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.     

Risk as a pattern over time: Delineation of time-dependent risk factors in biological,psychological, and social variables in cancer patients

Background

Survival in cancer patients is associated with a multitude of biological, social, and psychological factors. Although it is well established that all these factors add to overall mortality, it is not well understood how the predictive power of these parameters changes in a comprehensive model and over time.

Methods

Patients who attended the authors’ outpatient clinic were invited to participate. The authors followed 5180 mixed cancer patients (51.1% female; mean age, 59.1 years [SD = 13.8]) for up to 16 years and analyzed biological (age, sex, cancer site, anemia), psychological (anxiety, depression), and social variables (marital status, education, employment status) potentially predicting overall survival in a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The median survival time for the entire sample was 4.3 years (95% confidence interval, 4.0–4.7). The overall survival probabilities for 1 and 10 years were 76.8% and 38.0%, respectively. Following an empirical approach, the authors split the time interval into five periods: acute, subacute, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. A complex pattern of variables predicted overall survival differently in the five periods. Biological parameters were important throughout most of the time, social parameters were either time-independent predictors or tended to be more important in the longer term. Of the psychological parameters, only depression was a significant predictor and lost its predictive power in the long-term.

Conclusions

The findings of this study allow the development of comprehensive patient-specific models of risk and resilience factors addressing biopsychosocial needs of cancer patients, paving the way for a personalized treatment plan that goes beyond biomedical cancer care.     

Adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medications and associations with clinical and economic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic literature review

We designed a systematic literature review to identify available evidence on adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medication in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Electronic screening and congress searches identified real-world noninterventional studies (published between 2010 and October 2020) reporting estimates of adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medication in adults with T2D, and associations with glycaemic control, microvascular and/or macrovascular complications, hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Ninety-two relevant studies were identified, the majority of which were retrospective and reported US data. The proportions of patients considered adherent (median [range] 51.2% [9.4%-84.3%]) or persistent (median [range] 47.7% [16.9%-94.0%]) varied widely across studies. Multiple studies reported an association between greater adherence/persistence and greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin levels. Better adherence/persistence was associated with fewer microvascular and/or macrovascular outcomes, although there was little consistency across studies in terms of which outcomes were improved. More adherent and more persistent patients were typically less likely to be hospitalized or to have emergency department visits/admissions and spent fewer days in hospital annually than less adherent/persistent patients. Greater adherence and persistence were generally associated with lower hospitalization costs, higher pharmacy costs and lower or budget-neutral total healthcare costs compared with lower adherence/persistence. In conclusion, better adherence and persistence in people with T2D is associated with lower rates of microvascular and/or macrovascular outcomes and inpatient hospitalization, and lower or budget-neutral total healthcare expenditure. Education and treatment strategies to address suboptimal adherence and persistence are needed to improve clinical and economic outcomes.