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.     

Introduction: Novel Frontiers in Cancer Metastasis

Clinical & Experimental Metastasis -     

Effect of the Lipid Fraction of Microalgae on Biochemical Parameters in Female C57BL/6 Mice

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine - We studied the effect of microalgae of various systematic groups added to the ration on the biochemical parameters of blood serum and liver and...     

Correction to: “Living with COVID”—implications for immunosuppressed and immunocompromised

Clinical Rheumatology -     

Association of TPH1 and TPH2 Gene Polymorphisms with the Risk of Developing Psychoneurological Disorders

Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology - The question of the involvement of impairments to the metabolism of melatonin and its precursors (tryptophan and serotonin) in the development of...     

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.