Christy Kollath-Cattano1, James F Thrasher2, Ramzi G Salloum3, Andrew W Albano4, Meenu Jindal5, Martin Durkin6, Scott M Strayer7. 1. Department of Health and Human Performance. College of Charleston, Charleston. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 3. Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville. 6. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Smokers increasingly use e-cigarettes to try to quit smoking, even more than recommended cessation methods. However, few smokers discuss the range of cessation options with their physicians. Decision aids can inform smokers about smoking cessation options, including evidence about e-cigarettes, and encourage smokers to engage in shared decision making with their physician. This study aimed to evaluate a smoking cessation decision aid that included e-cigarette risks and benefits. METHODS: Adult smokers were recruited from primary care clinics for two research phases: 1. usability and acceptability testing of the decision aid (n=37); and 2. pre/post study that compared usual care (n=90) with implementation of the decision aid in clinics (n=90). For the latter, outcome measures included frequency of clinical discussions of readiness to quit, methods to quit in general, and of specific cessation methods, in addition to decisional conflict, communication satisfaction, and overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Smokers indicated high usability and acceptability of the decision aid. In the pre/post evaluation, decision aid implementation was associated with higher rates of smokers: being asked if they were ready to quit smoking (89% vs. 67%, respectively; p<0.001); discussing methods for smoking cessation in general (81% vs. 48%; p<0.001); and discussing specific cessation methods (NRT 55% vs. 26%, p<0.001; prescription medications 26% vs. 12%, p=0.022). Decision aid use was also associated with higher overall patient satisfaction with the physician visit. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation decision aids that incorporate information about e-cigarettes are acceptable among smokers and can lead to evidence-based clinical discussions about smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: Smokers use e-cigarettes more than recommended cessation methods when they are trying to quit smoking, yet few physicians discuss the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes with their patients who smoke. This study presents preliminary findings about the feasibility and usability of a clinically based iPad-delivered smoking cessation decision aid that integrates information about e-cigarettes. Although promising, further research with randomized designs, larger samples, and longer-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this type of intervention can effectively promote cessation of all tobacco products and, for those not ready to quit smoking, the use of e-cigarettes for harm reduction.
INTRODUCTION: Smokers increasingly use e-cigarettes to try to quit smoking, even more than recommended cessation methods. However, few smokers discuss the range of cessation options with their physicians. Decision aids can inform smokers about smoking cessation options, including evidence about e-cigarettes, and encourage smokers to engage in shared decision making with their physician. This study aimed to evaluate a smoking cessation decision aid that included e-cigarette risks and benefits. METHODS: Adult smokers were recruited from primary care clinics for two research phases: 1. usability and acceptability testing of the decision aid (n=37); and 2. pre/post study that compared usual care (n=90) with implementation of the decision aid in clinics (n=90). For the latter, outcome measures included frequency of clinical discussions of readiness to quit, methods to quit in general, and of specific cessation methods, in addition to decisional conflict, communication satisfaction, and overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Smokers indicated high usability and acceptability of the decision aid. In the pre/post evaluation, decision aid implementation was associated with higher rates of smokers: being asked if they were ready to quit smoking (89% vs. 67%, respectively; p<0.001); discussing methods for smoking cessation in general (81% vs. 48%; p<0.001); and discussing specific cessation methods (NRT 55% vs. 26%, p<0.001; prescription medications 26% vs. 12%, p=0.022). Decision aid use was also associated with higher overall patient satisfaction with the physician visit. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation decision aids that incorporate information about e-cigarettes are acceptable among smokers and can lead to evidence-based clinical discussions about smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: Smokers use e-cigarettes more than recommended cessation methods when they are trying to quit smoking, yet few physicians discuss the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes with their patients who smoke. This study presents preliminary findings about the feasibility and usability of a clinically based iPad-delivered smoking cessation decision aid that integrates information about e-cigarettes. Although promising, further research with randomized designs, larger samples, and longer-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this type of intervention can effectively promote cessation of all tobacco products and, for those not ready to quit smoking, the use of e-cigarettes for harm reduction.
Authors: Jennifer H LeLaurin; James F Thrasher; Scott M Strayer; John Malaty; Christy Kollath-Cattano; Maribeth Williams; Oliver T Nguyen; Allie M Kellner; James M Smith; Ramzi G Salloum Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-03-01
Authors: Herul Hollanda De Sa Neto; Ines Habfast-Robertson; Christina Hempel-Bruder; Marie-Anne Durand; Isabelle Jacot-Sadowski; Yasser Khazaal; Ivan Berlin; Kevin Selby Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-04-20