Introduction

Smokers are asking health practitioners for guidance about using e-cigarettes as an aid to quitting. Several studies have surveyed physicians. However, in North America many smokers seek help from telephone quitlines rather than physicians. The objective of the current study was to assess quitline counselors' perceptions of e-cigarettes and what they tell callers about these products.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey, conducted in 2014 with 418 quitline counselors in the U.S. and Canada, measured perceptions of e-cigarettes: (1) use as a quitting aid; (2) safety; (3) professional guidance given and organizational guidance received; (4) regulation. The response rate was 90.1%. Analyses included calculating standard errors and 95% confidence intervals around summary statistics.

Results

Nearly 70% of counselors believed that e-cigarettes are not effective quitting aids. Most believed e-cigarettes are addictive (87%) and that secondhand exposure to vapor is harmful (71%). Counselors reported that callers ask for advice about e-cigarettes, but few counselors recommended e-cigarettes (4%). Counselors (97%) reported being instructed by quitline employers to explain to clients that e-cigarettes are not FDA-approved; 74% were told to recommend approved quitting aids instead. Most counselors (>87%) believed e-cigarettes should be regulated like cigarettes in terms of advertising, taxation, access by minors, and use in public places.

Conclusions

Quitline counselors view e-cigarettes as ineffective quitting aids, potentially dangerous, and in need of greater regulations. Counselors can influence how treatment seekers view e-cigarettes, therefore it is imperative that quitlines stay abreast of emerging data and communicate about these products in ways that best serve clients.

Smokers are at high risk for oral disease. As a result, they represent an important target group for population-level, public oral health promotion efforts. While dental health professionals often address smoking with their patients, no systematic efforts have been made to offer smokers an intervention to improve their use of oral health care. This paper details the rationale, design, and methods of a large, semi-pragmatic, randomized clinical trial designed to address this gap. Participants are recruited via the Oregon, Nebraska and Louisiana state-sponsored tobacco quitlines and randomized to receive standard quitline care versus standard care plus a multi-modal oral health promotion program (Oral Health 4 Life) integrated within the quitline services. All participants are followed for 6months to assess the impact of the intervention on smoking abstinence and utilization of professional dental care. In addition, the study will assess the cost of the intervention and provide practical guidance to states on whether the intervention is financially feasible to implement, should the intervention be effective. This study protocol may be useful to others interested in promoting oral health among smokers, those interested in partnering with tobacco quitlines to extend standard services to address other high risk health behaviors among smokers, or those interested in semi-pragmatic trial design.

Background

Smokers are at increased risk of oral disease. While routine dental care can help prevent and treat oral health problems, smokers have far lower rates of dental care utilization compared with non-smokers. We sought to better understand which factors may facilitate or hinder dental care utilization among low-income smokers participating in a randomized intervention trial in order to inform future intervention planning.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of data collected between 2015 and 2017 as part of the OralHealth4Life trial. Participants were eligible callers to the Louisiana, Nebraska, and Oregon state tobacco quitlines who had no dental appointment in the prior or upcoming six months. We examined the association between participants' baseline characteristics and their receiving professional dental care between baseline and the 6-month follow-up survey.

Results

Participants were racially diverse (42% non-White) and two-thirds had an annual household income under $20,000. Most (86.7%) had not had a dental cleaning in more than one year. Commonly cited barriers to dental care included cost (83.7%) and no dental insurance (78.1%). Those with dental insurance were more likely to see a dentist at follow-up (RR 1.66). Similarly, those reporting a dental insurance barrier to care were less likely to see a dentist at follow-up (RR 0.69); however, there was no significant utilization difference between those reporting a cost barrier vs. those who did not. After controlling for these financial factors, the following baseline characteristics were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of dental care utilization at 6 months: higher motivation (RR 2.16) and self-efficacy (RR 1.80) to visit the dentist, having a disability (RR 1.63), having a higher education level (RR 1.52), and having perceived gum disease (RR 1.49). Factors significantly associated with a lower likelihood of dental care utilization included being married (RR 0.68) and not having a last dental cleaning within the past year (RR 0.47).

Conclusions

Our findings provide important insight into factors that may facilitate or deter use of professional dental care among low-income smokers. This information could inform the development of future interventions to promote dental care utilization.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02347124 ; registered 27 January 2015.

Smokers are at high risk of oral disease and report sub-optimal oral hygiene. Improving smokers' oral hygiene could reduce their future disease risk. The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of a novel, multi-modal oral health promotion program (Oral Health 4 Life; OH4L) targeted to socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers and delivered through state-funded tobacco quitlines. Smokers (n = 718) were randomized to standard quitline care or standard care plus OH4L. OH4L recipients received a comprehensive behavioral intervention and were advised of the benefits of routine oral hygiene, encouraged to brush and floss daily (for better oral health and to manage cigarette cravings), and provided a toothbrush and floss. Participants were followed for 6 months to assess the intervention effects on routine oral hygiene (brushing and flossing) and changes in motivation and self-efficacy. Data were collected between 2015 and 2017. At 2-month follow-up, OH4L participants were more likely to meet the American Dental Association (ADA) recommendations for brushing twice daily (adjusted RR = 1.15 [1.04, 1.27], p = .006), flossing daily (adjusted RR = 1.20 [1.03, 1.39], p = .02), and for both brushing and flossing (adjusted RR = 1.33 [1.10, 1.61], p = .003). Daily flossing was more likely at 6-month follow-up (adjusted RR = 1.21 [1.04, 1.42], p = .02) among OH4L participants. The change in self-efficacy and motivation for daily flossing from baseline to 2 months was significantly greater among OH4L participants and mediated the intervention effect on flossing at 6 months. Integrating oral hygiene promotion with standard tobacco quitline services improved oral health self-care.

Background

The landmark Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy Trial published in 2002 showed that the health risks of combination hormone therapy (HT) with estrogen and progestin outweighed the benefits in healthy postmenopausal women. Dissemination of results had a major impact on prescriptions for, and physician beliefs about HT. No study has fully examined the influence of the widely publicized WHI on physicians' practice and attitudes or their opinions of the scientific evidence regarding HT; in addition, little is known about how physicians assist women in their decisions regarding HT.

Design and participants

We conducted in-depth telephone interviews with family practitioners, internists, and gynecologists from integrated health care delivery systems in Washington State (n = 10 physicians) and Massachusetts (n = 12 physicians). Our objectives were to obtain qualitative information from these physicians to understand their perspectives on use of HT, the scientific evidence regarding its risks and benefits, and counseling strategies around HT use and discontinuation.

Approach

We used Template Analysis to code transcribed telephone interviews and identify themes.

Results

Physicians were conflicted about the WHI results and its implications. Seven themes identified from in-depth interviews suggested that the WHI (1) was a ground-breaking study that changed clinical practice, including counseling; (2) was not applicable to the full range of patients seen in clinical practice; (3) raised concerns over the impact of publicized health information on women; (4) created uncertainty about the risks and benefits of HT; (5) called for the use of decision aids; (6) influenced discontinuation strategies; and (7) provided an opportunity to discuss healthy lifestyle options with patients. As a result of the WHI, physicians reported they no longer prescribe HT for prevention and were more likely to suggest discontinuation, although many felt women should be in charge of the HT decision.

Conclusions

Physicians varied in their opinions of HT and the scientific evidence (positive and negative). Whereas the WHI delineated the risks and benefits of HT, physicians reported that decision aids are needed to guide discussions with women about menopause and HT. Better guidance at the time of WHI study publication might have been valuable to ensure best practices.

Objective

The goal of this study was to assess whether menopausal symptoms were more common and/or more severe among women with depressive symptoms.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of 1358 women, ages 45-70, at two large integrated health plans (Seattle; Boston) was performed. Information on demographics, medical and reproductive history, medication use, menopausal experience and depressive symptoms (PHQ-8) were collected. Women taking HT were excluded. Logistic regression models adjusted for age and body mass index tested the associations between menopausal symptoms (hot flushes, night sweats, vaginal dryness and dyspareunia) and presence of moderate/severe depressive symptoms.

Results

770 women were included; 98 (12.7%) had moderate/severe depressive symptoms and 672 (87.3%) had no/mild depressive symptoms. Women with moderate/severe depressive symptoms were almost twice as likely to report recent vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes and or night sweats) vs. women with no/mild depressive symptoms (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.67, 95%CI 1.04-2.68), and to report them as severe (aOR 1.63, 95%CI 0.95-2.83). A higher symptom burden was observed despite the fact that 20% of women with moderate/severe depressive symptoms (vs. 4.6% no/mild depressive symptoms) were using an SSRI or SNRI, medications known to improve vasomotor symptoms. The percentage of women with menopausal symptoms, and the percentage with severe vasomotor symptoms were linearly associated with the depressive symptom score.

Conclusions

Depressive symptoms "amplified" the menopausal experience, or alternatively, severe vasomotor symptoms worsened depressive symptoms.