Background: For patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), smoking is an important risk factor for the recurrence of a cardiovascular event. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase the motivation of the smokers to stop smoking. Data on MI for smoking cessation in patients with CAD are limited, and the active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI in smoking cessation are largely unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to explore active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI for smoking cessation in smokers with CAD, shortly after a cardiovascular event. Methods: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 24 patients with CAD who participated in a randomized trial on lifestyle change. One hundred and nine audio-recorded MI sessions were coded with a combination of the sequential code for observing process exchanges (SCOPE) and the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC). The analysis of the cases consisted of three phases: single case analysis, cross-case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. In a quantitative sequential analysis, we calculated the transition probabilities between the use of MI techniques by the coaches and the subsequent patient statements concerning smoking cessation. Results: In 12 cases, we observed ingredients that appeared to activate the mechanisms of change. Active ingredients were compositions of behaviors of the coaches (e.g., supporting self-efficacy and supporting autonomy) and patient reactions (e.g., in-depth self-exploration and change talk), interacting over large parts of an MI session. The composition of active ingredients differed among cases, as the patient process and the MI-coaching strategy differed. Particularly, change talk and self-efficacy appeared to stimulate the mechanisms of change “arguing oneself into change” and “increasing self-efficacy/confidence.”
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background Smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verified by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical fitness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efficacy at 12 months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals. Discussion The results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of effective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background Smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and efectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verifed by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical ftness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efcacy at 12months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals. Discussion The results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of efective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The number of mobile apps that support smoking cessation is growing, indicating the potential of the mobile phone as a means to support cessation. Knowledge about the potential end users for cessation apps results in suggestions to target potential user groups in a dissemination strategy, leading to a possible increase in the satisfaction and adherence of cessation apps.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize potential end users for a specific mobile health (mHealth) smoking cessation app.METHODS: A quantitative study was conducted among 955 Dutch smokers and ex-smokers. The respondents were primarily recruited from addiction care facilities and hospitals through Web-based media via websites and forums. The respondents were surveyed on their demographics, smoking behavior, and personal innovativeness. The intention to use and the attitude toward a cessation app were determined on a 5-point Likert scale. To study the association between the characteristics and intention to use and attitude, univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed.RESULTS: The multivariate ordinal logistic regression showed that the number of previous quit attempts (odds ratio [OR] 4.1, 95% CI 2.4-7.0, and OR 3.5, 95% CI 2.0-5.9) and the score on the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.8-0.9, and OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.8-0.9) positively correlates with the intention to use a cessation app and the attitude toward cessation apps, respectively. Personal innovativeness also positively correlates with the intention to use (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.4) and the attitude towards (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.4) a cessation app. No associations between demographics and the intention to use or the attitude toward using a cessation app were observed.CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to show that demographic characteristics such as age and level of education are not associated with the intention to use and the attitude toward using a cessation app when characteristics related specifically to the app, such as nicotine dependency and the number of quit attempts, are present in a multivariate regression model. This study shows that the use of mHealth apps depends on characteristics related to the content of the app rather than general user characteristics.
DOCUMENT
Background: For patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), smoking is an important risk factor for the recurrence of a cardiovascular event. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase the motivation of the smokers to stop smoking. Data on MI for smoking cessation in patients with CAD are limited, and the active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI in smoking cessation are largely unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to explore active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI for smoking cessation in smokers with CAD, shortly after a cardiovascular event.Methods: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 24 patients with CAD who participated in a randomized trial on lifestyle change. One hundred and nine audio-recorded MI sessions were coded with a combination of the sequential code for observing process exchanges (SCOPE) and the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC). The analysis of the cases consisted of three phases: single case analysis, cross-case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. In a quantitative sequential analysis, we calculated the transition probabilities between the use of MI techniques by the coaches and the subsequent patient statements concerning smoking cessation.Results: In 12 cases, we observed ingredients that appeared to activate the mechanisms of change. Active ingredients were compositions of behaviors of the coaches (e.g., supporting self-efficacy and supporting autonomy) and patient reactions (e.g., in-depth self-exploration and change talk), interacting over large parts of an MI session. The composition of active ingredients differed among cases, as the patient process and the MI-coaching strategy differed. Particularly, change talk and self-efficacy appeared to stimulate the mechanisms of change “arguing oneself into change” and “increasing self-efficacy/confidence.”Conclusion: Harnessing active ingredients that target the mechanisms of change “increasing self-efficacy” and “arguing oneself into change” is a good MI strategy for smoking cessation, because it addresses the ambivalence of a patient toward his/her ability to quit, while, after the actual cessation, maintaining the feeling of urgency to persist in not smoking in the patient.
MULTIFILE
Background: There is still limited evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental illness (SMI) in Dutch outpatient psychiatric settings. The present study aimed to establish expert consensus on the core components and strategies to optimise practical implementation of a smoking cessation intervention for people treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Design: A modified Delphi method was applied to reach consensus on three core components (behavioural counselling, pharmacological treatment and peer support) of the intervention. The Delphi panel comprised five experts with different professional backgrounds. We proposed a first intervention concept. The panel critically examined the evolving concept in three iterative rounds of 90 min each. Responses were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results: Overall, results yielded that behavioural counselling should focus on preparation for smoking cessation, guidance, relapse prevention and normalisation. Pharmacological treatment consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), Varenicline or Bupropion, under supervision of a psychiatrist, was recommended. The panel agreed on integrating peer support as a regular part of the intervention, thus fostering emotional and practical support among patients. Treatment of a co-morbid cannabis use disorder needs to be integrated into the intervention if indicated. Regarding implementation, staff’s motivation to support smoking cessation was considered essential. For each ambulatory team, two mental health care professionals will have a central role in delivering the intervention. Conclusions: This study provides insight into expert consensus on the core components of a smoking cessation intervention for people with SMI. The results of this study were used for the development of a comprehensive smoking cessation program.
DOCUMENT
Background: Blended face-to-face and web-based treatment is a promising mode to deliver smoking cessation treatment. In an outpatient clinic in a Dutch Hospital effectiveness of a blended treatment (BSCT) was compared to usual face-to-face treatment (F2F). The results from 6 months post-treatment follow-up are presented here.Methods: In this open-label two-arm non-inferiority RCT patients (N=344) of a Dutch outpatient smoking cessation clinic were assigned either to the blended smoking cessation treatment (BSCT, N=167) or a face-to-face treatment with identical ingredients and duration (F2F, N=177). CO-validated point prevalence abstinence at 6 months follow-up, taken shortly after end of treatment was analyzed. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed, retaining missing participants as continuing smokers. Non-inferiority was assessed based on a one-sided margin of five percentage points difference between arms. Additionally, a Bayes Factor was estimated (with a BF>3 supporting non-inferiority, and a <.3 rejecting non-inferiority).Method: At 6 months follow up, 23 BSCT participants (13.8%) and 31 F2F participants (17.5%) were abstinent, with a difference of 3.7% (95%CI: 11.4;-4.0) in favor of F2F. Furthermore, a BF=1.28 was found.Discussion: Based on observed biochemically validated abstinence rates, this RCT suggests that delivering outpatient smoking cessation treatment in a blended mode yields comparable quit rates as full face-to-face treatment mode. However, non-inferiority could not be supported conclusively. Ignoring patient preferences for either of the delivery modes may explain these inconclusive findings.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Blended face-to-face and web-based treatment is a promising way to deliver smoking cessation treatment. Since adherence has been shown to be an indicator of treatment acceptability and a determinant for effectiveness, we explored and compared adherence and predictors of adherence to blended and face-to-face alone smoking cessation treatments with similar content and intensity. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were (1) to compare adherence to a blended smoking cessation treatment with adherence to a face-to-face treatment; (2) to compare adherence within the blended treatment to its face-to-face mode and web mode; and (3) to determine baseline predictors of adherence to both treatments as well as (4) the predictors to both modes of the blended treatment. METHODS: We calculated the total duration of treatment exposure for patients (N=292) of a Dutch outpatient smoking cessation clinic who were randomly assigned either to the blended smoking cessation treatment (n=130) or to a face-to-face treatment with identical components (n=162). For both treatments (blended and face-to-face) and for the two modes of delivery within the blended treatment (face-to-face vs web mode), adherence levels (ie, treatment time) were compared and the predictors of adherence were identified within 33 demographic, smoking-related, and health-related patient characteristics. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in adherence between the blended and the face-to-face treatments. Participants in the blended treatment group spent an average of 246 minutes in treatment (median 106.7% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-355%) and participants in the face-to-face group spent 238 minutes (median 103.3% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-330%). Within the blended group, adherence to the face-to-face mode was twice as high as that to the web mode. Participants in the blended group spent an average of 198 minutes (SD 120) in face-to-face mode (152% of the intended treatment time) and 75 minutes (SD 53) in web mode (75% of the intended treatment time). Higher age was the only characteristic consistently found to uniquely predict higher adherence in both the blended and face-to-face groups. For the face-to-face group, more social support for smoking cessation was also predictive of higher adherence. The variability in adherence explained by these predictors was rather low (blended R2=0.049; face-to-face R2=0.076). Within the blended group, living without children predicted higher adherence to the face-to-face mode (R2=0.034), independent of age. Higher adherence to the web mode of the blended treatment was predicted by a combination of an extrinsic motivation to quit, a less negative attitude toward quitting, and less health complaints (R2=0.164). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the first attempts to thoroughly compare adherence and predictors of adherence of a blended smoking cessation treatment to an equivalent face-to-face treatment. Interestingly, although the overall adherence to both treatments appeared to be high, adherence within the blended treatment was much higher for the face-to-face mode than for the web mode. This supports the idea that in blended treatment, one mode of delivery can compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Higher age was found to be a common predictor of adherence to the treatments. The low variance in adherence predicted by the characteristics examined in this study suggests that other variables such as provider-related health system factors and time-varying patient characteristics should be explored in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5113; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5113.
DOCUMENT
Background To further develop effective smoking cessation interventions within mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness (SMI), it is essential to gain insights into patients’ experiences with smoking (cessation), and professionals’ experiences with guiding patients in overcoming tobacco addiction. Methods We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with 16 patients and 10 mental healthcare professionals (MHPs), as part of a one-year smoking cessation intervention. A purposive sampling strategy was applied to select the interviewees. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using MAXQDA software. This study was embedded in a randomised controlled trial conducted in ambulatory mental healthcare in the Netherlands. Results Patients reported to smoke to cope with psychological distress and psychiatric symptoms, and to alleviate potential side effects of antipsychotic medication. For some patients low self-esteem and a lack of confidence in one’s own capacity to quit smoking were obstacles to a quit attempt. Therefore, for those patients these were crucial aspects to address. Patients and MHPs valued the exercises based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). During group sessions, establishing personalised relapse prevention strategies was regarded as effective preparation for a quit attempt. The group setting was welcomed, however, adjustments to individual needs and preferences are required to personalise the intervention. Conclusions Findings highlight the need for personalised care in treating tobacco addiction among people with severe mental illness. The KISMET intervention may serve as a useful framework for tailored cessation support, informed by the diverse experiences presented in this study.
DOCUMENT
Background:Tobacco consumption is a leading cause of death and disease, killing >8 million people each year. Smoking cessation significantly reduces the risk of developing smoking-related diseases. Although combined treatment for addiction is promising, evidence of its effectiveness is still emerging. Currently, there is no published research comparing the effectiveness of blended smoking cessation treatments (BSCTs) with face-to-face (F2F) treatments, where web-based components replace 50% of the F2F components in blended treatment.Objective:The primary objective of this 2-arm noninferiority randomized controlled trial was to determine whether a BSCT is noninferior to an F2F treatment with identical ingredients in achieving abstinence rates.Methods:This study included 344 individuals who smoke (at least 1 cigarette per day) attending an outpatient smoking cessation clinic in the Netherlands. The participants received either a blended 50% F2F and 50% web-based BSCT or only F2F treatment with similar content and intensity. The primary outcome measure was cotinine-validated abstinence rates from all smoking products at 3 and 15 months after treatment initiation. Additional measures included carbon monoxide–validated point prevalence abstinence; self-reported point prevalence abstinence; and self-reported continuous abstinence rates at 3, 6, 9, and 15 months after treatment initiation.Results:None of the 13 outcomes showed statistically confirmed noninferiority of the BSCT, whereas 4 outcomes showed significantly (P<.001) inferior abstinence rates of the BSCT: cotinine-validated point prevalence abstinence rate at 3 months (difference 12.7, 95% CI 6.2-19.4), self-reported point prevalence abstinence rate at 6 months (difference 19.3, 95% CI 11.5-27.0) and at 15 months (difference 11.7, 95% CI 5.8-17.9), and self-reported continuous abstinence rate at 6 months (difference 13.8, 95% CI 6.8-20.8). The remaining 9 outcomes, including the cotinine-validated point prevalence abstinence rate at 15 months, were inconclusive.Conclusions:In this high-intensity outpatient smoking cessation trial, the blended mode was predominantly less effective than the traditional F2F mode. The results contradict the widely assumed potential benefits of blended treatment and suggest that further research is needed to identify the critical factors in the design of blended interventions.Trial Registration:Netherlands Trial Register 27150; https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/27150
DOCUMENT
