The Be Our Ally Beat Smoking (BOABS) study, a randomised controlled trial of an intensive smoking cessation intervention in a remote aboriginal Australian health care setting

Background: Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Indigenous Australians) smoke at much higher rates than non-Indigenous people and smoking is an important contributor to increased disease, hospital admissions and deaths in Indigenous Australian populations. Smoking cessation programs in Australia have not had the same impact on Indigenous smokers as on non-Indigenous smokers. This paper describes the outcome of a study that aimed to test the efficacy of a locally-tailored, intensive, multidimensional smoking cessation program. Methods: A randomised controlled trial of Aboriginal researcher delivered tailored smoking cessation counselling during face-to-face visits, aiming for weekly for the first four weeks, monthly to six months and two monthly to12 months. The control (“usual care”) group received routine care relating to smoking cessation at their local primary health care service. Data collection occurred at enrolment, six and 12 months. The primary outcome was self-reported smoking cessation with urinary cotinine confirmation at final follow-up (median 13 (interquartile range 12–15) months after enrolment).Results: Participants in the intervention (n = 55) and usual care (n = 108) groups were similar in baseline characteristics, except the intervention group was slightly older. At final follow-up the smoking cessation rate for participants assigned to the intervention group (n = 6; 11%), while not statistically significant, was double that of usual care (n = 5; 5%; p = 0.131). A meta-analysis of these findings and a similarly underpowered but comparable study of pregnant Indigenous Australian women showed that Indigenous Australian participants assigned to the intervention groups were 2.4 times (95% CI, 1.01-5.5) as likely to quit as participants assigned to usual care. Conclusions: Culturally appropriate, multi-dimensional Indigenous quit smoking programs can be successfully implemented in remote primary health care. Intensive one-on-one interventions with substantial involvement from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers are likely to be effective in these settings. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000604303)

Using breath carbon monoxide to validate self-reported tobacco smoking in remote Australian Indigenous communities

Background: This paper examines the specificity and sensitivity of a breath carbon monoxide (BCO) test and\ud optimum BCO cutoff level for validating self-reported tobacco smoking in Indigenous Australians in Arnhem Land,\ud Northern Territory (NT).\ud \ud Methods: In a sample of 400 people (≥16 years) interviewed about tobacco use in three communities, both selfreported\ud smoking and BCO data were recorded for 309 study participants. Of these, 249 reported smoking tobacco\ud within the preceding 24 hours, and 60 reported they had never smoked or had not smoked tobacco for ≥6\ud months. The sample was opportunistically recruited using quotas to reflect age and gender balances in the\ud communities where the combined Indigenous populations comprised 1,104 males and 1,215 females (≥16 years).\ud Local Indigenous research workers assisted researchers in interviewing participants and facilitating BCO tests using\ud a portable hand-held analyzer.\ud \ud Results: A BCO cutoff of ≥7 parts per million (ppm) provided good agreement between self-report and BCO\ud (96.0% sensitivity, 93.3% specificity). An alternative cutoff of ≥5 ppm increased sensitivity from 96.0% to 99.6% with no change in specificity (93.3%). With data for two self-reported nonsmokers who also reported that they smoked\ud cannabis removed from the analysis, specificity increased to 96.6%.\ud \ud Conclusion: In these disadvantaged Indigenous populations, where data describing smoking are few, testing for\ud BCO provides a practical, noninvasive, and immediate method to validate self-reported smoking. In further studies\ud of tobacco smoking in these populations, cannabis use should be considered where self-reported nonsmokers\ud show high BCO

A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback

Background Audit and feedback aims to improve patient care by comparing healthcare performance against explicit standards. It is used to monitor and improve patient care, including through National Clinical Audit (NCA) programmes in the UK. Variability in effectiveness of audit and feedback is attributed to intervention design; separate randomised trials to address multiple questions about how to optimise effectiveness would be inefficient. We evaluated different feedback modifications to identify leading candidates for further “real-world” evaluation. Methods Using an online fractional factorial screening experiment, we randomised recipients of feedback from five UK NCAs to different combinations of six feedback modifications applied within an audit report excerpt: use effective comparators, provide multimodal feedback, recommend specific actions, provide optional detail, incorporate the patient voice, and minimise cognitive load. Outcomes, assessed immediately after exposure to the online modifications, included intention to enact audit standards (primary outcome, ranked on a scale of −3 to +3, tailored to the NCA), comprehension, user experience, and engagement. Results We randomised 1241 participants (clinicians, managers, and audit staff) between April and October 2019. Inappropriate repeated participant completion occurred; we conservatively excluded participant entries during the relevant period, leaving a primary analysis population of 638 (51.4%) participants. None of the six feedback modifications had an independent effect on intention across the five NCAs. We observed both synergistic and antagonistic effects across outcomes when modifications were combined; the specific NCA and whether recipients had a clinical role had dominant influences on outcome, and there was an antagonistic interaction between multimodal feedback and optional detail. Among clinical participants, predicted intention ranged from 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.72, 1.72) for the least effective combination in which multimodal feedback, optional detail, and reduced cognitive load were applied within the audit report, up to 2.40 (95% CI 1.88, 2.93) for the most effective combination including multimodal feedback, specific actions, patient voice, and reduced cognitive load. Conclusion Potentially important synergistic and antagonistic effects were identified across combinations of feedback modifications, audit programmes, and recipients, suggesting that feedback designers must explicitly consider how different features of feedback may interact to achieve (or undermine) the desired effects

The protocol for the Be Our Ally Beat Smoking (BOABS) study, a randomised controlled trial of an intensive smoking cessation intervention in a remote Aboriginal Australian health care setting

Background: Australian Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders (Indigenous Australians) smoke at much higher rates than non-Indigenous people and smoking is an important contributor to increased disease, hospital admissions and deaths in Indigenous Australian populations. Smoking cessation programs in Australia have not had the same impact on Indigenous smokers as on non-Indigenous smokers. This paper describes the protocol for a study that aims to test the efficacy of a locally-tailored, intensive, multidimensional smoking cessation program.\ud \ud Methods/Design: This study is a parallel, randomised, controlled trial. Participants are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers aged 16 years and over, who are randomly allocated to a 'control' or 'intervention' group in a 2:1 ratio. Those assigned to the 'intervention' group receive smoking cessation counselling at face-to-face visits, weekly for the first four weeks, monthly to six months and two monthly to 12 months. They are also encouraged to attend a monthly smoking cessation support group. The 'control' group receive 'usual care' (i.e. they do not receive the smoking cessation program). Aboriginal researchers deliver the intervention, the goal of which is to help Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders quit smoking. Data collection occurs at baseline (when they enrol) and at six and 12 months after enrolling. The primary outcome is self-reported smoking cessation with urinary cotinine confirmation at 12 months.\ud \ud Discussion: Stopping smoking has been described as the single most important individual change Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers could make to improve their health. Smoking cessation programs are a major priority in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and evidence for effective approaches is essential for policy development and resourcing. A range of strategies have been used to encourage Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders to quit smoking however there have been few good quality studies that show what approaches work best. More evidence of strategies that could work more widely in Indigenous primary health care settings is needed if effective policy is to be developed and implemented. Our project will make an important contribution in this area.\ud \ud Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000604303

Falls Assessment Clinical Trial (FACT): design, interventions, recruitment strategies and participant characteristics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guidelines recommend multifactorial intervention programmes to prevent falls in older adults but there are few randomised controlled trials in a real life health care setting. We describe the rationale, intervention, study design, recruitment strategies and baseline characteristics of participants in a randomised controlled trial of a multifactorial falls prevention programme in primary health care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants are patients from 19 primary care practices in Hutt Valley, New Zealand aged 75 years and over who have fallen in the past year and live independently. Two recruitment strategies were used – waiting room screening and practice mail-out. Intervention participants receive a community based nurse assessment of falls and fracture risk factors, home hazards, referral to appropriate community interventions, and strength and balance exercise programme. Control participants receive usual care and social visits. Outcome measures include number of falls and injuries over 12 months, balance, strength, falls efficacy, activities of daily living, quality of life, and physical activity levels.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>312 participants were recruited (69% women). Of those who had fallen, 58% of people screened in the practice waiting rooms and 40% when screened by practice letter were willing to participate. Characteristics of participants recruited using the two methods are similar (p > 0.05). Mean age of all participants was 81 years (SD 5). On average participants have 7 medical conditions, take 5.5 medications (29% on psychotropics) with a median of 2 falls (interquartile range 1, 3) in the previous year.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The two recruitment strategies and the community based intervention delivery were feasible and successful, identifying a high risk group with multiple falls. Recruitment in the waiting room gave higher response rates but was less efficient than practice mail-out. Testing the effectiveness of an evidence based intervention in a 'real life' setting is important.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian Clinical Trials Register ID 12605000054617.</p

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: placing an equity lens on existing systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: With smoking increasingly confined to lower socio-economic groups, the tobacco control community has been urged to identify which population-level tobacco control interventions work in order to help tackle smoking-related health inequalities. Systematic reviews have a crucial role to play in this task. This overview was therefore carried out in order to (i) summarise the evidence from existing systematic reviews of population-level tobacco control interventions, and (ii) assess the need for a new systematic review of primary studies, with the aim of assessing the differential effects of such interventions. METHODS: Systematic review methods were used to evaluate existing systematic reviews that assessed a population-level tobacco control intervention and which reported characteristics of included participants in terms of at least one socio-demographic or socio-economic factor. RESULTS: Nineteen systematic reviews were included. Four reviews assessed interventions aimed at the population level alone, whilst fifteen included at least one primary study that examined this type of intervention. Four reviews assessed youth access restrictions, one assessed the effects of increasing the unit price of tobacco, and six assessed smoking bans or restrictions. Of the eight remaining reviews, six assessed multi-component community based interventions, in which the population-level interventions were part of a wider tobacco control programme, and two assessed the impact of smoking bans or restrictions in reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We found tentative evidence that the effect of increasing the unit price of tobacco products may vary between ethnic and socio-economic groups, and between males and females. However, differences in the context and the results of different reviews made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Few identified reviews explicitly attempted to examine differences in intervention effects between socio-demographic groups. Therefore on the basis of these reviews the potential for smoking bans, and youth access restrictions to decrease social inequalities in smoking remains unknown. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence that increases in the unit price of tobacco may have the potential to reduce smoking related health inequalities. There is a need for equity effects to be explicitly evaluated in future systematic reviews and in primary research assessing the effects of population tobacco control interventions

Identifying educator behaviours for high quality verbal feedback in health professions education: literature review and expert refinement

Background Health professions education is characterised by work-based learning and relies on effective verbal feedback. However the literature reports problems in feedback practice, including lack of both learner engagement and explicit strategies for improving performance. It is not clear what constitutes high quality, learner-centred feedback or how educators can promote it. We hoped to enhance feedback in clinical practice by distinguishing the elements of an educator’s role in feedback considered to influence learner outcomes, then develop descriptions of observable educator behaviours that exemplify them. Methods An extensive literature review was conducted to identify i) information substantiating specific components of an educator’s role in feedback asserted to have an important influence on learner outcomes and ii) verbal feedback instruments in health professions education, that may describe important educator activities in effective feedback. This information was used to construct a list of elements thought to be important in effective feedback. Based on these elements, descriptions of observable educator behaviours that represent effective feedback were developed and refined during three rounds of a Delphi process and a face-to-face meeting with experts across the health professions and education. Results The review identified more than 170 relevant articles (involving health professions, education, psychology and business literature) and ten verbal feedback instruments in health professions education (plus modified versions). Eighteen distinct elements of an educator’s role in effective feedback were delineated. Twenty five descriptions of educator behaviours that align with the elements were ratified by the expert panel. Conclusions This research clarifies the distinct elements of an educator’s role in feedback considered to enhance learner outcomes. The corresponding set of observable educator behaviours aim to describe how an educator could engage, motivate and enable a learner to improve. This creates the foundation for developing a method to systematically evaluate the impact of verbal feedback on learner performance