Elsevier

Preventive Medicine

Volume 40, Issue 3, March 2005, Pages 249-258
Preventive Medicine

The TEAM project: the effectiveness of smoking cessation intervention with hospital patients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.030Get rights and content

Abstract

Background. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three smoking cessation interventions for this population: (1) modified usual care (UC); (2) brief advice (A); and (3) brief advice plus more extended counseling during and after hospitalization (A + C).

Methods. Smokers (2,095) who were in-patients in four hospitals were randomly assigned to condition. Smoking status was ascertained via phone interview 7 days and 12 months post-discharge. At 12 months, reports of abstinence were validated by analysis of saliva cotinine. Intent to treat analyses were performed.

Results. At 7-day follow-up, 24.2% of participants reported abstinence in the previous 7 days. There were no differences between conditions. At 12-month follow-up, self-reported abstinence was significantly higher in the A + C condition (UC (15.0%) vs. A (15.2%) vs. A + C (19.8%)). There was no significant difference among conditions in cotinine-validated abstinence, however (UC (8.8%) vs. A (10.0%) vs. A + C (9.9%)).

Conclusions. These interventions for hospital in-patients did not increase abstinence rates. Features of the study that might have contributed to this finding were the inclusiveness of the participation criteria, the fact that pharmacological aids were not provided, and a stage-matching approach that resulted in less intensive counseling for participants unwilling to set a quit date.

Introduction

Hospitalization is an opportunity to reach a large number of smokers at a time when they might be particularly receptive to advice to quit [1], [2], [3], [4]. Smokers are more likely to use hospital services than are nonsmokers [5], so hospitalization represents a good access point for smoking cessation intervention, and the experience of impaired health might make smokers more receptive to health-related messages [2]. In addition, hospital smoking bans and the break in routine that occurs with hospitalization are conditions that should aid cessation efforts. In fact, quit rates after hospitalization are often significantly higher than the rates that would be expected in the general population, even in the absence of smoking cessation intervention [6], [7].

There is a growing literature about the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in hospitals [8], [9]. France et al. [9] reviewed studies performed before 1999 and found a total of 20 studies examining the effectiveness of hospital-based smoking cessation interventions that included a control or comparison condition. Results regarding efficacy of interventions were mixed; only eight found statistically significant differences between the control and intervention groups. As noted by the authors of this review, the studies differed in several important dimensions, including reach, intensity of in-hospital counseling, duration of relapse prevention counseling after discharge, and level of training of the intervention staff, which might explain differences in findings. A clear conclusion was that a relapse prevention program that is sustained during the 3- to 5-month period after discharge is an important determinant of success in hospital-based smoking cessation interventions. Less clear was the importance of a high intensity in-hospital intervention performed by staff who are highly trained in smoking cessation counseling and whose effort is dedicated to providing this service. However, Stevens et al. [4] and Hajek et al. [10] found that smoking-cessation interventions performed by hospital staff were inconsistently carried out and did not result in cessation rates that were significantly different from those of controls.

Many of the reviewed studies limited their reach to groups that might be more receptive to smoking cessation messages, such as patients with specific illnesses related to smoking [11], [12], [13] or those who were thinking seriously about quitting [14], [15], [16]. As would be expected, quit rates were typically lower in studies that had fewer exclusions. Three controlled trials did not exclude patients based on readiness to quit or type of illness. Stevens et al. [17] found a significant difference between intervention and control groups in long-term abstinence rates, but abstinence was not biochemically validated. The finding of no effect of counseling interventions on long-term abstinence in the other two studies could have been due to features of the interventions [4], [18]. The relapse prevention components in both studies were briefer than the 3- to 5-month period identified as effective in the France and Glasgow review. Rigotti et al. [18] provided three counseling phone calls in the month after discharge from hospital to patients trying to quit. Stevens et al. [4] provided only one post-discharge counseling phone call and noted that the respiratory therapist interventionists failed to reach many of the patients assigned to the intervention condition.

The present study, the TEAM (Teachable Moment) Project, assessed systems-based interventions implemented in four hospitals in the Twin Cities area. A low-intensity intervention provided by doctors and nurses during regular patient care and a high-intensity intervention in which trained staff using a motivational interviewing approach provided one in-hospital counseling session and up to six counseling phone calls in the 6 months after discharge were compared with a modified usual care (UC) condition in which patients were provided with smoking cessation manuals, but no advice or counseling. The high-intensity condition included features identified as effective in previous studies, such as a strong relapse prevention component and well-trained counselors dedicated to the study. Unlike most previous studies of smoking cessation in hospital in-patients, recruitment was not limited to those with specific medical conditions or to those who were ready to quit. A question of particular interest was whether a treatment condition that included many of the components related to successful outcomes in other studies would be effective in a largely unrestricted patient population.

Section snippets

Hospitals

Four hospitals participated in this study. Two were county facilities in downtown settings and two were private and were in suburbs. During the course of the study, one of the county hospitals was purchased by a managed care organization. The study was approved by Institutional Review Boards at the University of Minnesota and at each participating hospital.

Participants

Participants were drawn from general admissions to the four study hospitals. Patients were potentially eligible if they had smoked a

Participant recruitment and follow-up rates

Fig. 1 is a CONSORT flowchart that describes recruitment, intervention, and follow-up rates [33]. Research assistants screened 55,120 patients during the period from January, 1997, to June, 1999. Thirteen thousand seven hundred thirty-one (24.9%) were smokers and, of those, 5,166 patients were eligible for study participation and 3,988 were approached for consent. We enrolled 2,095 patients (52.5% of patients approached for consent). Major reasons for ineligibility of identified smokers were

Discussion

Advantages of this study were a large sample of patients from a diverse set of hospitals, biochemical validation of self-reported cessation, and the inclusion of a comparison group that received only smoking cessation manuals. The most intensive condition included many elements identified as effective in previous studies, such as a long-term relapse prevention component and well-trained counselors dedicated to the study. It was therefore a relatively strong test of the effectiveness of smoking

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grant HL54132 from the National Institutes of Health.

References (34)

  • P. Hajek et al.

    Brief intervention during hospital admission to help patients to give up smoking after myocardial infarction and bypass surgery: randomised controlled trial

    Br. Med. J

    (2002)
  • R.F. DeBusk et al.

    A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction

    Ann. Intern. Med

    (1994)
  • C.B. Taylor et al.

    Smoking cessation after acute myocardial infarction: effects of a nurse-managed intervention

    Ann. Intern. Med

    (1990)
  • J. Ockene et al.

    Smoking cessation and severity of disease: the coronary artery smoking intervention study

    Health Psychol

    (1992)
  • N.H Miller et al.

    Smoking cessation in hospitalized patients: results of a randomized trial

    Arch. Intern. Med

    (1997)
  • C.B Taylor et al.

    A nurse-managed smoking cessation program for hospitalized smokers

    Am. J. Public Health

    (1996)
  • V.J Stevens et al.

    A smoking-cessation intervention for hospital patients

    Med. Care

    (1993)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text