RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in tobacco treatment who may not otherwise have access to it. Tobacco treatment interventions that begin during hospitalization and continue for at least 1 postdischarge month are effective in promoting smoking cessation. However, there is low usage of postdischarge tobacco treatment services. Financial incentives for smoking cessation are an intervention in which participants receive incentives, such as cash payments or vouchers for goods, to encourage individuals to stop smoking or to reward individuals for maintaining abstinence. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a novel postdischarge financial incentive intervention that uses a smartphone application paired to measurements of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) concentration levels to promote smoking cessation in individuals who smoke cigarettes. METHODS: We collaborated with Vincere Health, Inc. to tailor their mobile application that uses facial recognition features, a portable breath test CO monitor, and smartphone technology to deliver financial incentives to a participant's digital wallet after the completion of each CO test. The program includes 3 racks. Track 1: Noncontingent incentives for conducting CO tests. Track 2: Combination of noncontingent and contingent incentives for CO levels <10 parts per million (ppm). Track 3: Contingent incentives only for CO levels <10 ppm. After obtaining informed consent, we pilot-tested the program from September to November 2020 with a convenience sample of 33 hospitalized individuals at Boston Medical Center, a large safety-net hospital in New England. Participants received text reminders to conduct CO tests twice daily for 30 days postdischarge. We collected data on engagement, CO levels, and incentives earned. We measured feasibility and acceptability quantitatively and qualitatively at 2 and 4 weeks. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent (25/33) completed the program and 61% (20/33) conducted at least 1 breath test each week. Seven patients had consecutive CO levels <10 ppm during the last 7 days of the program. Engagement with the financial incentive intervention as well as in-treatment abstinence was highest in Track 3 that delivered financial incentives contingent on CO levels <10 ppm. Participants reported high program satisfaction and that the intervention helped motivate smoking cessation. Participants suggested increasing program duration to at least 3 months and adding supplemental text messaging to increase motivation to stop smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives paired to measurements of exhaled CO concentration levels is a novel smartphone-based tobacco cessation approach that is feasible and acceptable. Future studies should examine the efficacy of the intervention after it is refined to add a counseling or text-messaging component.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care. METHODS: We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups. RESULTS: Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p < 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are devices that deliver nicotine-containing aerosol and were used by 2.8% of American adults in 2017. Many people who smoke cigarettes have used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, and the general consensus among health providers is that while vaping is not harmless, it is less harmful than smoking. To try to reduce youth e-cigarette use, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposed a 75% excise tax on nicotine-containing vaping products and banned the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including combustible tobacco, effective June 1, 2020. This tax, like similar taxes in other states, aimed to reduce e-cigarette consumption. However, past research has found that e-cigarettes and cigarettes are economic substitutes, meaning that an increase in e-cigarettes prices may push more people who smoke e-cigarettes to smoke combustible cigarettes. METHODS: To determine the impacts of several events, such as the e-cigarette and vaping-associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak and implementation of the Massachusetts e-cigarette tax, on e-cigarette and cigarette purchasing, we conducted an interrupted time-series analysis of year-on-year consumer purchasing data to impute changes in e-cigarette and cigarette purchasing in the Greater Boston area and the entire USA after several intervention points. We then surveyed a subset of people who used e-cigarettes to evaluate the plausibility that some e-cigarette consumers would travel out-of-state to purchase e-cigarettes. RESULTS: The purchasing data indicated that there was no significant decrease in e-cigarette purchases in the Greater Boston convenience market after tax implementation. However, we found that e-cigarette purchases decreased significantly while cigarette purchases increased after several bans on e-cigarettes and numerous policy statements related to the EVALI outbreak. The survey results suggested that people who smoke e-cigarettes did not decrease their consumption after the implementation of the tax, but instead obtained e-cigarettes outside of Massachusetts. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the Massachusetts flavor ban and tax did not reduce e-cigarette consumption in the Greater Boston area, and that messaging questioning the safety of e-cigarettes led to an increase in combustible cigarette use. This suggests the need for health authorities to reconsider how they communicate the relative risks of smoking and vaping.

Asunto(s)