Faculty Bibliography

Smoking represents an important health risk for people living with HIV (PLHIV). Low adherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapy may limit treatment effectiveness. In this study, 158 participants recruited from three HIV care centers in New York City were randomized to receive 12-weeks of varenicline (Chantix) either alone as standard care (SC) or in combination with text message (TM) support or TM plus cell phone-delivered adherence-focused motivational and behavioral therapy (ABT). Generalized linear mixed-effect models found a significant decline in varenicline adherence from week 1-12 across treatment groups. At 12-weeks, the probability of smoking abstinence was significantly higher in SC+TM+ABT than in SC. The study demonstrates the feasibility of delivering adherence-focused interventions to PLHIV who smoke. Findings suggest intensive behavioral support is an important component of an effective smoking cessation intervention for this population, and a focus on improving adherence self-efficacy may lead to more consistent adherence and higher smoking abstinence.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 The Joint Commission implemented new Tobacco Treatment (TOB) performance measures for hospitals. A study evaluated the impact of a hospital-based electronic health record (EHR) intervention on adherence to the revised TOB measures. METHODS: The study was conducted in two acute care hospitals in New York City. Data abstracted from the EHR were analyzed retrospectively from 4,871 smokers discharged between December 2012 and March 2015 to evaluate the impact of two interventions: an order set to prompt clinicians to prescribe pharmacotherapy and a nurse-delivered counseling module that automatically populated the nursing care plan for all smokers. The study estimated the relative odds of a patient being prescribed medication and/or receiving smoking cessation counseling in the intervention period compared to the baseline time period. RESULTS: There was a modest increase in medication orders (odds ratio [OR], 1.35). In contrast, rates of counseling increased 10-fold (OR, 10.54). Patients admitted through surgery were less likely to receive both counseling and medication compared with the medicine service. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization presents an important opportunity to engage smokers in treatment for primary and secondary prevention of tobacco-related illnesses. EHRs can be leveraged to facilitate integration of TOB measure requirements into routine inpatient care; however, the smaller effect on prescribing patterns suggests limitations in this approach alone in changing clinician behavior to meet this measure. The success of the nurse-focused EHR-driven intervention suggests an effective tool for integrating the cessation counseling component of the new measures and the importance of nursing's role in achieving the Joint Commission measure targets.

BACKGROUND: National surveys indicate high rates of burnout, particularly among primary care physicians. Despite concerns about the impact of burnout on health outcomes, this relationship is not well studied. HealthyHearts NYC, funded through the EvidenceNOW initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is evaluating the effectiveness of practice facilitation to improve adoption of Million Hearts' evidence-based ABCS guidelines (Aspirin, Blood pressure control (BP), Cholesterol management, and Smoking cessation) in small-to-medium size primary care practices. This study examined the association between site characteristics and physicians' burnout, as well as the relationship with the ABCS outcomes. METHODS: We present data on 99 small practices working with the NYCDOHMH Primary Care Information Project, and 8 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) from the Community Health Care Association of New York State. Each provider from participating practice sites completed a survey that included a validated question assessing burnout that used a 5-point scale ranging from 1- no symptoms of burnout to 5- completely burned out. For sites with multiple providers, we calculated a site burnout score by extracting the maximum score within each site. The burnout level was dichotomously coded as 1- burned out, and 0- not burned out. Each site completed a practice survey to report site characteristics, including the number of providers (1 vs. 2 or more), Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) status (recognized vs. not recognized), average number of patient visits per week, and total number of support staff. We used logistic regression analysis to assess the association of practice site characteristics and burnout. We also calculated a composite measure for patients with multiple CVD risk factors to capture the extent to which targets are met across three of the outcome measures (ABC). We used ttests to assess the difference in ABCS and composite measures by burnout status. RESULTS: Overall, 19% of physicians reported burnout. A significant difference was detected for all ABCS measures by the sites' burnout status. Sites reporting burnout had higher rates of meeting aspirin, smoking, and composite measure targets, but lower rates of meeting BP and cholesterol target measures and were more likely to have achieved PCMH recognition. FQHCs reported higher rates of burnout compared with small practices. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of burnout were lower than reported in previous surveys. Lower burnout rates among small independent practices compared with FQHCs may be related to small practice providers' greater level autonomy. We will present additional data exploring organizational factors that may explain variation in burnout across these different practice settings. Finally, previous research has similarly found inconsistent associations between quality and burnout. Further studies are required to determine whether healthier workplaces also result in higher quality care

BACKGROUND: Many hospitalized patients have at least 1 chronic disease that is not optimally controlled. The purpose of this study was to explore inpatient provider attitudes about chronic disease management and, in particular, barriers and facilitators of chronic disease management in the hospital. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of semi-structured interviews of 31 inpatient providers from an academic medical center. We interviewed attending physicians, resident physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners from various specialties about attitudes, experiences with, and barriers and facilitators towards chronic disease management in the hospital. Qualitative data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Providers perceived that hospitalizations offer an opportunity to improve chronic disease management, as patients are evaluated by a new care team and observed in a controlled environment. Providers perceived clinical benefits to in-hospital chronic care, including improvements in readmission and length of stay, but expressed concerns for risks related to adverse events and distraction from the acute problem. Barriers included provider lack of comfort with managing chronic diseases, poor communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, and hospital-system focus on patient discharge. A strong relationship with the outpatient provider and involvement of specialists were facilitators of inpatient chronic disease management. CONCLUSIONS: Providers perceived benefits to in-hospital chronic disease management for both processes of care and clinical outcomes. Efforts to increase inpatient chronic disease management will need to overcome barriers in multiple domains. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:162-167.

BACKGROUND: Services to treat tobacco dependence are not readily available to smokers in low-middle income countries (LMICs) where smoking prevalence remains high. We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of two strategies for implementing tobacco use treatment guidelines in 26 community health centers (CHCs) in Viet Nam. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), prior to implementing the trial, we conducted formative research to (1) identify factors that may influence guideline implementation and (2) inform further modifications to the intervention that may be necessary to translate a model of care delivery from a high-income country (HIC) to the local context of a LMIC. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with CHC medical directors, health care providers, and village health workers (VHWs) in eight CHCs (n = 40). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Two qualitative researchers used both deductive (CFIR theory driven) and inductive (open coding) approaches to analysis developed codes and themes relevant to the aims of this study. RESULTS: The interviews explored four out of five CFIR domains (i.e., intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics) that were relevant to the analysis. Potential facilitators of the intervention included the relative advantage of the intervention compared with current practice (intervention characteristics), awareness of the burden of tobacco use in the population (outer setting), tension for change due to a lack of training and need for skill building and leadership engagement (inner setting), and a strong sense of collective efficacy to provide tobacco cessation services (individual characteristics). Potential barriers included the perception that the intervention was more complex (intervention characteristic) and not necessarily compatible (inner setting) with current workflows and staffing historically designed to address infectious disease prevention and control rather than chronic disease prevention and competing priorities that are determined by the MOH (outer setting). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, CFIR provided a valuable framework for evaluating factors that may influence implementation of a systems-level intervention for tobacco control in a LMIC and understand what adaptations may be needed to translate a model of care delivery from a HIC to a LMIC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02564653 . Registered September 2015.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of adult men in Vietnam are current cigarette smokers. Recent surveys also suggest a high prevalence of water pipe use, particularly in rural areas. Yet services to treat tobacco dependence are not readily available. The purpose of this study was to characterize current tobacco use treatment patterns among Vietnamese health care providers and factors influencing adherence to recommended guidelines for tobacco use screening and cessation interventions for water pipe, cigarette and dual users. METHODS: We conducted cross sectional surveys of 929 male current tobacco users immediately after they completed a primary care visit at one of 18 community health centers. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of smokers used cigarettes only, 24% water pipe only, and 42% were dual users. Overall 12% of patients reported that a provider asked them if they used tobacco products during the visit. Providers were significantly more likely to screen cigarette smokers compared with water pipe or dual users (16%, 9% and 11% respectively). Similarly, 9% of current cigarette smokers received advice to quit compared to 6% of water pipe and 5% of dual users. No patients reported that their health care provider offered them assistance to quit (e.g., self-help materials, referral). CONCLUSION: Despite ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Vietnam has not made progress in implementing policies and systems to ensure smokers are receiving evidence-based treatment. High rates of water pipe and dual use indicate a need for health care provider training and policy changes to facilitate treatment for both cigarette and water pipe use.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (EC) use is growing dramatically with use highest among young adults and current smokers. One of the most common reasons for using ECs is interest in quitting or reducing cigarettes per day (CPD); however there are few randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the effect of ECs on smoking abstinence and reduction. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm; double-blind RCT. Subjects were randomized to receive 3-weeks of either disposable 4.5% nicotine EC (intervention) or placebo EC. The primary outcome was self-reported reduction of >/=50% in the number of CPDs smoked at week 3 (end of treatment) compared to baseline. Study subjects (n=99) were young adult (21-35), current smokers (smoked >/=10 CPDs) living in NYC. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, a significant reduction in CPDs was observed at both study time periods (1 and 3 weeks) for intervention (p<.001) and placebo (p<.001) groups. Between-group analyses showed significantly fewer CPDs in the intervention group compared to the placebo group at week 3 (p=.03), but not at any other follow-up periods. The logistic regression analysis showed that using a greater number of ECs, treatment condition and higher baseline readiness to quit were significantly associated with achieving >/=50% reduction in CPDs at the end of treatment. CONCLUSION: A diverse young adult sample of current everyday smokers, who were not ready to quit, was able to reduce smoking with the help of ECs. Further study is needed to establish the role of both placebo and nicotine containing ECs in increasing both reduction and subsequent cessation.

INTRODUCTION: It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on "spoke and wheel" diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015. RESULTS: All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements. CONCLUSIONS: CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two "safety net" hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions. DESIGN: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: At two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16%) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17%) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21%) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15%) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21%) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9%) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69% of participants were reached at 2 months and 68% at 6 months. INTERVENTION: At discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015. RESULTS: One quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60% had a history of substance abuse, 43% reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0% vs 20.7%; relative risk=1.40; 95% CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4% vs 31.5%; relative risk=1.19; 95% CI=1.01, 1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.