Original ContributionA systematic review of smoking cessation interventions in the emergency setting☆,☆☆,★,★★
Introduction
Cigarette smoking is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths and is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States (US) [1], [2]. The health care costs attributed to smoking exceed $167 billion annually [1], [2]. These high costs and significant mortality have provided the impetus for public health campaigns focused on smoking reduction. Such cessation interventions are generally considered to be cost-effective and are associated with decreased mortality for all [3], [4], [5], [6]. A 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) of adult smokers demonstrated that even those who have not quit are influenced by these efforts, with 68.8% of smokers reporting that they wanted to quit completely, 52.4% stating they had stopped smoking for at least 1 day because they were trying to quit, and 6.2% reporting recent smoking cessation [7]. Efforts to drive smokers from the contemplation and planning Stages of Change to the action stage are ongoing; the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has set an ambitious Healthy People 2020 goal of reducing cigarette smoking rates to 12% of US adults [2], [8], [9], [10].
The US DHHS 2008 clinical practice guideline endorsed screening all patients for tobacco use and treatment of every tobacco user via the “5 A’s” approach: asking patients if they smoke, advising patients to quit smoking, assessing patients’ willingness to quit smoking, assisting patients’ quit attempts with medication and counseling, and arranging follow-up contact [11]. With this in mind, it is notable that cigarette smoking rates have been demonstrated to be higher among emergency department (ED) patients than in the general population. Surveys of ED patients have demonstrated the prevalence of cigarette smoking to be between 21% and 48%, with higher estimates reported in urban EDs [12], [13], [14], [15]. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Public Health and Education Task Force and an American College of Emergency Physicians task force recommend smoking cessation counseling for all smokers receiving treatment in the ED setting [16], [17], [18]. Despite these recommendations, a recent survey revealed that although 88.7% of emergency physicians believed that smoking cessation interventions were an “important professional responsibility,” 57.2% of them thought that such treatments were “not appropriate service” for their practice environment [19]. Another survey reported that only 60% of ED staff agreed that they were comfortable advising patients to quit smoking and only 51% agreed that the ED should assist patients to stop using tobacco [11]. Survey data also indicated that beliefs regarding the importance, appropriateness, and efficacy of various interventions were correlated with physician compliance with the corresponding recommendations of the US DHHS clinical practice guidelines [19]. Physicians have previously cited time constraints, perceived lack of patient interest, and belief that ED-based counseling is ineffective as barriers to providing smoking cessation counseling [20].
Uncertainty regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of ED-based smoking cessation interventions is reasonable, given that a systematic review published in 2002 included only 1 article and 1 abstract that addressed smoking cessation interventions in an emergency care setting and many of the conclusions were extrapolated from other settings such as primary care [21]. Review authors endorsed screening for tobacco use and the provision of care according to the “5 A’s” recommendations but concluded that additional study in emergency settings was needed. Additionally, they were unable to make recommendations regarding referral to outside smoking cessation programs. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 ED-based tobacco intervention studies using motivational interviewing and follow-up phone calls found a trend towards increased episodically measured abstinence from tobacco use (odds ratio, 1.33; P = .10) [22]. These authors classified the included studies as being of weak to moderate quality and cautioned that the ability to draw conclusions from their review is limited. A plethora of ED-based studies have been published since the original 2002 review; therefore, the objectives of this investigation were to identify, summarize, and analyze the scientific literature available through February 2014 to answer the following question: are any smoking cessation interventions for patients in the adult or pediatric emergency care setting effective, feasible, and appropriate as assessed by their impact on smoking cessation, all-cause mortality, patient satisfaction, practitioner time spent, nonpractitioner time spent, and cost per quit?
Section snippets
Study design
Our study protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and guidelines provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, with consideration given to the methods previously reported by Bernstein and Becker [21], [23], [24], [25]. Our review was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective registry of systematic reviews, registration # CRD42012002517, prior to the conduct of the work.
Search strategy and study inclusion
Study
Characteristics of studies included
Of the 17 studies subjected to systematic appraisal, 4 were excluded from synthesis, in each case because of an inability to verify the relationship between the studied intervention and outcome or to generalize the results of the study (Figure) [11], [28], [29], [30]. The remaining 13 studies were determined to have noncritical threats to validity and were included in qualitative review and synthesis (Figure). Of these 13 studies, only 4 provided information regarding trial registration with a
Discussion
Emergency department–based smoking cessation interventions have been much more extensively studied in the years since their first systematic review, published by Bernstein and Becker in 2002 [22]. However, these new studies have largely searched for differences in effectiveness between interventions and have predominately presented nonsignificant results. Despite recommendations by multiple clinical societies, differing opinions regarding the appropriateness of smoking cessation interventions
Conclusions and implications for practice
This review addresses previously identified ED physicians’ concerns regarding the efficacy, appropriateness, and feasibility of ED-based smoking cessation interventions. Our review supports that ED-based cessation interventions may be effective, but the available data are somewhat limited and heterogeneous. Most studies reviewed demonstrated that pamphlet administration, brief advice, and motivational interviewing had nonsignificant differences in raising observed smoking cessation rates;
References (47)
- et al.
Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis
Am J Prev Med
(2006) - et al.
Socioeconomic factors, hazardous alcohol consumption, and smoking in patients with minor trauma in an inner-city emergency department
J Emerg Med
(2010) - et al.
Tobacco control interventions in the emergency department: a joint statement of emergency medicine organizations
Ann Emerg Med
(2006) - et al.
American College of Emergency Physicians Smoking Cessation Task F. Emergency department-based tobacco interventions improve patient satisfaction
J Emerg Med
(2010) - et al.
Efficacy of an ED-based multicomponent intervention for smokers with substance use disorders
J Subst Abuse Treat
(2013) - et al.
ED environmental tobacco smoke counseling
Am J Emerg Med
(2005) - et al.
Smoking Cessation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Smoking & Tobacco Use. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- et al.
Smoking and deaths between 40 and 70 years of age in women and men
Ann Intern Med
(2006) - et al.
The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits: a preliminary report. 1954
BMJ
(2004)
Benefits and risks of smoking cessation. UpToDate. 12/9/11
Quitting Smoking Among Adults –- United States, 2001–2010
Healthy People 2020 topics and objectives: tobacco use. US Department of Health and Human Services
Tobacco Use Disorder. Dynamed
Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change
J Consult Clin Psychol
Emergency department tobacco cessation program: staff participation and intervention success among patients
J Am Osteopath Assoc
Prevalence of smokers and nicotine-addicted patients in a suburban emergency department
Acad Emerg Med
Behavioral risk factors in emergency department patients: a multisite survey
Acad Emerg Med
Interest in smoking cessation among emergency department patients
Health Psychol
Preventive care in the emergency department, part I: clinical preventive services—are they relevant to emergency medicine? Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Public Health and Education Task Force Preventive Services Work Group
Acad Emerg Med
Preventive care in the emergency department, part II: clinical preventive services—an emergency medicine evidence-based review. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Public Health and Education Task Force Preventive Services Work Group
Acad Emerg Med
National survey of U.S. health professionals' smoking prevalence, cessation practices, and beliefs
Nicotine Tob Res
Smoking cessation counseling by emergency physicians: opinions, knowledge, and training needs
Acad Emerg Med
Cited by (0)
- ☆
Funding: This study did not receive external funding.
- ☆☆
Conflict disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- ★
Presentations: An abstract summarizing the results of this study was presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA, May 2013.
- ★★
Author contributions: MRB and TDS conceived the trial. JHP, TDS, and MRB designed the trial. JHP and TDS collected and extracted the study data. JHP and TDS performed data analyses, provided statistical expertise, and interpreted the study findings. JHP and TDS drafted the manuscript. JHP, TDS, and MRB revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. MRB supervised the conduct of the study. All authors take responsibility for the manuscript as a whole.
- 1
Tel.: + 1 207 232 3965.
- 2
Tel.: + 1 207 662 7010; fax: + 1 207 662 7054.