Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:HealthyHearts NYC was a stepped wedge randomized control trial that tested the effectiveness of practice facilitation on the adoption of cardiovascular disease guidelines in small primary care practices. The objective of this study was to identify was to identify attributes of small practices that signaled they would perform well in a practice facilitation intervention implementation. METHODS:A mixed methods multiple-case study design was used. Six small practices were selected representing 3 variations in meeting the practice-level benchmark of >70% of hypertensive patients having controlled blood pressure. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify themes and assign case ratings. Cross-case rating comparison was used to identify attributes of high performing practices. RESULTS:Our first key finding is that the high-performing and improved practices in our study looked and acted similarly during the intervention implementation. The second key finding is that 3 attributes emerged in our analysis of determinants of high performance in small practices: (1) advanced use of the EHR; (2) dedicated resources and commitment to quality improvement; and (3) actively engaged lead clinician and office manager. CONCLUSIONS:These attributes may be important determinants of high performance, indicating not only a small practice's capability to engage in an intervention but possibly also its readiness to change. We recommend developing tools to assess readiness to change, specifically for small primary care practices, which may help external agents, like practice facilitators, better translate intervention implementations to context.

BACKGROUND:Most hookah use studies have not included racial and ethnic minorities which limits our understanding of its use among these growing populations. This study aimed to investigate the individual characteristics of hookah use patterns and associated risk behaviors among an ethnically diverse sample of college students. METHODS:A cross-sectional survey of 2460 students (aged 18-25) was conducted in 2015, and data was analyzed in 2017. Descriptive statistics were used to present the sociodemographic characteristics, hookah use-related behavior, and binge drinking and marijuana use according to the current hookah use group, including never, exclusive, dual/poly hookah use. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine how hookah related behavior and other risk behaviors varied by sociodemographics and hookah use patterns. RESULTS:Among current hookah users (n = 312), 70% were exclusive hookah users and 30% were dual/poly hookah users. There were no statistically significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics except for race/ethnicity (p < 0.05). Almost half (44%) of the exclusive hookah users reported having at least five friends who also used hookah, compared to 30% in the dual/poly use group. Exclusive users were less likely to report past year binge drinking (17%) and past year marijuana use (25%) compared to those in the dual/poly use group (44 and 48% respectively); p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS:The socialization aspects of hookah smoking seem to be associated with its use patterns. Our study calls for multicomponent interventions designed to target poly tobacco use as well as other substance use that appears to be relatively common among hookah users.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To identify rates and sociodemographic correlates of food insecurity among low-income smokers. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Cross-sectional analysis of baseline survey data from a randomized controlled trial (N = 403) testing a smoking cessation intervention for low-income smokers. SETTING/UNASSIGNED:Two safety-net hospitals in New York City. SAMPLE/UNASSIGNED:Current smokers with annual household income <200% of the federal poverty level. MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Food insecurity was measured using the United States Department of Agriculture 6-item food security module. Participant sociodemographics were assessed by self-reported survey responses. ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:We used frequencies to calculate the proportion of smokers experiencing food insecurity and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with being food insecure. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Fifty-eight percent of participants were food insecure, with 29% reporting very high food insecurity. Compared to married participants, separated, widowed, or divorced participants were more likely to be food insecure (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-4.33), as were never married participants (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.54-5.14). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:food access) may be needed for low-income populations. Interventions which seek to alleviate food insecurity may benefit from targeting socially isolated smokers.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Practice facilitation is a promising practice transformation strategy, but further examination of its effectiveness in improving adoption of guidelines for multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors is needed. The objective of the study is to determine whether practice facilitation is effective in increasing the proportion of patients meeting the Million Hearts ABCS outcomes: (A) aspirin when indicated, (B) blood pressure control, (C) cholesterol management, and (S) smoking screening and cessation intervention. DESIGN/METHODS:The study used a stepped-wedge cluster RCT design with 4 intervention waves. Data were extracted for 13 quarters between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2018, which encompassed the control, intervention, and follow-up periods for all waves, and analyzed in 2019. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A total of 257 small independent primary care practices in New York City were randomized into 1 of 4 waves. INTERVENTION/METHODS:The intervention consisted of practice facilitators conducting at least 13 practice visits over 1 year, focused on capacity building and implementing system and workflow changes to meet cardiovascular disease care guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The main outcomes were the Million Hearts' ABCS measures. Two additional measures were created: (1) proportion of tobacco users who received a cessation intervention (smokers counseled) and (2) a composite measure that assessed the proportion of patients meeting treatment targets for A, B, and C (ABC composite). RESULTS:The S measure improved when comparing follow-up with the control period (incidence rate ratio=1.152, 95% CI=1.072, 1.238, p<0.001) and when comparing follow-up with intervention (incidence rate ratio=1.060, 95% CI=1.013, 1.109, p=0.007). Smokers counseled improved when comparing the intervention period with control (incidence rate ratio=1.121, 95% CI=1.037, 1.211, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS:Increasing the impact of practice facilitation programs that target multiple risk factors may require a longer, more intense intervention and greater attention to external policy and practice context. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02646488.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:People with serious mental illness (SMI) have a high smoking prevalence and low quit rates. Few cessation treatments are tested in smokers with SMI. Mental health (MH) providers are reluctant to address smoking. Proactive tobacco cessation treatment strategies reach out directly to smokers to offer counseling and medication and improve treatment utilization and quit rates. The current study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of proactive outreach for tobacco cessation treatment in VA MH patients. METHODS:Participants (N=1938, 83% male, mean age 55.7) across 4 recruitment sites, who were current smokers and had a MH visit in the past 12 months, were identified using the electronic medical record. Participants were randomized to Intervention (telephone outreach call plus invitation to engage in MH tailored telephone counseling and assistance obtaining nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]) or Control (usual care). The current study assessed outcomes in participants with SMI (N=982). RESULTS:Compared to the Control group, participants assigned to the Intervention group were more likely to engage in telephone counseling (22% vs. 3%) and use NRT (51% vs. 41%). Participants in the Intervention group were more likely to be abstinent (7-day point prevalence; 18%) at 12 months than participants in the Control group; 11%) but equally likely to make quit attempts. CONCLUSIONS:Proactive tobacco cessation treatment is an effective strategy for tobacco users with SMI. Proactive outreach had a particularly strong effect on counseling utilization. Future randomized clinical trials examining proactive tobacco treatment approaches in SMI treatment settings are needed. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Few effective treatment models exist for smokers with serious mental illness. Proactive tobacco cessation outreach with connections to mental health tailored telephone counseling and medication promotes tobacco abstinence among smokers with serious mental illness and is an effective treatment strategy for this underserved population.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Guidelines recommend that smokers participate in four or more counseling sessions when trying to quit, but smokers rarely engage in multiple sessions. The "decoy effect" is a cognitive bias that can cause consumer preferences for a "target" product to change when presented with a similar but inferior product (a "decoy"). This study tested the use of a decoy to guide smokers' selection of a target number of counseling sessions. During an online survey, adult tobacco users (N = 93) were randomized to one of two groups that determined the answer choices they saw in response to a question assessing their interest in multi-session cessation counseling. Group A choose between two sessions or a "target" of five sessions. Group B was given a third "decoy" option of seven sessions. Binary logistic regression was used to compare groups on the proportion of participants selecting the "target." RESULTS:Among 90 participants with complete data, a decoy effect was not found. There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of participants selecting the target of five sessions (47% in Group B vs. 53% in Group A; aOR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.48-1.19). Trial Registration This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov on December 13, 2019 (NCT04200157).

BACKGROUND:Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts. OBJECTIVE:To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators' strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context. DESIGN/METHODS:Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts. CONCLUSIONS:Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator's change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings.

Tobacco use is rarely addressed in community mental healthcare despite high patient smoking prevalence. Community mental health centers have systems in place that could be used to comprehensively address tobacco use. This study tested feasibility of, satisfaction with, and safety of proactive tobacco treatment (tobacco outreach to offer connection to tobacco cessation treatment). Behavioral health home patients who smoke were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; N = 11) or proactive care (PC; N = 9). All participants were called 3-months post-randomization for follow-up. PC patients reported high satisfaction with the program and experienced no adverse events or mental health symptom exacerbation during treatment. PC patients reported greater reductions in cigarettes per day, more quit attempts, and more cessation medication utilization than UC patients. Proactive outreach for tobacco cessation is feasible in a behavioral health home, acceptable to patients, and may reduce smoking heaviness and promote quit attempts.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Many tobacco dependent cancer survivors continue to smoke after diagnosis and treatment. This study investigated the extent to which hospital-based cancer registries could be used to identify smokers in order to offer them assistance in quitting. The concordance of tobacco use coded in the registry was compared with tobacco use as coded in the accompanying Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Methods/UNASSIGNED:We gathered data from three hospital-based cancer registries in New York City during June 2014 to December 2016. For each patient identified as a current combustible tobacco user in the cancer registries, we abstracted tobacco use data from their EHR to independently code and corroborate smoking status. We calculated the proportion of current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers as indicated in the EHR for the hospitals, cancer site, cancer stage, and sex. We used a logistic regression model to estimate the log odds of the registry-based smoking status correctly predicting the EHR-based smoking status. Results/UNASSIGNED:Agreement in current smoking status between the registry-based smoking status and the EHR-based smoking status was 65%, 71%, and 90% at the three participating hospitals. Logistic regression results indicated that agreement in smoking status between the registry and the EHRs varied by hospital, cancer type, and stage, but not by age and sex. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The utility of using tobacco use data in cancer registries for population-based tobacco treatment interventions is dependent on multiple factors including accurate entry into EHR systems, updated data, and consistent smoking status definitions and registry coding protocols. Our study found that accuracy varied across the three hospitals and may not be able to inform interventions at these hospitals at this time. Several changes may be needed to improve the coding of tobacco use status in EHRs and registries.