How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.     

Impact of COVID-19 and malaria coinfection on clinical outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesDespite the possibility of concurrent infection with COVID-19 and malaria, little is known about the clinical course of coinfected patients. We analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with concurrent COVID-19 and malaria infection.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study that assessed prospectively collected data of all patients who were admitted between May and December 2020 to the Universal COVID-19 treatment center (UCTC), Khartoum, Sudan. UCTC compiled demographic, clinical, laboratory (including testing for malaria), and outcome data in all patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized at that clinic. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during the hospital stay. We built proportional hazard Cox models with malaria status as the main exposure and stepwise adjustment for age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, diabetes, and hypertension.ResultsWe included 591 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who were also tested for malaria. Mean (SD) age was 58 (16.2) years, 446/591 (75.5%) were males. Malaria was diagnosed in 270/591 (45.7%) patients. Most malaria patients were infected by Plasmodium falciparum (140/270; 51.9%), while 121/270 (44.8%) were coinfected with Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. Median follow-up was 29 days. Crude mortality rates were 10.71 and 5.87 per 1000 person-days for patients with and without concurrent malaria, respectively. In the fully adjusted Cox model, patients with concurrent malaria and COVID-19 had a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.69).DiscussionCoinfection with COVID-19 and malaria is associated with increased all-cause in-hospital mortality compared to monoinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).     

Cortical activation by a salient sound modulates visual temporal order judgments: An electrophysiological study of multisensory attentional processes

Previous event-related potential (ERP) studies show that a salient lateral sound activates the visual cortex more strongly contralateral to the sound, observed as an auditory-evoked contralateral occipital positivity (ACOP). Studies showed that this activation enhances the early cortical processing of co-localized visual stimuli presented after, reflected by better detection rates, better discrimination, and sharper perceived contrast. We replicated the ACOP, using earphones, and tested whether auditory cuing can influence temporal order judgments (TOJ) for two visual stimuli (horizontal arrangement) as well as if the ACOP would predict the amplitude of this influence. A lateral salient sound was followed, after 150 or 630 ms, by the visual presentation of a pair of disks, one in left and one in right hemifield, with variable SOA. The TOJ task was to indicate which disk appeared first or which disk appeared second (controlling for response bias). We observed an ACOP at posterior electrode sites and confirmed our hypothesis that the lateral sound influenced TOJ by accelerating the perception of the disk presented on the cued side, even though the sound was irrelevant to the task. Furthermore, the ACOP amplitude was correlated to this visual perceptual change, indicating that a larger change in brain activity was associated with a faster processing of co-localized visual stimuli.