Implementation of the Tobacco Tactics intervention versus usual care in Trinity Health community hospitals

Sonia A Duffy, David L Ronis, Lee A Ewing, Andrea H Waltje, Stephanie V Hall, Patricia L Thomas, Christine M Olree, Kimberly A Maguire, Lisa Friedman, Sue Klotz, Neil Jordan, Gay L Landstrom, Sonia A Duffy, David L Ronis, Lee A Ewing, Andrea H Waltje, Stephanie V Hall, Patricia L Thomas, Christine M Olree, Kimberly A Maguire, Lisa Friedman, Sue Klotz, Neil Jordan, Gay L Landstrom

Abstract

Background: Guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) implementation framework, a National Institutes of Health-sponsored study compared the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention to usual care. A prior paper describes the effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics intervention. This subsequent paper provides data describing the remaining constructs of the RE-AIM framework.

Methods: This pragmatic study used a mixed methods, quasi-experimental design in five Michigan community hospitals of which three received the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention and two received usual care. Nurses and patients were surveyed pre- and post-intervention. Measures included reach (patient participation rates, characteristics, and receipt of services), adoption (nurse participation rates and characteristics), implementation (pre-to post-training changes in nurses' attitudes, delivery of services, barriers to implementation, opinions about training, documentation of services, and numbers of volunteer follow-up phone calls), and maintenance (continuation of the intervention once the study ended).

Results: Reach: Patient participation rates were 71.5 %. Compared to no change in the control sites, there were significant pre- to post-intervention increases in self-reported receipt of print materials in the intervention hospitals (n = 1370, p < 0.001). Adoption: In the intervention hospitals, all targeted units and several non-targeted units participated; 76.0 % (n = 1028) of targeted nurses and 317 additional staff participated in the training, and 92.4 % were extremely or somewhat satisfied with the training.

Implementation: Nurses in the intervention hospitals reported increases in providing advice to quit, counseling, medications, handouts, and DVD (all p < 0.05) and reported decreased barriers to implementing smoking cessation services (p < 0.001). Qualitative comments were very positive ("user friendly," "streamlined," or "saves time"), although problems with showing patients the DVD and charting in the electronic medical record were noted. Maintenance: Nurses continued to provide the intervention after the study ended.

Conclusions: Given that nurses represent the largest group of front-line providers, this intervention, which meets Joint Commission guidelines for treating inpatient smokers, has the potential to have a wide reach and to decrease smoking, morbidity, and mortality among inpatient smokers. As we move toward more population-based interventions, the RE-AIM framework is a valuable guide for implementation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01309217.

Keywords: Cessation; Inpatient; Smoking.

References

    1. Rigotti NA, et al. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5(5):CD001837.
    1. Rice VH, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stead LF. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8.
    1. Simon JA, et al. Smoking cessation after surgery. A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(12):1371–1376. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440330111013.
    1. Simon JA, et al. Intensive smoking cessation counseling versus minimal counseling among hospitalized smokers treated with transdermal nicotine replacement: a randomized trial. Am J Med. 2003;114(7):555–562. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00081-0.
    1. Taylor CB, Curry SJ. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco use cessation guidelines in managed care organizations. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):13–21. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_3.
    1. France EK, Glasgow RE, Marcus AC. Smoking cessation interventions among hospitalized patients: what have we learned? Prev Med. 2001;32(4):376–388. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0824.
    1. Reid JL, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four western countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(Suppl):S20–S33. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq051.
    1. Reid RD, et al. Smoking cessation for hospitalized smokers: an evaluation of the “Ottawa Model”. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(1):11–18. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp165.
    1. Prochaska JJ, et al. Designing for dissemination: development of an evidence-based tobacco treatment curriculum for psychiatry training programs. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2009;15(1):24–31. doi: 10.1177/1078390308329536.
    1. Anesetti-Rothermel A, et al. Beyond reach and effectiveness: evaluating the not-on-tobacco (N-o-T) program in West Virginia from 2000 to 2005. Health Promot Pract. 2011;13(4):506–514. doi: 10.1177/1524839910386183.
    1. Meyer C, et al. Adoption, reach and effectiveness of computer-based, practitioner delivered and combined smoking interventions in general medical practices: a three-arm cluster randomized trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;121(1–2):124–132.
    1. Caperchione C, Coulson F. The WellingTONNE Challenge Toolkit: using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate a community resource promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. Health Educ J. 2010;69(1):126–134. doi: 10.1177/0017896910363301.
    1. Abildso CG, Zizzi SJ, Reger-Nash B. Evaluating an insurance-sponsored weight management program with the RE-AIM model, West Virginia, 2004–2008. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7(3):A46.
    1. Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e38–e46. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299.
    1. Kessler RS, et al. What does it mean to “employ” the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(1):44–66. doi: 10.1177/0163278712446066.
    1. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. RE-AIM. 2013; Available from: . Accessed 13 Sept 2013.
    1. Bakken S, Ruland CM. Translating clinical informatics interventions into routine clinical care: how can the RE-AIM framework help? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(6):889–897. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M3085.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. A tailored smoking, alcohol, and depression intervention for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(11):2203–2208. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0880.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Implementation of the Tobacco Tactics program in the Department of Veterans Affairs. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(Suppl 1):3–10. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1075-9.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics program in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(2):265–274. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9605-z.
    1. Vick L, et al. Implementation of an inpatient smoking cessation programme in a Veterans Affairs facility. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(5–6):866–880.
    1. Choi SH, et al. Web-enhanced tobacco tactics with telephone support versus 1-800-QUIT-NOW telephone line intervention for operating engineers: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(11):e255.
    1. Glasgow RE, et al. The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):3–12. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_2.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–1327. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Dissemination of the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention versus usual care in six Trinity community hospitals: study protocol for a comparative effectiveness trial. Trials. 2012;13(1):125. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-125.
    1. Cummins S, et al. Nicotine patches and quitline counseling to help hospitalized smokers stay quit: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13(128):128. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-128.
    1. Fellows JL, et al. 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. 2012;13(129):129. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-129.
    1. Grossman E, et al. Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13(126):126. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-126.
    1. Harrington KF, et al., Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13:123.
    1. Reid ZZ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: study protocol for the Helping HAND 2 randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(109):1484.
    1. Japuntich SJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge interventions for hospitalized smokers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13:124. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-124.
    1. Richter KP, Faseru B, Mussulman LM, Ellerbeck EF, Shireman TI, Hunt JJ, Carlini BH, Preacher KJ, Ayars CL, Cook DJ. Using “warm handoffs” to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 2012. 13(127).
    1. Riley WT, et al. Overview of the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) Trials. 2012;13(122):122. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-122.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics Program in the Trinity Health System. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4):551–565. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.012.
    1. Glasgow RE, et al. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1274–1281. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300755.
    1. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
    1. Cooke F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of NicAlert cotinine test strips in saliva for verifying smoking status. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(4):607–612. doi: 10.1080/14622200801978680.
    1. Joint commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations. Tobacco Treatment Measures (TTM). 2011; Available from: . Accessed 2 Feb 2012.
    1. Ewing LA, et al. Development of the Tobacco Tactics logo: from thumb prints to press. Tob Induc Dis. 2012;10(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-10-6.
    1. Endres C. Diseases and Injuries Tabular Index. 2011 June 20, 2014; Available from: . Accessed 15 Apr 2016.
    1. Lowe B, Kroenke K, Grafe K. Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2) J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(2):163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.09.006.
    1. Bush K, et al. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(16):1789–1795. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789.
    1. Dawson DA, et al. Effectiveness of the derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in screening for alcohol use disorders and risk drinking in the US general population. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005;29(5):844–854. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000164374.32229.A2.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Fidelity monitoring across the seven studies in the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) Tob Induc Dis. 2015;13(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12971-015-0056-5.
    1. Tzelepis F, et al. Increasing the reach of quitlines through active telephone recruitment: do cold-called smokers differ from quitline callers? Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14(12):1488–1493. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr317.
    1. DeBusk RF, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(9):721–729. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-9-199405010-00001.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. In-hospital smoking cessation programs: what do VA patients and staff want and need? Appl Nurs Res. 2008;21(4):199–206. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2006.11.002.
    1. Hennrikus DJ, et al. The TEAM project: the effectiveness of smoking cessation intervention with hospital patients. Prev Med. 2005;40(3):249–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.030.
    1. Wolfenden L, et al. Helping hospital patients quit: what the evidence supports and what guidelines recommend. Prev Med. 2008;46(4):346–357. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.12.003.
    1. Katz DA, et al. Implementing best evidence in smoking cessation treatment for hospitalized veterans: results from the VA-BEST trial. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(11):493–1.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Risk of smoking and receipt of cessation services among veterans with mental disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(4):325–332. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100097.
    1. Hiscock R, et al. Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review. Addiction Reviews. 2012;1248:107–123.
    1. Centers for Disease, C. and Prevention Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses—United States, 1997–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(25):625–628.
    1. Mohiuddin SM, et al. Intensive smoking cessation intervention reduces mortality in high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease. Chest. 2007;131(2):446–452. doi: 10.1378/chest.06-1587.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Medical comorbidities increase motivation to quit smoking among veterans being treated by a psychiatric facility. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 2011;47(2):74–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6163.2010.00271.x.
    1. Fore AM, et al. Nurses' delivery of the Tobacco Tactics intervention at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(15-16):2162-9.
    1. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3–4):327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.
    1. Fiore MC, et al. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service; 2008.
    1. Carson KV, et al. Training health professionals in smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5:CD000214.
    1. Nolan E, et al. Rapid-cycle improvement in quality of care for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or heart failure: moving from a culture of missed opportunity to a system of accountability. J Cardiovasc Manag. 2005;16(1):14–19.
    1. Katz DA, et al. Implementing smoking cessation guidelines for hospitalized veterans: effects on nurse attitudes and performance. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(11):1420–1429. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2464-7.
    1. McCarty MC, et al. Nurses’ attitudes concerning the delivery of brief cessation advice to hospitalized smokers. Prev Med. 2001;33(6):674–681. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2001.0944.
    1. Willaing I, Ladelund S. Smoking behavior among hospital staff still influences attitudes and counseling on smoking. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(2):369–375. doi: 10.1080/14622200410001676422.
    1. Braun BL, et al. Smoking-related attitudes and clinical practices of medical personnel in Minnesota. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(4):316–322. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.07.010.
    1. Fraser D, et al. Electronic health records as a tool for recruitment of participants' clinical effectiveness research: lessons learned from tobacco cessation. Transl Behav Med. 2013;3(3):244–252. doi: 10.1007/s13142-012-0143-6.
    1. Piper ME, et al. Recruiting and engaging smokers in treatment in a primary care setting: developing a chronic care model implemented through a modified electronic health record. Transl Behav Med. 2013;3(3):253–263. doi: 10.1007/s13142-012-0178-8.
    1. HITEC-LA. Meaningful Use Stage 1 Requirements. 2010; Available from: . Accessed 24 Sept 2013.
    1. Duffy SA, et al. Evaluation and costs of volunteer telephone cessation follow-up counseling for Veteran smokers discharged from inpatient units: a quasi-experimental, mixed methods study. Tob Induc Dis. 2015;13(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12971-015-0028-9.
    1. Glasgow RE, et al. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(5):688–694. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl081.
    1. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1261–1267. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1261.
    1. Estabrooks PA, Gyurcsik NC. Evaluating the public health impact of physical activity interventions. Psychology of Sports and Exercise. 2003;73:21–28.
    1. Glasgow RE. Evaluation of theory-based interventions: the RE-AIM model. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health education. San Francisco: Wiley; 2002.
    1. Lando HA, et al. Promoting smoking abstinence in pregnant and postpartum patients: a comparison of 2 approaches. Am J Manag Care. 2001;7(7):685–693.
    1. Trochim WM. The research methods knowledge base. Quasi-Experimental Design 2006 October 20, 2006 [cited 2015 April 1]; Available from: .
    1. Robson LS, et al. Quasi-experimental and experimental designs: more powerful evaluation designs, in Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries. Department of Health and Human Services: Cincinnati, OH; 2001, p. 29-42.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する