Promoting Evidence-Based Tobacco Cessation Treatment in Community Mental Health Clinics: Protocol for a Pilot Study (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is highly prevalent among persons with serious mental illness (SMI) and is the largest contributor to premature mortality in this population. Evidence-based smoking cessation therapy with medications and behavioral counseling is effective for persons with SMI, but few receive this treatment. Mental health providers have extensive experience working with clients with SMI and frequent treatment contacts, making them well positioned to deliver smoking cessation treatment. However, few mental health providers feel adequately trained to deliver this treatment, and many providers believe that smokers with SMI are not interested in quitting or have concerns about the safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

OBJECTIVE

We present the protocol for the pilot "IMPACT" (Implementing Action for Tobacco Smoking Cessation Treatment) study, which aims to pilot test a multicomponent implementation intervention to increase the delivery of evidence-based tobacco smoking cessation treatment in community mental health clinics.

METHODS

We are using a prepost observational design to examine the effects of an implementation intervention designed to improve mental health providers' delivery of the following four evidence-based practices related to smoking cessation treatment: (1) assessment of smoking status, (2) assessment of willingness to quit, (3) behavioral counseling, and (4) pharmacotherapy prescribing. To overcome key barriers related to providers' knowledge and self-efficacy of smoking cessation treatment, the study will leverage implementation strategies including (1) real-time and web-based training for mental health providers about evidence-based smoking cessation treatment and motivational interviewing, including an avatar practice module; (2) a tobacco smoking treatment protocol; (3) expert consultation; (4) coaching; and (5) organizational strategy meetings. We will use surveys and in-depth interviews to assess the implementation intervention's effects on providers' knowledge and self-efficacy, the mechanisms of change targeted by the intervention, as well as providers' perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of both the evidence-based practices and implementation strategies. We will use data on care delivery to assess providers' implementation of evidence-based smoking cessation practices.

RESULTS

The IMPACT study is being conducted at 5 clinic sites. More than 50 providers have been enrolled, exceeding our recruitment target. The study is ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

In order for persons with SMI to realize the benefits of smoking cessation treatment, it is important for clinicians to implement evidence-based practices successfully. This pilot study will result in a set of training modules, implementation tools, and resources for clinicians working in community mental health clinics to address tobacco smoking with their clients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04796961; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04796961.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04796961; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04796961.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/44787.

An evaluation of the feasibility of implementing a novel tobacco dependence treatment program for high-risk individuals into clinical practice within a community mental health center

Background

Individuals with serious mental illnesses experience deaths related to smoking at a higher prevalence than individuals without a psychotic-spectrum disorders. Traditional smoking cessation programs are often not effective among individuals with chronic mental disorders. Little is known about how to implement a tobacco cessation treatment program for this at-risk population within a community health center. The current study used qualitative methods to examine the factors that may enhance or impede the delivery of a novel tobacco cessation treatment for smokers with a psychotic-spectrum disorder diagnosis in an integrated care community health center.

Methods

Using a case study design, we conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with primary care providers, mental health providers, addiction counselors, case managers, intake specialists, schedulers, pharmacists, and administrative staff employed at the organization. Interviews were transcribed and themes were identified through a rich coding process.

Results

We identified environmental factors, organizational factors, provider factors and patient factors which describe the potential factors that may enhance or impede the implementation of a smoking cessation program at the integrated care community health center. Most notably, we identified that community mental health centers looking to implement a smoking cessation program for individuals with chronic mental health disorders should ensure the incentives for providers to participate align with the program’s objectives. Additionally, organizations should invest in educating providers to address stigma related to smoking cessation and nicotine use.

Conclusions

The findings of our study provide valuable insight for administrators to consider when implementing a smoking cessation program in an integrated care community health center. Our findings provide public health practitioners with potential considerations that should be discussed when designing and implementing a smoking cessation program for individuals with chronic mental disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13033-022-00517-y.

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

Proactive tobacco treatment for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) smoke at higher rates compared to the general population and experience significant barriers to initiating cessation treatment. Proactive outreach addresses these barriers by directly engaging with smokers and facilitating access to treatment. The objective of the present study was to evaluate a proactive outreach intervention for increasing rates of treatment utilization and abstinence among veteran smokers with and without PTSD.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted from 2013 to 2017 that demonstrated the effectiveness of proactive outreach among veterans using Veterans Affairs mental health care services. Electronic medical record data were used to identify participants with (n = 355) and without (n = 1,583) a diagnosis of PTSD. Logistic regressions modeled cessation treatment utilization (counseling, nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], and combination treatment) and abstinence (7-day point prevalence and 6-month prolonged at 6- and 12-month follow-ups) among participants randomized to proactive outreach versus usual care in the PTSD and non-PTSD subgroups, respectively.

RESULTS

Compared to usual care, proactive outreach increased combined counseling and NRT utilization among participants with PTSD (odds ratio [OR] = 26.25, 95% confidence interval [3.43, 201.17]) and without PTSD (OR = 10.20, [5.21, 19.98]). Proactive outreach also increased 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months among participants with PTSD (OR = 2.62, [1.16, 5.91]) and without PTSD (OR = 1.61, [1.11, 2.34]).

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive outreach increased treatment utilization and abstinence among smokers with and without PTSD. Smokers with PTSD may need additional facilitation to initiate cessation treatment but are receptive when it is offered proactively. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Characteristics and clinical treatment of tobacco smokers enrolled in a VA substance use disorders clinic

Individuals with a substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis are more than twice as likely to smoke cigarettes as the general population. Emerging research has suggested that treating a substance use disorder simultaneously with tobacco use leads to a higher rate of treatment success for both substances. Despite this, substance use treatment protocols tend not to focus on tobacco use; in fact, traditional substance use treatments often discourage patients from attempting to quit smoking. One rationale is that patients may not be motivated to quit smoking. In the current study, data from veterans enrolled in outpatient treatment for a SUD were examined to assess for general characteristics of smokers as compared to non-smokers as well as to examine motivation to quit smoking. Baseline (i.e., pre-treatment) data from 277 Veterans were used. Charts of smokers in the SUD clinic (SUDC) were reviewed to assess how smoking is handled by SUDC providers, and if smokers attempt cessation. Of 277, 163 (59%) SUDC patients reported that they currently smoke cigarettes (M=16.3 cigarettes per day, SD=11.1). Smokers in the clinic reported greater general impairment than nonsmokers on the Short Index of Problems, F(1248)=8.9, p=0.003, as well as greater specific impairment: Physical Problems, F(1258)=13.5, p=0.000; Interpersonal Problems, F(1262)=5.6, p=0.019; Intrapersonal Problems, F(1260)=6.5, p=0.011, and Social Responsibility, F(1262)=14.7, p=0.000. Smokers in the sample were marginally more anxious than their non-smoking counterparts as measured by the GAD-7, F(1254)=4.6, p=0.053, though they were not significantly more depressed (p=0.19). On a 1-10 scale, smokers reported moderate levels of importance (M=5.4, SD=3.1), readiness (M=5.6, SD=3.2), and confidence (M=5.0, SD=3.0) regarding quitting smoking. Review of smokers' medical records reveal that while SUDC providers assess tobacco use at intake (90%) and offer treatment (86.5%), a substantially small portion of smokers attempt cessation (41.1%) while enrolled in SUDC. Moreover, no patients were enrolled in smoking-specific behavioral interventions while in SUDC, though 78 patients did obtain nicotine replacement or another smoking cessation medication (41% were prescribed by a SUDC provider). Contrary to the belief that treatment-seeking substance users are not motivated to quit smoking, these preliminary analyses demonstrate that Veterans were at least contemplating quitting smoking while they were enrolled in substance use treatment. Further, there is evidence that cigarette smokers have greater impairment caused by substance use, suggesting that this subgroup is of particular high need. Specific treatment recommendations are discussed, including how behavioral health providers in SUD clinics may be better able to capitalize on patients' moderate motivation to quit at intake.

Smoking cessation and care management for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable illness and mortality in the United States. Individuals with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) have smoking rates higher than that of others and fewer individuals with PTSD have quit smoking. This randomized controlled trial was designed to test the effectiveness of integrating telehealth care management and smoking cessation with motivational interviewing for Veterans with PTSD.

Methods/Design

All smokers with PTSD, regardless of their desire to quit, were invited to participate. Enrollment occurred between November 2009 and April 2013. Target enrollment was 120 participants. Enrolled participants were randomized to either the control group, receiving usual care including a telehealth PTSD program, with a device that delivered PTSD information and in-home care management, or the intervention group, which included (1) a telehealth PTSD program, (2) motivational interviewing-based smoking cessation curricula via the telehealth device, and (3) weekly motivational interviewing counseling phone calls. Outcomes are self-reported 24-hour quit attempts, progression along the stages of change and 7-day point prevalence quit smoking rates for the intervention group compared to usual care alone. Secondary outcomes include participants’ perception of care coordination, patient satisfaction with motivational interviewing, PTSD symptoms, pain, depression and quality of life.

Discussion

Motivational interviewing has been shown to increase readiness for change and smoking cessation care has been shown to be more successful when incorporated into in-person mental health care. Our study builds on previous studies. It integrates a written smoking cessation curriculum and phone-based motivational interviewing counseling into an established PTSD home telehealth care coordination program. This paper describes the design and methods of our randomized control trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00908882, May 22, 2009.

Use of a learning collaborative to support implementation of integrated care for smoking cessation for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the feasibility of incorporating integrated care (IC) for smoking cessation into routine treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and the utility of the Learning Collaborative (LC) model in facilitating implementation.

METHODS

We conducted 2 LCs aimed at implementing IC for smoking cessation using multidisciplinary teams comprising 70 staff members from 12 VA PTSD clinics. Using questionnaires, we evaluated providers' perceptions of the LC methodology and the effectiveness and feasibility of routine IC delivery. We assessed number of providers delivering and patients receiving IC using medical record data.

RESULTS

More than 85% of participating VA staff considered the LC to be an effective training and implementation platform. The majority thought IC effectively addressed an important need and could be delivered in routine PTSD care. All LC participants who planned to deliver IC did so (n=52). Within 12 months of initial training, an additional 46 locally trained providers delivered IC and 395 veterans received IC.

CONCLUSIONS

The LC model effectively facilitated rapid and broad implementation of IC. Facilitators and barriers to sustained use of IC are unknown and should be identified to understand how best to promote ongoing access to evidence-based treatment for smoking cessation in mental health populations.