Health and economic effects from linking bedside and outpatient tobacco cessation services for hospitalized smokers in two large hospitals: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials

Sabrina Luke¹  Kathleen Arnold¹  Julie Mitchell²  Kim Funkhouser¹  Lisa Waiwaiole¹  Richard Mularski¹  Jeffrey L Fellows¹ 

[1] Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227, USA;Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

关键词: Randomized clinical trial;    Cost-effectiveness analysis;    Assisted referral to outpatient services;    Hospitalized smokers;    Smoking cessation;   

Others  :  1095425
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-129

 received in 2011-10-27, accepted in 2012-06-08,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Extended smoking cessation follow-up after hospital discharge significantly increases abstinence. Hospital smoke-free policies create a period of ‘forced abstinence’ for smokers, thus providing an opportunity to integrate tobacco dependence treatment, and to support post-discharge maintenance of hospital-acquired abstinence. This study is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1U01HL1053231).

Methods/Design

The Inpatient Technology-Supported Assisted Referral study is a multi-center, randomized clinical effectiveness trial being conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) hospitals in Portland, Oregon. The study assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of linking a practical inpatient assisted referral to outpatient cessation services plus interactive voice recognition (AR + IVR) follow-up calls, compared to usual care inpatient counseling (UC). In November 2011, we began recruiting 900 hospital patients age ≥18 years who smoked ≥1 cigarettes in the past 30 days, willing to remain abstinent postdischarge, have a working phone, live within 50 miles of the hospital, speak English, and have no health-related barriers to participation. Each site will randomize 450 patients to AR + IVR or UC using a 2:1 assignment strategy. Participants in the AR + IVR arm will receive a brief inpatient cessation consult plus a referral to available outpatient cessation programs and medications, and four IVR follow-up calls over seven weeks postdischarge. Participants do not have to accept the referral. At KPNW, UC participants will receive brief inpatient counseling and encouragement to self-enroll in available outpatient services. The primary outcome is self-reported thirty-day smoking abstinence at six months postrandomization for AR + IVR participants compared to usual care. Additional outcomes include self-reported and biochemically confirmed seven-day abstinence at six months, self-reported seven-day, thirty-day, and continuous abstinence at twelve months, intervention dose response at six and twelve months for AR + IVR recipients, incremental cost-effectiveness of AR + IVR intervention compared to usual care at six and twelve months, and health-care utilization and expenditures at twelve months for AR + IVR recipients compared to UC.

Discussion

This study will provide important evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of linking hospital-based tobacco treatment specialists’ services with discharge follow-up care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01236079

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Fellows et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]The Joint Commission: A comprehensive review of development and testing for national implementation of hospital core measures. http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/48DFC95A-9C05-4A44-AB05-1769D5253014/0/AComprehensiveReviewofDevelopmentforCoreMeasures.pdf webcite]. (Accessed 4 March 2011)
• [2]The Joint Commission: Tobacco treatment. [http://www.jointcommission.org/tobacco_treatment webcite]. (Accessed 4 April 2012)
• [3]Rigotti NA, Munafo MR, Stead LF: Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, (3):CD001837.
• [4]Hennrikus DJ, Lando HA, McCarty MC, Klevan D, Holtan N, Huebsch JA, Jestus S, Pentel PR, Pine D, Sullivan S, Swenson K, Vessey J: The TEAM project: the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions with hospital patients. Prev Med 2005, 40:249-258.
• [5]Miller NH, Smith PM, DeBusk RF, Sobel DS, Taylor CB: Smoking cessation in hospitalized patients - results of a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 1997, 157:409-415.
• [6]Mohiuddin SM, Mooss AN, Hunter CB, Grollmes TL, Cloutier DA, Hilleman DE: Intensive smoking cessation intervention reduces mortality in high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease. Chest 2007, 131:446-452.
• [7]Quist-Paulsen P, Gallefoss F: Randomised controlled trial of smoking cessation intervention after admission for coronary heart disease. BMJ 2003, 327:1254-1257.
• [8]Taylor CB, Houston-Miller NH, Killen JD, DeBusk RF: Smoking cessation after acute myocardial infarction: Effects of a nurse-managed intervention. Ann Intern Med 1990, 113:118-123.
• [9]Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB, Bailey WB, Benowitz WC, Curry SJ, Dorfman SF, Goldstein MJ, Healton CG, Henderson PN, Heyman RB, Koh HK, Kottke TE, Lando HE, Mecklenburg RE, Mermelstein RJ, Mullen PD, Orleans CT, Robinson L, Stitzer ML, Tommasello AC, Villejo L, Wewers ME: Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. Quick reference guide for clinicians. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service; 2009.
• [10]Stevens VJ, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, Mount K: Implementation and effectiveness of a brief smoking-cessation intervention for hospital patients. Medical Care 2000, 38:451-459.
• [11]Lewis Keir E, Linda D, Lewis KE, Durgan L, Edwards VM, Dixon H, Whitehead C, Sykes RN: Can smokers switch from a hospital-based to a community-based stop smoking service? An open-label, randomized trial comparing three referral schemes. Nicotine Tob Res 2009, 11:756-764.
• [12]Regan S, Reyen M, Lockhart AC, Richards AE, Rigotti NA: An interactive voice response system to continue a hospital-based smoking cessation intervention after discharge. Nicotine Tob Res 2011, 13:255-260. Epub 2011 Jan 17
• [13]McDaniel AM, Benson PL, Roesener GH, Martindale J: An integrated computer-based system to support nicotine dependence treatment in primary care. Nicotine Tob Res 2005, Suppl 1:S57-S66.
• [14]Reid RD, Pipe AL, Quinlan B, Oda J: Interactive voice response telephony to promote smoking cessation in patients with heart disease: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 66:319-326. Epub 2007 Mar 1
• [15]Hollis JF, McAfee TA, Fellows JL, Zbikowski SM, Stark M, Riedlinger K: The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline. Tob Control 2007, Suppl 1:i53-i59.
• [16]Little SJ, Hollis JF, Fellows JL, Snyder JJ, Dickerson JF: Implementing a tobacco assisted referral program in dental practices. J Public Health Dent 2009, 69:149-155.
• [17]Tashkin D, Kanner R, Bailey W, Buist S, Anderson P, Nides M, Gonzales D, Dozier G, Patel MK, Jamerson B: Smoking cessation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet 2001, 357:1571-1575.
• [18]Fellows J, Bush T, McAfee T, Dickerson J: Cost effectiveness of the Oregon quitline free patch initiative. Tob Control 2007, Suppl 1:i47-i52.
• [19]Corporation EAvailable at: [http://www.elizacorporation.com/about webcite]. (Accessed 4 March 2011)
• [20]Ferry L, Johnston JA: Efficacy and safety of bupropion SR for smoking cessation: data from clinical trials and five years of postmarketing experience. Int J Clin Pract 2003, 57:224-230.
• [21]Leung LK, Patafio FM, Rosser WW: Gastrointestinal adverse effects of varenicline at maintenance dose: a meta-analysis. BMC Clinical Pharmacology 2011, 11:15. Available at: [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6904/11/15 webcite]. (Accessed 20 October 2011) BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Keating GM, Lyseng-Williamson KA: Varenicline: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use as an aid to smoking cessation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28:231-254.
• [23]Ltd Bedfont Scientific: Smokerlyzer CO Monitor. Available at [http//:www.bedfont.com/smokerlyzer webcite] (Accessed 4 March 2011)
• [24]Motalto NJ, Wells WO: Validation of self-reported smoking status using saliva continine: A rapid semiquantitative dipstick method. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007, 16:1858-1862.
• [25]Kramer M, Greenhouse SW, Cole JO, Gerard RW: Determination of sample size and selection of cases. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council; 1959:356-371. [In Psychopharmacology: Problems in Evaluation]
• [26]Casagrande JT, Pike MC, Smith PG: An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics 1978, 34:483-486.
• [27]D’Agostino RB, Chase W, Belanger A: The appropriateness of some common procedures for testing the equality of two independent binomial populations. Am Statistician 1998, 42:198-202.
• [28]Gordon I, Watson R: The myth of continuity-corrected sample size formulae. Biometrics 1996, 52:71-76.
• [29]Brooks R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72.
• [30]Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ: US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005, 43:203-220.
• [31]Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011, 20:1727-1736. Epub ahead of print
• [32]The health consequences of smoking: A report of the Surgeon General: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2004.
• [33]SAS 9.2. Cary: SAS Institute.
• [34]Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (second edition). New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
• [35]Haddix AC: Teutsch, Corso PS (Eds): Prevention Effectiveness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
• [36]Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Economics 2001, 10:779-787.
• [37]Fryback DG, Chinnis JO, Ulvila JW: Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis. An example using the GUSTO trial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001, 17:83-97.
• [38]Briggs AH: Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 17:479-500.
• [39]Stinnett AA, Mullahy J: Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998, Suppl 2:S68-S80.
• [40]Hall SM, Delucchi KL, Velicer WF, Kahler CW, Ranger-Moore J, Hedeker D, Tsoh JY, Niaura R: Statistical analysis of randomized trials in tobacco treatment: Longitudinal designs with dichotomous outcome. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2001, 3:193-202.
• [41]Bracht N, Kingsbury L, Rissel L: A five-stage community organization model for health promotion. Edited by Bracht N. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, California; 1999:83-104. [In Health promotion at the community level. International Educational and Professional Publisher]