Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients

A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Scott Sherman, Alissa R. Link, Erin S. Rogers, Paul Krebs, Joseph A. Ladapo, Donna R. Shelley, Yixin Fang, Binhuan Wang, Ellie Grossman

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Introduction Hospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two “safety net” hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions. Design A randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted. Setting/participants At two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16%) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17%) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21%) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15%) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21%) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9%) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69% of participants were reached at 2 months and 68% at 6 months. Intervention At discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814). Main outcome measures Self-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015. Results One quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60% had a history of substance abuse, 43% reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0% vs 20.7%; relative risk=1.40; 95% CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4% vs 31.5%; relative risk=1.19; 95% CI=1.01, 1.40). Conclusions Intensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria. Trial Registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)566-577
    Number of pages12
    JournalAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine
    Volume51
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

    Fingerprint

    Urban Hospitals
    Smoking Cessation
    Counseling
    Substance-Related Disorders
    Referral and Consultation
    Safety-net Providers
    Public Hospitals
    Breast Feeding
    Telephone
    Mental Disorders
    Tobacco Products
    Drinking
    Hospitalization
    Smoking
    Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
    Population

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Epidemiology
    • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

    Cite this

    Sherman, S., Link, A. R., Rogers, E. S., Krebs, P., Ladapo, J. A., Shelley, D. R., ... Grossman, E. (2016). Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(4), 566-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.023

    Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients : A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial. / Sherman, Scott; Link, Alissa R.; Rogers, Erin S.; Krebs, Paul; Ladapo, Joseph A.; Shelley, Donna R.; Fang, Yixin; Wang, Binhuan; Grossman, Ellie.

    In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 566-577.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Sherman, S, Link, AR, Rogers, ES, Krebs, P, Ladapo, JA, Shelley, DR, Fang, Y, Wang, B & Grossman, E 2016, 'Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial', American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 566-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.023
    Sherman, Scott ; Link, Alissa R. ; Rogers, Erin S. ; Krebs, Paul ; Ladapo, Joseph A. ; Shelley, Donna R. ; Fang, Yixin ; Wang, Binhuan ; Grossman, Ellie. / Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients : A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial. In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 566-577.
    @article{662c151d05ae48dcafca664644c168de,
    title = "Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial",
    abstract = "Introduction Hospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two “safety net” hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions. Design A randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted. Setting/participants At two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16{\%}) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17{\%}) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21{\%}) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15{\%}) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21{\%}) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9{\%}) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69{\%} of participants were reached at 2 months and 68{\%} at 6 months. Intervention At discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814). Main outcome measures Self-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015. Results One quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60{\%} had a history of substance abuse, 43{\%} reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0{\%} vs 20.7{\%}; relative risk=1.40; 95{\%} CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4{\%} vs 31.5{\%}; relative risk=1.19; 95{\%} CI=1.01, 1.40). Conclusions Intensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria. Trial Registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.",
    author = "Scott Sherman and Link, {Alissa R.} and Rogers, {Erin S.} and Paul Krebs and Ladapo, {Joseph A.} and Shelley, {Donna R.} and Yixin Fang and Binhuan Wang and Ellie Grossman",
    year = "2016",
    month = "10",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.023",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "51",
    pages = "566--577",
    journal = "American Journal of Preventive Medicine",
    issn = "0749-3797",
    publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients

    T2 - A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

    AU - Sherman, Scott

    AU - Link, Alissa R.

    AU - Rogers, Erin S.

    AU - Krebs, Paul

    AU - Ladapo, Joseph A.

    AU - Shelley, Donna R.

    AU - Fang, Yixin

    AU - Wang, Binhuan

    AU - Grossman, Ellie

    PY - 2016/10/1

    Y1 - 2016/10/1

    N2 - Introduction Hospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two “safety net” hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions. Design A randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted. Setting/participants At two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16%) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17%) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21%) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15%) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21%) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9%) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69% of participants were reached at 2 months and 68% at 6 months. Intervention At discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814). Main outcome measures Self-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015. Results One quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60% had a history of substance abuse, 43% reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0% vs 20.7%; relative risk=1.40; 95% CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4% vs 31.5%; relative risk=1.19; 95% CI=1.01, 1.40). Conclusions Intensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria. Trial Registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.

    AB - Introduction Hospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two “safety net” hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions. Design A randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted. Setting/participants At two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16%) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17%) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21%) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15%) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21%) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9%) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69% of participants were reached at 2 months and 68% at 6 months. Intervention At discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814). Main outcome measures Self-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015. Results One quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60% had a history of substance abuse, 43% reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0% vs 20.7%; relative risk=1.40; 95% CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4% vs 31.5%; relative risk=1.19; 95% CI=1.01, 1.40). Conclusions Intensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria. Trial Registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991833372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991833372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.023

    DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.023

    M3 - Article

    VL - 51

    SP - 566

    EP - 577

    JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    SN - 0749-3797

    IS - 4

    ER -