Kimber P Richter1, Babalola Faseru2, Theresa I Shireman3, Laura M Mussulman2, Niaman Nazir2, Terry Bush4, Taneisha S Scheuermann2, Kristopher J Preacher5, Beatriz H Carlini6, Brooke Magnusson4, Edward F Ellerbeck2, Carol Cramer7, David J Cook8, Mary J Martell9. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health and The University of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. Electronic address: krichter@kumc.edu. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health and The University of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. 3. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Alere Wellbeing, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 7. Tobacco Use Prevention, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, Kansas. 8. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. 9. Stormont Vail Regional Health Center, Topeka, Kansas.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Few hospitals treat patients' tobacco dependence. To be effective, hospital-initiated cessation interventions must provide at least 1 month of supportive contact post-discharge. STUDY DESIGN: Individually randomized clinical trial. Recruitment commenced July 2011; analyses were conducted October 2014-June 2015. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in two large Midwestern hospitals. Participants included smokers who were aged ≥18 years, planned to stay quit after discharge, and spoke English or Spanish. INTERVENTION: Hospital-based cessation counselors delivered the intervention. For patients randomized to warm handoff, staff immediately called the quitline from the bedside and handed the phone to participants for enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were referred on the day of hospital discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes at 6 months included quitline enrollment/adherence, medication use, biochemically verified cessation, and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Significantly more warm handoff than fax participants enrolled in quitline (99.6% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI=1.65, 1.68). One in four (25.4% warm handoff, 25.3% fax) were verified to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up; this did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI=0.82, 1.24). Cessation medication use in the hospital and receipt of a prescription for medication at discharge did not differ between groups; however, significantly more fax participants reported using cessation medication post-discharge (32% vs 25%, p=0.01). The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enrolling participants into warm handoff was $0.14. Hospital-borne costs were significantly lower in warm handoff than in fax ($5.77 vs $9.41, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One in four inpatient smokers referred to quitline by either method were abstinent at 6 months post-discharge. Among motivated smokers, fax referral and warm handoff are efficient and comparatively effective ways to link smokers with evidence-based care. For hospitals, warm handoff is a less expensive and more effective method for enrolling smokers in quitline services.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Few hospitals treat patients' tobacco dependence. To be effective, hospital-initiated cessation interventions must provide at least 1 month of supportive contact post-discharge. STUDY DESIGN: Individually randomized clinical trial. Recruitment commenced July 2011; analyses were conducted October 2014-June 2015. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in two large Midwestern hospitals. Participants included smokers who were aged ≥18 years, planned to stay quit after discharge, and spoke English or Spanish. INTERVENTION: Hospital-based cessation counselors delivered the intervention. For patients randomized to warm handoff, staff immediately called the quitline from the bedside and handed the phone to participants for enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were referred on the day of hospital discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes at 6 months included quitline enrollment/adherence, medication use, biochemically verified cessation, and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Significantly more warm handoff than fax participants enrolled in quitline (99.6% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI=1.65, 1.68). One in four (25.4% warm handoff, 25.3% fax) were verified to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up; this did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI=0.82, 1.24). Cessation medication use in the hospital and receipt of a prescription for medication at discharge did not differ between groups; however, significantly more fax participants reported using cessation medication post-discharge (32% vs 25%, p=0.01). The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enrolling participants into warm handoff was $0.14. Hospital-borne costs were significantly lower in warm handoff than in fax ($5.77 vs $9.41, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One in four inpatient smokers referred to quitline by either method were abstinent at 6 months post-discharge. Among motivated smokers, fax referral and warm handoff are efficient and comparatively effective ways to link smokers with evidence-based care. For hospitals, warm handoff is a less expensive and more effective method for enrolling smokers in quitline services.
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: 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: Virginia A Triant; Ellie Grossman; Nancy A Rigotti; Rekha Ramachandran; Susan Regan; Scott E Sherman; Kimber P Richter; Hilary A Tindle; Kathleen F Harrington Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Kristin M Berg; Robert T Adsit; Amy D Skora; Matthew P Swedlund; Mark E Zehner; Danielle E McCarthy; Russell E Glasgow; Michael C Fiore Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Melissa E Dichter; Shannon N Ogden; Anaïs Tuepker; Katherine M Iverson; Gala True Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Christine M Lee; Jennifer M Cadigan; Jason R Kilmer; Jessica M Cronce; Brian Suffoletto; Theresa Walter; Charles B Fleming; Melissa A Lewis Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2021-06-10