Richter Kimber P, Faseru Babalola, Shireman Theresa I, Mussulman Laura M, Nazir Niaman, Bush Terry, Scheuermann Taneisha S, Preacher Kristopher J, Carlini Beatriz H, Magnusson Brooke, Ellerbeck Edward F, Cramer Carol, Cook David J, Martell Mary J
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health and The University of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health and The University of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Oct;51(4):587-96. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.006.
Few hospitals treat patients' tobacco dependence. To be effective, hospital-initiated cessation interventions must provide at least 1 month of supportive contact post-discharge.
Individually randomized clinical trial. Recruitment commenced July 2011; analyses were conducted October 2014-June 2015.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in two large Midwestern hospitals. Participants included smokers who were aged ≥18 years, planned to stay quit after discharge, and spoke English or Spanish.
Hospital-based cessation counselors delivered the intervention. For patients randomized to warm handoff, staff immediately called the quitline from the bedside and handed the phone to participants for enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were referred on the day of hospital discharge.
Outcomes at 6 months included quitline enrollment/adherence, medication use, biochemically verified cessation, and cost effectiveness.
Significantly more warm handoff than fax participants enrolled in quitline (99.6% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI=1.65, 1.68). One in four (25.4% warm handoff, 25.3% fax) were verified to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up; this did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI=0.82, 1.24). Cessation medication use in the hospital and receipt of a prescription for medication at discharge did not differ between groups; however, significantly more fax participants reported using cessation medication post-discharge (32% vs 25%, p=0.01). The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enrolling participants into warm handoff was $0.14. Hospital-borne costs were significantly lower in warm handoff than in fax ($5.77 vs $9.41, p<0.001).
One in four inpatient smokers referred to quitline by either method were abstinent at 6 months post-discharge. Among motivated smokers, fax referral and warm handoff are efficient and comparatively effective ways to link smokers with evidence-based care. For hospitals, warm handoff is a less expensive and more effective method for enrolling smokers in quitline services.
很少有医院治疗患者的烟草依赖问题。为了取得成效,医院发起的戒烟干预措施必须在患者出院后提供至少1个月的支持性联系。
个体随机临床试验。招募工作于2011年7月开始;分析于2014年10月至2015年6月进行。
研究地点/参与者:该研究在中西部的两家大型医院进行。参与者包括年龄≥18岁、计划出院后戒烟且说英语或西班牙语的吸烟者。
医院的戒烟顾问实施干预。对于随机分配到温馨交接组的患者,工作人员在床边立即拨打戒烟热线并将电话递给参与者进行登记和咨询。随机分配到传真组的参与者在出院当天被转介。
6个月时的结果包括戒烟热线登记/依从性、药物使用、经生化验证的戒烟情况以及成本效益。
温馨交接组登记戒烟热线的参与者明显多于传真组(99.6%对59.6%;相对风险为1.67;95%置信区间=1.65, 1.68)。四分之一(温馨交接组为25.4%,传真组为25.3%)在6个月随访时被证实戒烟;两组之间无显著差异(相对风险为1.02;95%置信区间=0.82, 1.24)。两组在医院内使用戒烟药物以及出院时收到药物处方的情况无差异;然而,传真组中报告出院后使用戒烟药物的参与者明显更多(32%对25%,p=0.01)。将参与者纳入温馨交接组的平均增量成本效益比为0.14美元。温馨交接组的医院成本明显低于传真组(5.77美元对9.41美元,p<0.001)。
通过这两种方法转介到戒烟热线的住院吸烟者中,四分之一在出院后6个月时戒烟。对于有积极性的吸烟者,传真转介和温馨交接是将吸烟者与循证护理联系起来的有效且相对有效的方法。对于医院而言,温馨交接是让吸烟者登记戒烟热线服务的成本更低且更有效的方法。