Designing a smoking cessation intervention for the unique needs of homeless persons: a community-based randomized clinical trial

Cancer care and treatment during homelessness

People experiencing homelessness have not yet benefited from the substantial progress made in managing cancers, including advances in chemotherapy and radiotherapy, surgical interventions, multidisciplinary team approaches, and integrated cancer care models. People experiencing homelessness are at higher risks of developing cancers and their mortality due to cancer is twice that of the general population. Potential interventions to improve access to cancer treatment include alliances and active engagement with community organisations and shelters, cancer case management and peer-to-peer support, mHealth and navigation strategies, tailored hospital discharge to adult group homes, well equipped subacute rehabilitation centres, and specialised shelters and respite housing to assure appropriate follow-up care. Other interventions include improving preventive care, expanding data, targeted policy efforts, and broader housing advocacy. In this Personal View, I discuss challenges and opportunities in cancer treatment, with a review of the current evidence on potential interventions, and highlight strategies to improve access to cancer care for homeless populations.

"Cigarettes play the equalizer": discrimination experiences and readiness to quit cigarette smoking among African Americans experiencing homelessness: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 70-80% of people experiencing homelessness in the United States use tobacco. Smoking cessation programs specifically for this population have been found to be less effective for African American participants. The purpose of this study was to explore discrimination experiences and their impact on smoking habits and readiness to quit cigarette smoking while experiencing homelessness.

METHODS

In the qualitative phase of this mixed methods study, five focus groups were conducted for African Americans residing in a homeless shelter in Skid Row, Los Angeles, CA. Using a semi-structured interview guide, we asked participants about discrimination experiences, how smoking habits were impacted by these experiences, and tools needed to successfully abstain from cigarette smoking. Qualitative descriptive content analysis was used to explore discrimination experiences and its association with readiness to quit cigarette smoking.

RESULTS

Of the 17 participants, 14 (82.4%) were male, and the average age was 46.8 years. Using a qualitative In Vivo coding method, three themes were revealed: "Experiencing Discrimination while Black", "The Psychosocial Fabric-Why Quitting Cigarette Smoking is a Challenge", and "The Lesser of Two Evils-Choosing to Smoke over More Harmful Options." Participants discussed working in the blue-collar workforce while Black, identifying as a double minority, smoking to cope with stress, early exposure to cigarettes, smoking being a central part of one's belonging to a group, and the legality of cigarette smoking.

DISCUSSION

Our findings show that African Americans experiencing homelessness (1) may experience discrimination in multiple settings, regardless of housing status, (2) could have grown up around cigarette smoking and remain surrounded by it while experiencing homelessness, and (3) may experience a calming effect with smoking, which slows some from reacting negatively to adverse situations.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to successfully abstaining from smoking are multifactorial among African Americans experiencing homelessness and should be addressed individually. Future research should explore the cultural tailoring of interventions that support cessation efforts unique to minoritized populations to improve smoking cessation programs offered to this population.

Tobacco use behaviors and views on engaging in clinical trials for tobacco cessation among individuals who experience homelessness

Background

Clinical trials that include contingency management for smoking cessation have shown promising results for short-term quitting, but none have explored this approach for long-term abstinence in people experiencing homelessness. We designed a clinical trial of an extended contingency management intervention for smoking cessation for people experiencing homelessness. This study has two aims: (1) to explore tobacco use behaviors, and views toward smoking cessation, and (2) to explore factors influencing acceptability of engaging in such a trial in a sample of adult smokers experiencing homelessness.

Methods

We administered a questionnaire to obtain information on tobacco use behaviors and conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 26 patients who had experienced homelessness and were patients at a safety net health clinic in San Francisco, California, where we planned to pilot the intervention. We obtained information on triggers for tobacco use, prior cessation experiences, attitudes toward cessation, attitudes toward engaging in a clinical trial for cessation, and factors that might influence participation in our proposed contingency management clinical trial. We analyzed transcripts using content analysis.

Results

Participants described the normative experiences of smoking, co-occurring substance use, and the use of tobacco to relieve stress as barriers to quitting. Despite these barriers, most participants had attempted to quit smoking and most were interested in engaging in a clinical trial as a method to quit smoking. Participants noted that desirable features of the trial include: receiving financial incentives to quit smoking, having a flexible visit schedule, having the study site be easily accessible, and having navigators with lived experiences of homelessness.

Conclusion

A patient-centric clinical trial design that includes incentives, flexible visits and navigators from the community may increase feasibility of engaging in clinical trials among individuals experiencing homelessness.

Implementing a smoking cessation intervention for people experiencing homelessness: Participants’ preferences, feedback, and satisfaction with the ‘power to quit’ program

Background

Smoking rates among populations experiencing homelessness are three times higher than in the general population. Developing smoking cessation interventions for people experiencing homelessness is often challenging. Understanding participant perceptions of such interventions may provide valuable insights for intervention development and implementation. We assessed participants’ satisfaction and preferences for the Power to Quit (PTQ) program.

Methods

PTQ was a 26-week community-based smoking-cessation RCT among people experiencing homelessness. A total of 315 of the 430 enrolled participants completed the 26 week-study feedback survey. Overall program satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale by asking the question “Overall, how satisfied were you with the Power to Quit Program?” Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with overall program satisfaction.

Results

Participants were mostly male (74.9%), African American (59.0%), 40 years and older (78.2%), and not married or living with a partner (94.9%). Visa gift cards were the most preferred incentive followed by bus tokens and Subway restaurant coupons. The patch and counseling were the top-ranked intervention component, 55.3% rated the patch as very helpful; 59.4% felt counseling sessions was very helpful; 48.6% found reminder phone calls or messages most helpful for appointment reminders. Majority (78.7%) said they were very satisfied overall, 80.0% were very satisfied with the program schedule, and 85.4% were very satisfied with program staff. Race and age at smoking initiation were predictors of overall program satisfaction. African American/Black participants were 1.9 times more likely to be satisfied with the program compared to White participants.

Conclusion

Majority of the participants of PTQ were satisfied with the program. This study supports the acceptability of a smoking cessation program implemented in a population experiencing homelessness. The high rate of satisfaction among African American participants may be in part because of race concordance between participants, study staff, and community advisory board. Including staff that have a shared lived experience with participants in a smoking cessation study may improve the participant satisfaction within such studies.

Homeless women's perspectives on smoking and smoking cessation programs: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Individuals who are unsheltered or experiencing homelessness are more likely to smoke than those in the general population and have a higher prevalence of tobacco-related illnesses. Those who are unhoused make quit attempts at rates similar to the general population, however rates of successful quitting are much lower. Women bear a higher burden of smoking-related diseases and are less successful in their cessation efforts than men. Despite these increased risks and challenges, cessation programs specifically designed to meet the needs of women experiencing homelessness are extremely rare.

METHODS

To examine perceptions of smoking cessation programs among women who are unstably housed, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with twenty-nine women experiencing homelessness or unstable housing who had histories of tobacco and substance use. Interviews explored the social context of smoking, as well as interest in, barriers to, and facilitators of quitting. We used a grounded theory approach to analyze the transcripts.

RESULTS

Participants reported a number of structural barriers to cessation. They reported obstacles to participating in existing cessation programs, including chronic stress related to experiences of being unsheltered and fear of being exposed to neighborhood violence. These conditions were paired with a strong need to self-isolate in order to maintain personal safety, which runs counter to traditional group-based cessation programs.

CONCLUSION

A dissonance exists between current smoking cessation programs and the needs of women who are unsheltered or unstably housed. Alternative cessation treatment delivery models that address extremely high levels of chronic stress violence, and avoidance of group settings are needed, as are programs that provide options for safe participation.

Smoke-Free Home Intervention in Permanent Supportive Housing: A Multifaceted Intervention Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Smoke-free homes (SFHs), the voluntary adoption of home smoking restrictions, are associated with reduced secondhand smoke exposure. However, SFHs are uncommon in permanent supportive housing (PSH) for formerly homeless adults, who have fivefold higher smoking rates than the general population. We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area.

AIMS AND METHODS

We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area. Rest of the methods, PSH residents (n = 100) and staff (n = 62) from 15 PSH sites participated in the intervention between October 2017 and February 2018. Research staff provided counseling to PSH residents on how to adopt an SFH and trained PSH staff on how to counsel residents on smoking cessation. The primary outcome was self-reported voluntary adoption of an SFH for ≥90 days, and the secondary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified PPA at 6-month follow-up. PSH staff completed the Smoking Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices survey at baseline and 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 31.3% of PSH residents had adopted an SFH (vs. 13.0% at baseline) and 16.9% reported carbon monoxide-verified PPA. A positive attitude toward an SFH policy was associated with increased odds of SFH adoption (adjusted odds ratio = 8.68, 95% confidence interval: 2.42, 31.17). Voluntary SFH adoption was associated with increased PPA (adjusted odds ratio = 26.27, 95% confidence interval: 3.43, 201.30). PSH staff reported improved attitudes toward and self-efficacy in delivering cessation care, and decreased barriers to discussing smoking cessation among PSH residents between baseline and 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-arm study, a brief intervention increased SFH adoption and PPA among PSH residents.

IMPLICATIONS

To date, few interventions have addressed SFHs and their association with tobacco use among PSH residents. A "ground-up" approach that relies on buy-in from residents and that promotes voluntary SFHs is an innovative way to increase smoke-free living environments in PSH. This approach could pave a pathway for smoke-free policy implementation in these sites. PSH can play a role in reducing the burden of tobacco use by empowering its residents to adopt voluntary SFHs, which could increase smoking cessation among residents.

Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

Populations experiencing homelessness have high rates of tobacco use and experience substantial barriers to cessation. Tobacco-caused conditions are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among people experiencing homelessness, highlighting an urgent need for interventions to reduce the burden of tobacco use in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions designed to improve access to tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness lead to increased numbers engaging in or receiving treatment, and whether interventions designed to help adults experiencing homelessness to quit tobacco lead to increased tobacco abstinence. To also assess whether tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness affect substance use and mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies using the terms: un-housed*, homeless*, housing instability, smoking cessation, tobacco use disorder, smokeless tobacco. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 06 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that recruited people experiencing homelessness who used tobacco, and investigated interventions focused on the following: 1) improving access to relevant support services; 2) increasing motivation to quit tobacco use; 3) helping people to achieve abstinence, including but not limited to behavioral support, tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies, contingency management, and text- or app-based interventions; or 4) encouraging transitions to long-term nicotine use that did not involve tobacco. Eligible comparators included no intervention, usual care (as defined by the studies), or another form of active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Tobacco cessation was measured at the longest time point for each study, on an intention-to-treat basis, using the most rigorous definition available. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (contingent reinforcement in addition to usual smoking cessation care; more versus less intensive smoking cessation interventions; and multi-issue support versus smoking cessation support only), and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, effects on mental and substance-use severity, and meta-analyzed these outcomes where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies involving 1634 participants who smoked combustible tobacco at enrolment. One of the studies was ongoing. Most of the trials included participants who were recruited from community-based sites such as shelters, and three included participants who were recruited from clinics. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. We identified low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that contingent reinforcement (rewards for successful smoking cessation) plus usual smoking cessation care was not more effective than usual care alone in promoting abstinence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.77; 1 trial, 70 participants). We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that more intensive behavioral smoking cessation support was more effective than brief intervention in promoting abstinence at six-month follow-up (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.69; 3 trials, 657 participants; I² = 0%). There was low-certainty evidence, limited by bias and imprecision, that multi-issue support (cessation support that also encompassed help to deal with other challenges or addictions) was not superior to targeted smoking cessation support in promoting abstinence (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.61; 2 trials, 146 participants; I² = 25%). More data on these types of interventions are likely to change our interpretation of these data. Single studies that examined the effects of text-messaging support, e-cigarettes, or cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation provided inconclusive results. Data on secondary outcomes, including mental health and substance use severity, were too sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions on whether there were clinically-relevant differences. We did not identify any studies that explicitly assessed interventions to increase access to tobacco cessation care; we were therefore unable to assess our secondary outcome 'number of participants receiving treatment'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of any tobacco cessation interventions specifically in people experiencing homelessness. Although there was some evidence to suggest a modest benefit of more intensive behavioral smoking cessation interventions when compared to less intensive interventions, our certainty in this evidence was very low, meaning that further research could either strengthen or weaken this effect. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the provision of tobacco cessation support and its effects on quit attempts has any effect on the mental health or other substance-use outcomes of people experiencing homelessness. Although there is no reason to believe that standard tobacco cessation treatments work any differently in people experiencing homelessness than in the general population, these findings highlight a need for high-quality studies that address additional ways to engage and support people experiencing homelessness, in the context of the daily challenges they face. These studies should have adequate power and put effort into retaining participants for long-term follow-up of at least six months. Studies should also explore interventions that increase access to cessation services, and address the social and environmental influences of tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness. Finally, studies should explore the impact of tobacco cessation on mental health and substance-use outcomes.

Understanding the Associations between Smoking-Related Risk Perception, Interest in Quitting Smoking, and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening among Homeless Adult Smokers

Individuals experiencing homelessness smoke cigarettes at high rates, suffer a disproportionate incidence of lung cancer, but are unlikely to be screened to enhance early detection. Understanding correlates of lung cancer screening (LCS) interest within this vulnerable group may lend insight into prevention and treatment efforts and reduce their smoking-related morbidity and mortality. This study sought to understand how risk perception and interest in quitting smoking relate to LCS interest among homeless adults. Participants comprised a convenience sample of CO-verified current smokers (N = 310; 72.6% men, M_age = 43 + 11.7) from a homeless shelter in Dallas, TX. Participants self-reported risk perception, interest in quitting smoking, and interest in LCS. The average risk perception was 6.7 + 3.2 (range 0-10), 74.8% (n = 232) agreed or strongly agreed with interest in LCS, and 65.8% (n = 204) were interested in quitting smoking. Greater interest in quitting smoking, but not greater risk perception, was associated with greater interest in LCS (adjusted OR: 1.968, (95% CI: 1.213, 3.191), p = 0.006). Risk perception and interest in quitting smoking did not interact in their association with interest in LCS. Results suggest that homeless smokers with an interest in quitting may be receptive to LCS: a diagnostic tool by which cancers can be caught at earlier stages and prior to metastasis. However, few in the current sample would be eligible for LCS based on current guidelines; results have implications for altered screening practices among chronic smokers experiencing homelessness.

Resilience is associated with importance of quitting in homeless adult smokers

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of cigarette smoking in homeless populations is disproportionately high with rates between 57 and 80%. Resilience may affect a smoker's ability to successfully quit smoking. This cross-sectional study examined the association between resilience levels and smoking behaviors in homeless adults.

METHOD

Fifty-nine homeless adults were recruited from a large multi-service homelessness agency in the northeast United States. Surveys were administered to measure smoking behaviors and resilience.

RESULTS

Most participants were current smokers (83.1%), with more than half (67.1%) identifying as "moderate smokers" (smoking 10-20 cigarettes per day). Of the current smokers, 93.9% reported smoking daily and 71.4% had tried to quit at least once in their lifetime. The number of quit attempts was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with one's contemplation of quitting (r = 0.29) and how one viewed importance of quitting (r = 0.33). Resilience levels were significantly associated with how participants ranked importance of quitting (r = 0.37). Smokers reported a high desire to quit smoking, but level of confidence in their ability to quit was low. Difficulty in finding stable housing and social support were reported as barriers to quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates an association between importance of quitting and resilience levels in homeless adult smokers. Future work is needed to examine whether resilience is related to successful smoking cessation in homeless adults, and whether resilience levels can be increased with targeted interventions.

Smoking amongst adults experiencing homelessness: a systematic review of prevalence rates, interventions and the barriers and facilitators to quitting and staying quit

Background

To date, there has been no review of the research evidence examining smoking cessation among homeless adults. The current review aimed to: (i) estimate smoking prevalence in homeless populations; (ii) explore the efficacy of smoking cessation and smoking reduction interventions for homeless individuals; and (iii) describe the barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation and smoking reduction.

Method

Systematic review of peer-reviewed research. Data sources included electronic academic databases. Search terms: ‘smoking’ AND ‘homeless’ AND ‘tobacco’, including adult (18+ years) smokers accessing homeless support services.

Results

Fifty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 46 USA). Data could not be meta-analysed due to large methodological inconsistencies and the lack of randomised controlled trials. Smoking prevalence ranged from 57% to 82%. Although there was no clear evidence on which cessation methods work best, layered approaches with additions to usual care seemed to offer modest enhancements in quit rates. Key barriers to cessation exist around the priority of smoking, beliefs around negative impact on mental health and substance use, and environmental influences.

Conclusions

Homeless smokers will benefit from layered interventions which support many of their competing needs. To best understand what works, future recommendations include the need for consensus on the reporting of cessation outcomes.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I² = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I² = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I² = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I² = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I² = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Trends in self-efficacy to quit and smoking urges among homeless smokers participating in a smoking cessation RCT

INTRODUCTION

In the U.S., approximately 73% of homeless adults smoke cigarettes and they experience difficulty quitting. Homeless smokers report low self-efficacy to quit and that smoking urges are a barrier to quitting. Self-efficacy to quit and smoking urges are dynamic and change throughout smoking cessation treatment. This study examines changes in self-efficacy to quit and smoking urges throughout a smoking cessation intervention among the homeless and identifies predictors of change in these characteristics.

METHODS

Homeless smokers (n=430) participating in a smoking cessation randomized controlled trial in the U.S. completed surveys at baseline, and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 26 on demographic and smoking characteristics (i.e., confidence to quit, self-efficacy to refrain from smoking, and smoking urges). A growth curve analysis was conducted by modeling change in the smoking characteristics over time and examining the variability in the change in smoking characteristics by demographic characteristics and treatment group.

RESULTS

Among the full sample, self-efficacy to refrain from smoking increased linearly over time, confidence to quit increased until the midpoint of treatment but subsequently decreased, and smoking urges decreased until the midpoint of treatment but subsequently increased. There were race differences in these trajectories. Racial minorities experienced significantly greater increases in self-efficacy to refrain from smoking than Whites and Blacks had higher confidence to quit than Whites.

CONCLUSIONS

White participants experienced less increase in self-efficacy to refrain from smoking and lower confidence to quit and therefore may be a good target for efforts to increase self-efficacy to quit as part of homeless-targeted smoking cessation interventions. Sustaining high confidence to quit and low smoking urges throughout treatment could be key to promoting higher cessation rates among the homeless.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake's Association With Psychosocial and Sociodemographic Factors Among Homeless Blacks and Whites

The homeless represent an extremely disadvantaged population that fare worse than minority groups in access to preventive services and health, and minority groups fare worse than Whites. Early detection screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) saves lives, but empirical data about CRC screening practices among homeless Blacks and Whites are limited. Psychosocial risk factors may serve as a barrier to CRC screening completion among homeless Black individuals. A secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial for smoking cessation among homeless smokers was conducted to determine whether psychosocial factors and sociodemographic factors were more highly associated with CRC screening uptake among homeless Blacks than among their White counterparts. Study participants ( N = 124) were surveyed on their CRC screening status, sociodemographic variables, and psychosocial correlate measures including anxiety, depression, hopelessness, depression severity, and perceived stress. Associations between these factors were examined with logistic regression. White participants who were currently disabled/unable to work were 6.2 times more likely to ever receive CRC screening than those who were employed. Black participants with public health insurance coverage were 90% less likely to ever obtain CRC screening than participants without health insurance. Black and White participants had similar levels of anxiety symptoms, depression, and hopelessness, yet depression was the only psychosocial variable negatively associated with CRC screening status. Black and White participants with symptoms of depression were 58% less likely to complete screening than those without depression. Mental health risk and sociodemographic factors may serve as barriers to CRC screening among homeless Blacks and Whites.

A Learning Collaborative Model for Implementation of Smoking Cessation among Homeless Veterans

We evaluated the feasibility of incorporating integrated care (IC) for smoking cessation into routine care for homeless veterans at seven Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and the utility of the learning collaborative (LC) model in facilitating implementation. The goal of IC is for clinicians to provide smoking cessation concurrent with other clinical duties. The LC model utilises multidisciplinary teams and recognised field experts to develop methods for accelerating the use of evidence-based treatments. Multidisciplinary teams comprising 34 (of about 175) staff members from seven VA homeless provider teams participated. Via self-report questionnaires, we assessed providers’ perceptions of the LC and the number of providers delivering IC. Nineteen of thirty-four providers (54%) reported delivering IC at the end of training and at 10-months. Providers rated the face-to-face trainings and collaborative team trainings as the most helpful LC components. Barriers to the use of the LC included lack of leadership support and the lack of ability to electronically track progress through the electronic medical record. Additional research, quality improvement, and policy changes at higher administrative levels are needed to identify methods to sustain the use of LC among providers serving homeless veterans.

Practical issues regarding implementing a randomized clinical trial in a homeless population: strategies and lessons learned

Abstract

There is a critical need for objective data to guide effective health promotion and care for homeless populations. However, many investigators exclude homeless populations from clinical trials due to practical concerns about conducting research with this population. This report is based on our experience and lessons learned while conducting two large NIH-funded randomized controlled trials targeting smoking cessation among persons who are homeless. The current report also addresses challenges when conducting clinical trials among homeless populations and offers potential solutions. Homeless individuals face several challenges including the need to negotiate daily access to food, clothing, and shelter. Some of the critical issues investigators encounter include recruitment and retention obstacles; cognitive impairment, mental health and substance abuse disorders; transportation and scheduling challenges; issues pertaining to adequate study compensation; the need for safety protocols for study staff; and issues related to protecting the wellbeing of these potentially vulnerable adults. Anticipating realistic conditions in which to conduct studies with participants who are homeless will help investigators to design efficient protocols and may improve the feasibility of conducting clinical trials involving homeless populations and the quality of the data collected by the researchers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT00786149. Registered on 5 November 2008;

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01932996. Registered on 20 November 2014.

Cessation-related weight concern among homeless male and female smokers

Concern about post-cessation weight gain is a barrier to making attempts to quit smoking; however, its effect on smoking cessation is unclear. In this study we examine cessation-related weight concern among the homeless, which hasn't been studied.

Homeless males (n = 320) and females (n = 110) participating in a smoking cessation RCT in the Twin Cities, Minnesota from 2009 to 2011 completed surveys on cessation-related weight concern, smoking status, and components from the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine baseline predictors of cessation-related weight concern at baseline, the end of treatment, and 26-weeks follow-up. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between cessation-related weight concern and smoking status at the end of treatment and follow-up.

Females had higher cessation-related weight concern than males. Among males, older age, Black race, higher BMI, depression, and having health insurance were associated with higher cessation-related weight concern. Among females, nicotine dependence, greater cigarette consumption, indicating quitting is more important, older age of smoking initiation, and less support to quit from family were associated with higher cessation-related weight concern. In multivariate analyses, cessation-related weight concern decreased over time among females. Cessation-related weight concern wasn't associated with smoking cessation.

Although several types of characteristics predicted cessation-related weight concern among males, only smoking characteristics predicted cessation-related weight concern among females. Given the small proportion of quitters in this study (8% of males and 5% of females), further research on the impact of cessation-related weight concern on smoking cessation among the homeless is warranted.

•

Concern about post-quitting weight gain is higher among homeless females than males.

•

In multivariate analyses, weight concern decreased over time among homeless females.

•

Several types of variables predicted weight concern among homeless males.

•

Only smoking characteristics predicted weight concern among homeless females.

•

Weight concern was not associated with smoking cessation among the homeless.

Evaluation of Tobacco Control Policies in San Francisco Homeless Housing Programs

BACKGROUND

The 2014 Surgeon General's Report noted that high smoking rates in vulnerable populations such as the homeless have been a persistent public health problem; smoking prevalence among individuals experiencing homelessness exceeds 70%. Historically, service providers for the homeless have not enacted comprehensive tobacco control policies.

METHOD

We conducted a qualitative study of homeless housing programs in San Francisco. Administrators representing 9 of the city's 11 homeless service agencies were interviewed to assess institutional smoking-related policies and cessation programs and perceived barriers and receptivity to instituting tobacco control interventions.

RESULTS

Respondents indicated that although most programs had adopted smoke-free grounds and some had eliminated evidence of staff smoking, the smoking status of clients was assessed only when required by funders. None of the programs offered smoking cessation interventions. Most administrators were receptive to adopting policies that would promote a tobacco-free culture; however, they noted that their clients had unique challenges that made traditional smoking cessation programs unfeasible.

CONCLUSIONS

Homeless housing programs in San Francisco have not yet adopted a tobacco-free culture. Existing policies were created in response to external mandates, and smoking cessation programs may need to be modified in order to effectively reach clients.

A health sciences student-run smoking cessation clinic experience within a homeless population

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to describe a professional and graduate student-run approach to smoking cessation education combined with motivational interviewing and pharmacotherapy in regard to the frequency of follow-up with a smoking cessation quitline program in the homeless population. The secondary objective is to assess participants' self-reported level of confidence, knowledge, and willingness to quit before and after participation in the student-run smoking cessation clinic.

SETTING

Homeless shelter in Phoenix, Arizona.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

A previously established professional and graduate student-led clinic focused on providing a wide variety of free health services to homeless populations at a homeless shelter. One service not offered was smoking cessation support; thus, a student-run smoking cessation clinic was established.

PRACTICE INNOVATION

Patients were provided smoking cessation education, motivational interviewing, and pharmacotherapy by health sciences professional and graduate students. Patients were then given a 2-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy and referred to the state's smoking cessation quitline. The impact of multiple concomitant smoking cessation strategies provided by students within a homeless population has not been studied previously.

EVALUATION

A 10-day post-referral status update on the success of contact with patients was provided to study investigators from the smoking cessation quitline. Surveys were also used to assess the patient's self-reported level of perceived benefit with the student-run smoking cessation clinic.

RESULTS

Of the 139 unique patients, 19 (13.7%) successfully contacted the smoking cessation quitline. Patients reported high baseline confidence, knowledge, and willingness related to quit attempts; they reported a small improvement in reported values after participation in the student-run clinics.

CONCLUSION

In the homeless population, smoking cessation education, motivational interviewing, and pharmacotherapy had a low follow-up frequency with a smoking cessation quitline, but slightly increased the patient's confidence, knowledge, and willingness to quit.

Addressing Smoking in Supported Residential Facilities for People with Severe Mental Illness: Has Any Progress Been Achieved?

Background: Smoking rates for people with severe mental illness have remained high despite significant declines in smoking rates in the general population, particularly for residents of community supported residential facilities (SRFs) where smoking has been largely neglected and institutionalized. Methods: Two studies undertaken 10 years apart (2000 and 2010) with SRFs in Adelaide, Australia looked at historical trends to determine whether any progress has been made to address smoking for this population. The first study was ethnographic and involved narrative description and analysis of the social milieu of smoking following multiple observations of smoking behaviours in two SRFs. The second study involved an eight-week smoking cessation group program providing tailored support and free nicotine replacement therapy to residents across six SRFs. Changes in smoking behaviours were measured using pre and post surveys with residents, with outcomes verified by also seeking SRF staff and smoking cessation group facilitator qualitative feedback and reflection on their observations of residents and the setting. Results: The culture of smoking in mental health SRFs is a complex part of the social milieu of these settings. There appears to have been little change in smoking behaviours of residents and attitudes and support responses by staff of SRFs since 2000 despite smoking rates declining in the general community. Tailored smoking cessation group programs for this population were well received and did help SRF residents to quit or cut down their smoking. They did challenge staff negative attitudes to residents’ capacity to smoke less or quit. Conclusions: A more systematic approach that addresses SRF regulations, smoke-free policies, staff attitudes and training, and consistent smoking cessation support to residents is needed.

Predictors of Adherence to Nicotine Replacement Therapy (Nicotine Patch) Among Homeless Persons Enrolled in a Randomized Controlled Trial Targeting Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to smoking cessation treatment is generally low, especially among socio-economically disadvantaged groups including individuals experiencing homelessness and those with mental illnesses. Despite the high smoking rates in homeless populations (~70%) no study to date has systematically examined predictors of adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in this population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this secondary analysis was to identify predictors of adherence to NRT in a smoking cessation trial conducted among homeless smokers.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial enrolling 430 persons who were homeless and current cigarette smokers. Participants were assigned to one of the two study conditions to enhance smoking cessation: Motivational Interviewing (MI; 6 sessions of MI + 8 weeks of NRT) or Standard Care (Brief advice to quit+ 8 weeks of NRT). The primary outcome for the current analysis was adherence to NRT at end of treatment (8 weeks following randomization). Adherence was defined as a total score of zero on a modified Morisky adherence scale). Demographic and baseline psychosocial, tobacco-related, and substance abuse measures were compared between those who did and did not adhere to NRT.

RESULTS

After adjusting for confounders, smokers who were depressed at baseline (OR=0.58, 95% CI, 0.38-0.87, p=0.01), had lower confidence to quit (OR=1.10, 95% CI, 1.01-1.19, p=0.04), were less motivated to adhere (OR=1.04, 95% CI, 1.00-1.07, p=0.04), and were less likely to be adherent to NRT. Further, age of initial smoking was positively associated with adherence status (OR= 0.83, 95% CI, 0.69-0.99, p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that smoking cessation programs conducted in this population may target increased adherence to NRT by addressing both depression and motivation to quit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00786149.

Depression Symptoms Among Homeless Smokers: Effect of Motivational Interviewing

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is higher among homeless individuals than the general population. Homeless individuals are also more likely to have symptoms of depression. Depression symptoms may add to the burden of homelessness by increasing psychological distress and serve as a barrier to quitting smoking.

OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of this study is to assess the impact of depression symptoms on psychological distress in homeless smokers. The effect of depression symptoms on abstinence and the effect of Motivational Interviewing (MI) on cessation among smokers is also explored.

METHODS

Homeless smokers (N = 430) enrolled in a smoking cessation study were randomized to Motivational Interviewing (MI) or standard care (SC). Participants received nicotine replacement therapy and were followed for 26 weeks. Participants were categorized into a depression symptoms (DS) group or control group using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Between group differences of perceived stress, hopelessness, confidence, craving and abstinence were assessed at weeks 8 and 26. The interaction between depression symptoms (levels: DS and control) and the intervention (levels: MI and SC) was also assessed.

RESULTS

Homeless smokers in the DS group reported higher levels of hopelessness, perceived stress, and craving. There was no effect of DS status on abstinence at week 8 or week 26. There was no significant interaction between depression symptoms (DS vs. Control) and the intervention (MI vs. SC).

CONCLUSION

Despite reporting greater psychological distress, homeless smokers with depression symptoms in this sample had abstinence levels similar to the control group. Future research should explore protective factors among depressed smokers.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

An audit of assessment and outcome of intervention at a quit smoking clinic in a homeless hostel

OBJECTIVE

We aim to report on smoking history, mental and physical health, and the results of interventions provided by a Quit Smoking Clinic (QSC) at a Sydney homeless men's shelter.

METHODS

We undertook an audit of questionnaires administered during the first QSC visit and a review of outcomes of QSC clients who attended the clinic more than once.

RESULTS

A total of 144 men were assessed at the QSC, with mean age 45.2 years (22-71) and mean smoking duration of 29 years. About half were receiving treatment for psychotic illness, and there were high rates of other psychiatric disorders, physical illness and substance use disorder. Carbon monoxide (CO) readings were significantly higher for those smoking discarded cigarette butts. Among the subset of clients who attended the clinic more than once (n=56), only four quit for more than a month and one for a year. However, the reported number of cigarettes smoked per day was significantly lower (p=0.001), with a significant reduction in CO (p<0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the difficulty that homeless men experience in quitting smoking, but demonstrates the potential to reduce the physical and financial harm of smoking through cessation support interventions in this setting.

Integrating smoking cessation and alcohol use treatment in homeless populations: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite progress in reducing cigarette smoking in the general U.S. population, smoking rates, cancer morbidity and related heart disease remain strikingly high among the poor and underserved. Homeless individuals’ cigarette smoking rate remains an alarming 70 % or greater, and this population is generally untreated with smoking cessation interventions. Furthermore, the majority of homeless smokers also abuse alcohol and other drugs, which makes quitting more difficult and magnifies the health consequences of tobacco use.

Methods/Design

Participants will be randomized to one of three groups, including (1) an integrated intensive smoking plus alcohol intervention using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), (2) intensive smoking intervention using CBT or (3) usual care (i.e., brief smoking cessation and brief alcohol counseling). All participants will receive 12-week treatment with a nicotine patch plus nicotine gum or lozenge. Counseling will include weekly individual sessions for 3 months, followed by monthly booster group sessions for 3 months. The primary smoking outcome is cotinine-verified 7-day smoking abstinence at follow-up week 52, and the primary alcohol outcome will be breathalyzer-verified 90-day alcohol abstinence at week 52.

Discussion

This study protocol describes the design of the first community-based controlled trial (n = 645) designed to examine the efficacy of integrating alcohol abuse treatment with smoking cessation among homeless smokers. To further address the gap in effectiveness of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions in the homeless population, we are conducting a renewed smoking cessation clinical trial called Power to Quit among smokers experiencing homelessness.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932996. Date of registration: 20 November 2014.

Perceived cessation treatment effectiveness, medication preferences, and barriers to quitting among light and moderate/heavy homeless smokers

INTRODUCTION

Homeless individuals smoke at disproportionately high rates and quit at disproportionately low rates relative to domiciled smokers. Targeted research is needed to inform future interventions. Socio-demographic characteristics of homeless adults suggest that light smoking may be prevalent, and the relation between smoking level and treatment-related preferences/needs is unknown. The current study addressed these gaps in a sample of homeless smokers.

METHODS

Participants (N=237) were homeless adult daily light (1-10 cigarettes per day) and moderate/heavy (>10 cigarettes per day) smokers recruited from a single shelter that offered cessation treatment. Survey items assessed perceived treatment effectiveness, pharmacological intervention preferences, and barriers to quitting smoking. Logistic regressions were used to assess differences in treatment-related factors by smoking level.

RESULTS

The prevalence of light smoking (44.7%) was higher than in previously studied samples of domiciled smokers. Relative to moderate/heavy smokers, light smokers smoked for fewer years, had more quit attempts in the last year, and were more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes. They were less likely to believe that medications would give them the greatest chance of quitting and more likely to believe that group counseling would be helpful. Light smokers did not differ from moderate/heavy smokers on specific pharmacological intervention preferences or on perceived barriers to quitting smoking, including craving.

CONCLUSIONS

The promotion of pharmacotherapy to address cravings may be necessary for light smokers, who represent a sizeable proportion of homeless smokers and who may make apt intervention targets given their higher rates of purposeful quit attempts relative to heavier smoking counterparts.

Multicomponent smoking cessation treatment including mobile contingency management in homeless veterans

INTRODUCTION

Smoking rates are 80% among persons who are homeless, and these smokers have decreased odds of quitting smoking. Little is known about relapse rates among homeless smokers. More information is needed regarding both quit rates and innovative methods to treat smoking cessation among homeless smokers. Web-based contingency management (CM) approaches have been found helpful in reducing smoking among other difficult-to-treat smoker populations but have been generally limited by the need for computers or frequent clinic-based carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring. This open pilot study builds on a web-based CM approach by evaluating a smartphone-based application for CM named mobile CM (mCM). The study was conducted from January 1, 2013-April 15, 2014.

METHOD

Following a 1-week training period, 20 homeless veteran smokers (≥ 10 cigarettes daily for 1 year or more and a CO baseline level ≥ 10 ppm) participated in a multicomponent smoking cessation intervention including 4 weeks of mCM. All smokers received 4 smoking cessation counseling sessions, nicotine replacement, and bupropion (if medically eligible). Participants could earn up to $815 ($480 for mCM, $100 for CO readings showing abstinence [ie, 6 ppm or less] at posttreatment and follow-up, and $35 for equipment return).

RESULTS

Mean compensation for the mCM component was $286 of a possible $480. Video transmission compliance was high during the 1-week training (97%) and the 4-week treatment period (87%). Bioverified 7-day point prevalence abstinence was 50% at 4 weeks. Follow-up bioverified single assessment point prevalence abstinence was 55% at 3 months and 45% at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this open pilot study suggest that mCM may be a useful adjunctive smoking cessation treatment component for reducing smoking among homeless veterans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01789710.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) promotes smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. Date of the most recent search: August 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which motivational interviewing or its variants were offered to tobacco users to assist cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. We counted participants lost to follow-up as continuing smoking or relapsed. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 studies published between 1997 and 2014, involving over 16,000 participants. MI was conducted in one to six sessions, with the duration of each session ranging from 10 to 60 minutes. Interventions were delivered by primary care physicians, hospital clinicians, nurses or counsellors. Our meta-analysis of MI versus brief advice or usual care yielded a modest but significant increase in quitting (risk ratio (RR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.36; 28 studies; N = 16,803). Subgroup analyses found that MI delivered by primary care physicians resulted in an RR of 3.49 (95% CI 1.53 to 7.94; 2 trials; N = 736). When delivered by counsellors the RR was smaller (1.25; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63; 22 trials; N = 13,593) but MI still resulted in higher quit rates than brief advice or usual care. When we compared MI interventions conducted through shorter sessions (less than 20 minutes per session) to controls, this resulted in an RR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.12; 9 trials; N = 3651). Single-session treatments might increase the likelihood of quitting over multiple sessions, but both regimens produced positive outcomes. Evidence is unclear at present on the optimal number of follow-up calls.There was variation across the trials in treatment fidelity. All trials used some variant of motivational interviewing. Critical details in how it was modified for the particular study population, the training of therapists and the content of the counselling were sometimes lacking from trial reports.  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may assist people to quit smoking. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, due to variations in study quality, treatment fidelity, between-study heterogeneity and the possibility of publication or selective reporting bias.

Retention of Homeless Smokers in the Power to Quit Study

INTRODUCTION

Concerns about retention are a major barrier to conducting studies enrolling homeless individuals. Since smoking is a major problem in homeless communities and research on effective methods of promoting smoking cessation is needed, we describe strategies used to increase retention and participant characteristics associated with retention in smoking cessation study enrolling homeless adults.

METHODS

The parent study was a 2-group randomized controlled trial with 26-week follow-up enrolling 430 homeless smokers from emergency shelters and transitional housing units in Minneapolis/Saint Paul, MN, USA. Multiple strategies were used to increase retention, including conducting visits at convenient locations for participants, collecting several forms of contact information from participants, using a schedule that was flexible and included frequent low-intensity visits, and providing incentives. Participant demographics as well as characteristics related to tobacco and drug use and health status were analyzed for associations with retention using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Overall retention was 75% at 26 weeks. Factors associated with increased retention included greater age; having healthcare coverage; history of multiple homeless episodes, lower stress level; and higher PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) score. A history of excessive drinking and drug use were associated with decreased retention.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to successfully retain homeless individuals in a smoking cessation study if the study is designed with participants' needs in mind.

Randomized trial on mindfulness training for smokers targeted to a disadvantaged population

We report the results of a randomized trial comparing a novel smoking cessation treatment Mindfulness Training for Smokers (MTS) to a usual care therapy (Controls), which included the availability of a tobacco quit line and nicotine patches. Data were collected from 196 low socioeconomic status smokers in 2010-2011 in Madison, Wisconsin. Participants were randomized to either MTS or a telephonic quit line. The primary outcome was 6-month smoking abstinence measured by carbon monoxide breath testing and Time-Line Follow-Back. Among treatment initiators (randomized participants who participated in the intervention), abstinence rates were significantly different between the MTS (38.7%) and control (20.6%, p = .05) groups. Study limitations are also discussed. Results suggest that further study is warranted.

Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups

Background

This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially disadvantaged groups.

Methods

A systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted. Searches of electronic databases Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, Social Science Index via Web of Knowledge and CINHAL were conducted for English language articles published up to May 2013. Qualitative and quantitative studies as well as literature reviews were included. Articles were included if they reported attempts to increase disadvantaged group participation in research, or the barriers to research with disadvantaged groups. Groups of interest were those described as socially, culturally or financially disadvantaged compared to the majority of society. Eligible articles were categorised according to five phases of research: 1) sampling, 2) recruitment and gaining consent, 3) data collection and measurement, 4) intervention delivery and uptake, and 5) retention and attrition.

Results

In total, 116 papers from 115 studies met inclusion criteria and 31 previous literature reviews were included. A comprehensive summation of the major barriers to working with various disadvantaged groups is provided, along with proposed strategies for addressing each of the identified types of barriers. Most studies of strategies to address the barriers were of a descriptive nature and only nine studies reported the results of randomised trials.

Conclusions

To tackle the challenges of research with socially disadvantaged groups, and increase their representation in health and medical research, researchers and research institutions need to acknowledge extended timeframes, plan for higher resourcing costs and operate via community partnerships.

Shelter proximity and affect among homeless smokers making a quit attempt

OBJECTIVES

To explore the associations between shelter proximity and real-time affect during a specific smoking quit attempt among 22 homeless adults.

METHODS

Affect was measured via 485 smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessments randomly administered during the weeks immediately before and after the quit day, and proximity to the shelter was measured via GPS. Adjusted linear mixed model regressions examined associations between shelter proximity and affect.

RESULTS

Closer proximity to the shelter was associated with greater negative affect only during the post-quit attempt week (p = .008). All participants relapsed to smoking by one week post-quit attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

Among homeless smokers trying to quit, the shelter may be associated with unexpected negative affect/stress. Potential intervention applications are suggested.

Alternative tobacco use among college students: who is at highest risk?

OBJECTIVE

To examines smoking status, substance use, sociodemographics, and psychosocial characteristics in relation to alternative tobacco use among college students.

METHODS

Current tobacco use (cigarettes, cigar-like products, hookah, chew, snus) and correlates (sociodemographics, sensation-seeking, attitudes toward tobacco and smokers, social factors) were assessed among students aged 18-25 at 6 Southeastern US colleges using an online survey.

RESULTS

Those who were younger, male, black, cigarette and marijuana users, and demonstrating at-risk psychosocial factors were at increased risk of alternative tobacco product use (p < .001). Among current smokers, never daily nondaily smokers were 3 times as likely as former daily non-daily smokers and daily smokers to use alternative tobacco products (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Important risk factors for alternative tobacco use included important sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics.

Development of a frailty framework among vulnerable populations

Frailty is a public health issue that is experienced by homeless and other vulnerable populations; to date, a frailty framework has not been proposed to guide researchers who study hard-to-reach populations. The Frailty Framework among Vulnerable Populations has been developed from empirical research and consultation with frailty experts in an effort to characterize antecedents, that is, situational, health-related, behavioral, resource, biological, and environmental factors that contribute to physical, psychological, and social frailty domains and impact adverse outcomes. As vulnerable populations continue to age, a greater understanding of frailty will enable the development of nursing interventions.

Smoking cessation in homeless populations: who participates and who does not

INTRODUCTION

Although homeless individuals smoke at an alarmingly high rate, few smoking cessation clinical trials have focused on this vulnerable population. Little is known about recruitment efforts and suitable eligibility criteria for tobacco control research in homeless populations.

METHODS

The aim of this article is to describe the recruitment, eligibility, and enrollment of homeless smokers who participated in the Power to Quit smoking study, a randomized smoking cessation clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health. The study compared motivational interviewing and standard counseling while participants received an 8-week treatment of the nicotine patch.

RESULTS

Working with local emergency shelters, a total of 839 adult smokers were screened for study eligibility, 580 of whom (69.1%) met eligibility criteria. Of those eligible, 430 (74.1%) returned for randomization. Those who returned for randomization were older and more likely to have a phone number compared with eligible participants not enrolled. The most common reasons for exclusion included exhaled carbon monoxide levels less than or equal to 5 parts per million (indicating nonsmoking status), use of smoking cessation aid during the past 30 days, and not meeting the study definition of homelessness.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of these factors may help researchers tailor criteria that accurately identify and include homeless smokers in future research.

Service provision for mentally disordered homeless people

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mentally ill homeless persons are among the most neglected or marginalized patient groups. Their needs for mental healthcare are widely unmet. The current economic crisis probably accelerates the social decline and deterioration of physical and mental health in high-risk groups worldwide and increases the need for appropriate treatments, services, and prevention strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research on service provision for mentally disordered homeless people (from 2010 to 2012) covers the following issues: epidemiology of mental ill health among homeless persons, service delivery and healthcare utilization, specific treatments, specific high-risk groups among homeless persons, and subjective experience with mental health service provision.

SUMMARY

The number of studies published on these issues between 2010 and 2012 may suggest an awareness for the need for adequate service provision of this marginalized clientele. Research evidence is still not sufficient. The majority of studies are from the United States. The methodological quality of the studies is still moderate, being descriptive in nature or applying qualitative approaches to small samples. Included are usually easy to access patients from inner-city regions. There is an encouraging trend to focus on younger age groups that supports the focus on primary or secondary prevention strategies for homelessness and mental disorders.

Knowing quitters predicts smoking cessation in a homeless population

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of knowing quitters on cessation among homeless smokers.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data derived from a community-based randomized controlled trial of 430 homeless smokers. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine whether knowing quitters impacted the likelihood of cessation (salivary cotinine ≤ 20 ng/ml) at 26-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression showed cessation was more likely for smokers who knew ≥ 5 quitters compared with those who knew no quitters (Odds Ratio = 3.79, CI = 1.17, 12.27, p = .008), adjusting for age, education, income, and time to first cigarette in morning.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing former smokers was associated with increased likelihood of achieving smoking abstinence among homeless smokers.

Motivational interviewing to enhance nicotine patch treatment for smoking cessation among homeless smokers: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To assess the effects of adding motivational interviewing (MI) counseling to nicotine patch for smoking cessation among homeless smokers.

DESIGN

Two-group randomized controlled trial with 26-week follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

A total of 430 homeless smokers from emergency shelters and transitional housing units in Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota, USA.

INTERVENTION AND MEASUREMENTS

All participants received 8-week treatment of 21-mg nicotine patch. In addition, participants in the intervention group received six individual sessions of MI counseling which aimed to increase adherence to nicotine patches and to motivate cessation. Participants in the standard care control group received one session of brief advice to quit smoking. Primary outcome was 7-day abstinence from cigarette smoking at 26 weeks, as validated by exhaled carbon monoxide and salivary cotinine.

FINDINGS

Using intention-to-treat analysis, verified 7-day abstinence rate at week 26 for the intervention group was non-significantly higher than for the control group (9.3% versus 5.6%, P = 0.15). Among participants who did not quit smoking, reduction in number of cigarettes from baseline to week 26 was equally high in both study groups (-13.7 ± 11.9 for MI versus -13.5 ± 16.2 for standard care).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding motivational interviewing counseling to nicotine patch did not increase smoking rate significantly at 26-week follow-up for homeless smokers.

Investigating community-based health and health promotion for homeless people: a mixed methods review

Homeless people are susceptible to a range of health problems, yet in terms of health promotion, tend to be a hard-to-reach, marginalized group. Robust evidence regarding the ability to engage with this population via effective health promotion programmes is essential if policy and practice are to be informed to improve the health of homeless people. A structured review was conducted with the aim of examining what is known about community-based health promotion for homeless people. Six databases were searched and 8435 records screened. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A mixed-methods 'combined separate synthesis' approach was used to accommodate both quantitative and qualitative evidence within one review. Three themes emerged: (i) incorporating homelessness, (ii) health improving and (iii) health engaging. The review has implications for health promotion design, with evidence suggesting that as part of a tailored approach, homeless people must be actively involved in intervention development, ensuring that appropriate, acceptable and potentially effective individual elements are incorporated into community-based interventions.

Smoking characteristics and comorbidities in the power to quit randomized clinical trial for homeless smokers

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence in homeless populations is strikingly high (∼70%); yet, little is known about effective smoking cessation interventions for this population. We conducted a community-based clinical trial, Power To Quit (PTQ), to assess the effects of motivational interviewing (MI) and nicotine patch (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]) on smoking cessation among homeless smokers. This paper describes the smoking characteristics and comorbidities of smokers in the study.

METHODS

Four hundred and thirty homeless adult smokers were randomized to either the intervention arm (NRT + MI) or the control arm (NRT + Brief Advice). Baseline assessment included demographic information, shelter status, smoking history, motivation to quit smoking, alcohol/other substance abuse, and psychiatric comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of the 849 individuals who completed the eligibility survey, 578 (68.1%) were eligible and 430 (74.4% of eligibles) were enrolled. Participants were predominantly Black, male, and had mean age of 44.4 years (S D = 9.9), and the majority were unemployed (90.5%). Most participants reported sleeping in emergency shelters; nearly half had been homeless for more than a year. Nearly all the participants were daily smokers who smoked an average of 20 cigarettes/day. Nearly 40% had patient health questionnaire-9 depression scores in the moderate or worse range, and more than 80% screened positive for lifetime history of drug abuse or dependence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of enrolling a diverse sample of homeless smokers into a smoking cessation clinical trial. The uniqueness of the study sample enables investigators to examine the influence of nicotine dependence as well as psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidities on smoking cessation outcomes.