had a 2×2 factorial design in which participants were stratified by recruitment site and smoking rate and randomly assigned to usual care, nicotine patches only, counseling only, or patches plus counseling. They were evaluated at 2 and 6 months post-randomization. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,270 hospitalized adult smokers were recruited from August 2011 to November 2013 from five hospitals within three healthcare systems. INTERVENTION: Participants in the patch condition were provided 8 weeks of nicotine patches at discharge (or were mailed them post-discharge). Quitline staff started proactively calling participants in the counseling condition 3 days post-discharge to provide standard quitline counseling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was self-reported 30-day abstinence at 6 months using an intention-to-treat analysis. Data were analyzed from September 2015 to May 2016. RESULTS: The 30-day abstinence rate at 6 months was 22.8% for the nicotine patch condition and 18.3% for the no-patch condition (p=0.051). Nearly all participants (99%) in the patch condition were provided nicotine patches, although 36% were sent post-discharge. The abstinence rates were 20.0% and 21.1% for counseling and no counseling conditions, respectively (p=0.651). Fewer than half of the participants in the counseling condition (47%) received counseling (mean follow-up sessions, 3.6). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of nicotine patches proved feasible, although their effectiveness in helping discharged patients stay quit was not significant. Telephone counseling was not effective, in large part because of low rates of engagement. Future interventions will need to be more immediate to be effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01289275.
Authors: Nancy A Rigotti; Yuchiao Chang; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Sandra J Japuntich; Elyse R Park; Hilary A Tindle; Douglas E Levy; Zachary Z Reid; Joanna Streck; Timothy Gomperts; Jennifer H K Kelley; Daniel E Singer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Denise S Taylor; Dominique Medaglio; Claudine T Jurkovitz; Freda Patterson; Zugui Zhang; Adebayo Gbadebo; Elisabeth Bradley; Rose Wessells; Edward Goldenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Taneisha S Scheuermann; Kimber P Richter; Nancy A Rigotti; Sharon E Cummins; Kathleen F Harrington; Scott E Sherman; Shu-Hong Zhu; Hilary A Tindle; Kristopher J Preacher Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Emma Norris; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Robert West; Martin Jarvis; Emma Chubb; Peter Hajek Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-10-28
Authors: Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Emma Norris; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Robert West; Martin Jarvis; Peter Hajek Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-02-13
Authors: Mollie M Mustoe; James M Clark; Timothy T Huynh; Elisa K Tong; Terri P Wolf; Lisa M Brown; David T Cooke Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Wan-Chun Huang; Guy B Marks; Ngoc Yen Pham; Thu Anh Nguyen; Thuy Anh Nguyen; Van Giap Vu; Viet Nhung Nguyen; Stephen Jan; Joel Negin; Quy Chau Ngo; Greg J Fox Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 3.295