Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Chinese immigrants experience significant disparities in tobacco use. Culturally adapted tobacco treatments targeting this population are sparse and the use is low. The low use of these treatment programs is attributed to their exclusive focus on individuals who are ready to quit and the wide range of barriers that Chinese immigrants face to access these programs. To support Chinese immigrant smokers at all levels of readiness to quit and address their access barriers, we developed the WeChat Quit Coach, a culturally and linguistically appropriate WeChat (Tencent Holdings Limited)-based peer group mobile messaging smoking cessation intervention. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of WeChat Quit Coach. METHODS:We enrolled a total of 60 Chinese immigrant smokers in 2022 in New York City for a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a single-arm pilot test. The first 40 participants were randomized to either the intervention arm (WeChat Quit Coach) or the control arm (self-help print material) using 1:1 block randomization stratified by sex. WeChat Quit Coach lasted 6 weeks, featuring small peer groups moderated by a coach, daily text messages with text questions, and chat-based instant messaging support from the coach in response to peer questions. The next 20 participants were enrolled in the single-arm pilot test to further assess intervention feasibility and acceptability. All 60 participants were offered a 4-week supply of complimentary nicotine replacement therapy. Surveys were administered at baseline and 6 weeks, with participants in the pilot RCT completing an additional survey at 6 months and biochemical verification of abstinence at both follow-ups. RESULTS:Of 74 individuals screened, 68 (92%) were eligible and 60 (88%) were enrolled. The majority of participants, with a mean age of 42.5 (SD 13.8) years, were male (49/60, 82%) and not ready to quit, with 70% (42/60) in the precontemplation or contemplation stage at the time of enrollment. The pilot RCT had follow-up rates of 98% (39/40) at 6 weeks and 93% (37/40) at 6 months, while the single-arm test achieved 100% follow-up at 6 weeks. On average, participants responded to daily text questions for 25.1 days over the 42-day intervention period and 23% (9/40) used the chat-based instant messaging support. Most participants were satisfied with WeChat Quit Coach (36/39, 92%) and would recommend it to others (32/39, 82%). At 6 months, self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates were 25% (5/20) in the intervention arm and 15% (3/20) in the control arm, with biochemically verified abstinence rates of 25% (5/20) and 5% (1/20), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:WeChat Quit Coach was feasible and well-received by Chinese immigrants who smoke and produced promising effects on abstinence. Large trials are warranted to assess its efficacy in promoting abstinence in this underserved population. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05130788; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05130788.

BACKGROUND:Quitting smoking may lead to improvement in substance use, psychiatric symptoms, and pain, especially among high-risk populations who are more likely to experience comorbid conditions. However, causal inferences regarding smoking cessation and its subsequent benefits have been limited. METHODS:We emulated a hypothetical open-label randomized control trial of smoking cessation using longitudinal observational data of HIV-positive and HIV-negative US veterans from 2003-2015 in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study. We followed individuals from the first time they self-reported current cigarette smoking (baseline). We categorized participants as quitters or non-quitters at the first follow-up visit (approximately 1 year after baseline). Using inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding and selection bias, we estimated odds ratios for improvement of co-occurring conditions (unhealthy alcohol use, cannabis use, illicit opioid use, cocaine use, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and pain symptoms) at second follow-up (approximately 2 years after baseline) for those who quit smoking compared to those who did not, among individuals who had the condition at baseline. RESULTS:Of 4,165 eligible individuals (i.e., current smokers at baseline), 419 reported no current smoking and 2,330 reported current smoking at the first follow-up. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for associations between quitting smoking and improvement of each condition at second follow-up were: 2.10 (1.01, 4.35) for unhealthy alcohol use, 1.75 (1.00, 3.06) for cannabis use, 1.10 (0.58, 2.08) for illicit opioid use, and 2.25 (1.20, 4.24) for cocaine use, 0.78 (0.44, 1.38) for depressive symptoms, 0.93 (0.58, 1.49) for anxiety symptoms, and 1.31 (0.84, 2.06) for pain symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:While a causal interpretation of our findings may not be warranted, we found evidence for decreased substance use among veterans who quit cigarette smoking but none for the resolution of psychiatric conditions or pain symptoms. Findings suggest the need for additional resources combined with smoking cessation to reduce psychiatric and pain symptoms for high-risk populations.

BACKGROUND:Few studies have examined the effectiveness of telephone smoking cessation interventions by severity of behavioral health symptoms. Using data from a telephone counseling study, we examined whether abstinence rates varied by level of behavioral health symptoms. METHODS:The parent study recruited adults who smoke cigarettes (N = 577) referred by mental health providers at six Veterans Health Administration facilities. Participants were randomized to specialized telephone counseling (intervention) or state Quitline referral (control). Participants completed assessments at baseline and 6 months, including the BASIS-24, a self-report measure of behavioral health symptoms and functioning. We used the BASIS-24 median to dichotomize participants as having high or low scores. The primary outcome was 30-day self-reported abstinence at 6 months. We compared groups on outcomes by logistic regression and performed an interaction effect analysis between treatment assignment and groups. RESULTS:At baseline, those with high behavioral health symptoms scores reported heavier nicotine dependence and more sedative and/or antidepressant use, compared to participants with low behavioral health symptoms. At 6 months, participants with low behavioral health symptoms scores in the intervention reported higher rates of 30-day abstinence compared to those in the control arm (26% vs 13%, OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.8, 2.9). People with high behavioral health symptoms scores reported no difference in 30-day abstinence between the treatment assignments at 6 months (12% vs. 13%, OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.6, 2.0). CONCLUSIONS:Only participants with low behavioral health symptoms scores reported higher abstinence rates in the intervention compared to the state Quitline. Future research can examine alternative approaches for people with worse mental well-being and functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The parent study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS:gov NCT00724308.

BACKGROUND:Prediabetes affects 26.4 million people aged 65 years or older (48.8%) in the United States. Although older adults respond well to the evidence-based Diabetes Prevention Program, they are a heterogeneous group with differing physiological, biomedical, and psychosocial needs who can benefit from additional support to accommodate age-related changes in sensory and motor function. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this paper is to describe adaptations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Diabetes Prevention Program aimed at preventing diabetes among older adults (ages ≥65 years) and findings from a pilot of 2 virtual sessions of the adapted program that evaluated the acceptability of the content. METHODS:The research team adapted the program by incorporating additional resources necessary for older adults. A certified lifestyle coach delivered 2 sessions of the adapted content via videoconference to 189 older adults. RESULTS:The first session had a 34.9% (38/109) response rate to the survey, and the second had a 34% (30/88) response rate. Over three-quarters (50/59, 85%) of respondents agreed that they liked the virtual program, with 82% (45/55) agreeing that they would recommend it to a family member or a friend. CONCLUSIONS:This data will be used to inform intervention delivery in a randomized controlled trial comparing in-person versus virtual delivery of the adapted program.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:) model offers a long-term approach to treating tobacco use by encouraging people to quit, requit, or recommit to quit smoking every Monday. AIM/UNASSIGNED:model into multicomponent smoking cessation services among people with an MHC. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:= 36) received information about contacting their state Quitline for usual services. Primary outcomes were self-reported quit attempts, 7-day abstinence, and intervention satisfaction at 3 months. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:email, and text messaging, respectively, were very or somewhat helpful. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:delivery approaches to improve patient engagement and potential efficacy of the model. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04512248).

In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomized, controlled clinical trial, participants who were  ≥ 60 years of age in the intensive lifestyle (diet and physical activity) intervention had a 71% reduction in incident diabetes over the 3-year trial. However, few of the 26.4 million American adults age ≥65 years with prediabetes are participating in the National DPP. The BRInging the Diabetes prevention program to GEriatric Populations (BRIDGE) randomized trial compares an in-person DPP program Tailored for Older AdulTs (DPP-TOAT) to a DPP-TOAT delivered via group virtual sessions (V-DPP-TOAT) in a randomized, controlled trial design (N = 230). Eligible patients are recruited through electronic health records (EHRs) and randomized to the DPP-TOAT or V-DPP-TOAT arm. The primary effectiveness outcome is 6-month weight loss and the primary implementation outcome is intervention session attendance with a non-inferiority design. Findings will inform best practices in the delivery of an evidence-based intervention.

BACKGROUND:Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed either through a minimally invasive (MI) or full sternotomy (FS) approach. The present study compared outcomes of MI versus FS for isolated surgery among patients enrolled in the PARTNER 3 low-risk trial. METHODS:Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with anatomy suitable for transfemoral access were eligible for PARTNER 3 enrollment. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (valve-, procedure-, or heart-failure-related) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary endpoint as well as patient-reported health status at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS:In the PARTNER 3 study, 358 patients underwent isolated surgery at 68 centers through an MI (n=107) or FS (n=251) approach (8 patients were converted from MI to FS). Mean age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between groups. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome was similar in the MI versus FS groups (16.9% versus 14.9%; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.15 [0.66 - 2.03]; P=0.618). There were no significant differences in the 1-year rates of all-cause death (2.8% versus 2.8%), all stroke (1.9% versus 3.6%), or rehospitalization (13.3% versus 10.6%, P > 0.05 for all). Quality of life as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 30 days or 1 year was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:For patients at low risk for isolated surgery, MI and FS approaches were associated with similar in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Social determinants of health (SDOH) refer to the social, economic, and psychosocial conditions that influence health. Lower levels of SDOH factors including income, education, and employment are associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes, poorer glycemic control, and increased diabetes-related mortality. Few studies have conducted a comprehensive evaluation of multiple SDOH factors in a population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to identify the range of SDOH challenges-including diabetes-related distress-that impact patients with insulin-dependent diabetes at an urban safety-net clinic using the 5-domain SDOH framework developed by the Healthy People 2020 initiative. METHODS:The pilot study used a cross-sectional, mixed methods approach. Participants were recruited from 3 programs within a general internal medicine clinic that provides ambulatory care for patients with uncontrolled T2DM. We administered an investigator-developed SDOH survey based on the Healthy People 2020 framework and the validated Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), which assesses 4 domains of diabetes-related distress. One-on-one interviews were conducted to gain in-depth information about challenges. RESULTS:level of 11.0% (SD 2.6%). Overall, 92% (52/57) of participants had a barrier in at least one SDOH domain. SDOH challenges were most commonly reported in the domain of Health and Health Care (84%, 48/57), followed by Economic Stability (54%, n=31), Neighborhood and Built Environment (53%, n=30), Education and Health Literacy (47%, n=27), and Social and Community context (37%, n=21). The mean overall DDS score was 2.09 (SD 0.84), where scores of ≥2 indicate distress. Further, 79% (45/57) of participants had at least moderate diabetes-related distress in one of the 4 DDS domains. General themes that emerged from participant interviews included job interference with healthy behaviors, concerns about burdening others, challenges communicating with providers, and difficulty getting appointments in a timely manner. CONCLUSIONS:We found high levels of SDOH barriers across all 5 domains of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy People 2020 framework, including significant levels of diabetes-related distress. Future programs to address SDOH barriers in patients with uncontrolled insulin-dependent diabetes should consider screening for and focusing on a wide range of challenges.

BACKGROUND:Financial distress is a barrier to cessation among low-income smokers. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate an intervention that integrated financial coaching and benefits referrals into a smoking cessation program for low-income smokers. DESIGN/METHODS:Randomized waitlist control trial conducted from 2017 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Adult New York City residents were eligible if they reported past 30-day cigarette smoking, had income below 200% of the federal poverty level, spoke English or Spanish, and managed their own funds. Pregnant or breastfeeding people were excluded. Participants were recruited from two medical centers and from the community. INTERVENTION/METHODS:The intervention (n = 208) offered smoking cessation coaching, nicotine replacement therapy, money management coaching, and referral to financial benefits and empowerment services. The waitlist control (n=202) was usual care during a 6-month waiting period. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Treatment engagement, self-reported 7-day abstinence, and financial stress at 6 months. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:At 6 months, intervention participants reported higher abstinence (17% vs. 9%, P=0.03), lower stress about finances (β, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.02), and reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.04). Outcomes were stronger among participants recruited from the medical centers (versus from the community). Among medical center participants, the intervention was associated with higher abstinence (20% vs. 8%, P=0.01), higher satisfaction with present financial situation (β, 1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.01), reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.5], P=0.04), reduced frequency in getting by paycheck-to-paycheck (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.03), and lower stress about finances in general (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P = 0.02). There were no group differences in outcomes among people recruited from the community (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Among low-income smokers recruited from medical centers, the intervention produced higher abstinence rates and reductions in some markers of financial distress than usual care. The intervention was not efficacious with people recruited from the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03187730.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Although prevalence of smoking in the USA has been decreasing for decades, smoking rates among low-income individuals remain elevated. Theories from behavioral economics and prior research suggest that financial stress may contribute to the difficulty that low-income smokers face in quitting. The present work is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial that incorporated financial coaching and social services referrals into smoking cessation treatment. Primary analyses showed that participants randomized to the intervention (N = 208) were significantly more likely not to smoke, to have lower financial stress, and to be able to afford leisure activities (p < .05) than were control participants (N = 202). METHODS:This paper investigates subgroup discrepancies in attendance of intervention sessions and in uptake of various components of this intervention through exploratory analysis. RESULTS:Analysis using logistic regression indicated that decreased age, not having received higher education, and having income less than $1000 per month were predictive of decreased counseling attendance (p < .05). Few demographic factors were predictive of uptake of counseling components among those who attended counseling. CONCLUSIONS:These results can guide future efforts to increase participant engagement in the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03187730.