Search

Background: Tobacco smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the US. A hospital admission provides smokers with a unique opportunity to stop smoking because it requires temporary tobacco abstinence while illness may enhance motivation to quit. Hospital interventions must continue post-discharge to increase tobacco abstinence long-term, but how best to accomplish this remains unclear. Building on two previous randomized controlled trials, each of which tested smoking cessation interventions that began in hospital and continued after discharge, this trial compares two interventions that provide sustained smoking cessation treatment after hospital discharge with the goal of improving long-term smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers.Methods/design: Helping HAND 4 is a three-site randomized controlled trial that compares the effectiveness of two active interventions for producing validated past 7-day tobacco abstinence 6 months after hospital discharge. Smokers who are admitted to three hospitals receive a standard in-hospital smoking intervention, and those who plan to quit smoking after discharge are recruited and randomly assigned to two interventions that begin at discharge, Personalized Tobacco Care Management (PTCM) or Quitline eReferral. Each lasts 3 months. At discharge, PTCM provides 8 weeks of free nicotine replacement (NRT; a participant's choice of patch, gum, lozenge, or a combination) and then proactive smoking cessation support using an automated communication platform and live contact with a tobacco treatment specialist who is based in the health care system. In the eReferral condition, a direct referral is made from the hospital electronic health record to a community-based resource, the state's telephone quitline. The quitline provides up to 8 weeks of free NRT and offers behavioral support via a series of phone calls from a trained coach. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The study hypothesis is that PTCM will produce higher quit rates than eReferral.Discussion: Helping HAND 4 is a pragmatic trial that aims to evaluate interventions in real-world conditions. This project will give hospital systems critical evidence-based tools for meeting National Hospital Quality Measures for tobacco treatment and maximizing their ability to improve cessation rates and overall health for the millions of smokers hospitalized annually in the US.Trial Registration: Prospectively registered prior to start of enrollment at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03603496 (July 27, 2018). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S00084MJ&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00002G7&ts=2&cx=ff0oxn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accurate measurement of exclusive breastfeeding is important in maternal and child health research. Exclusive breastfeeding is often measured using the 24-hour recall or the since birth method for the first 6 months. These methods can produce different estimates, introducing problems in interpreting breastfeeding behavior and making accurate comparisons across settings or countries., Research Aim: Our aim was to compare the exclusive breastfeeding rates between the 24-hour recall and since birth methods among a diverse cohort of birthing people using the ecological momentary assessments method. In addition, we compared the exclusive breastfeeding rates between the two methods across race and other maternal characteristics., Methods: This study is a secondary analysis using data from the Postpartum Mothers Mobile Study (PMOMS), a prospective longitudinal study which recruited participants during pregnancy and followed them for 12 months after delivery. Participants completed surveys in real-time via ecological momentary assessment. Individual exclusive breastfeeding rates from months 1-6 were computed using 24-hour recall and since birth methods for 284 participants. We calculated the percentage point difference between the two methods across child age and maternal characteristics. We used a two-sample test of proportions to determine if the differences observed in the proportions were significant., Results: Exclusive breastfeeding rates from the 24-hour recall were higher than the since birth rates across all ages and maternal characteristics. The difference between the two methods at 3 months was 25.7 percentage points and at 6 months was a 17.2 percentage points. Irrespective of the method used to measure exclusive breastfeeding, White participants had higher exclusive breastfeeding rates than Black participants., Conclusion: The 24-hour recall and the since birth methods of assessing exclusive breastfeeding provided substantially different estimates. These findings highlight the importance of specificity in measuring and reporting exclusive breastfeeding., Competing Interests: Disclosures and Conflicts of InterestThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: ED is a member of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This article does not necessarily represent the views and policies of the USPSTF.

Objective: To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan., Methods: In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition., Results: From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups., Conclusions: The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adolescence and young adulthood are critical times of initiation and progression to daily use of tobacco. However, it is difficult to recruit young adults to traditional smoking cessation and retention rates are typically low. Smartphone cessation applications (apps) can provide real-time responses to smoking urges and related cues, which are known to be important factors in lapse and relapse. Given the popularity of smartphones among young adults and the considerably higher download rates of commercially developed apps compared to research-based apps, there is a need to design pragmatic studies that evaluate commercial tobacco cessation apps. The aims of this pilot study are to assess the impact on tobacco cessation of using a smartphone app compared with usual care and to generate feasibility data to inform a future fully powered clinical trial., Methods: We will conduct an open randomized controlled trial with parallel groups. Participants will be selected from hospitalized patients and must be aged 18-30 years, interested in cessation, smoked > 5 cigarettes/day over the past 30 days, and own an Apple or Android smartphone. Participants who are eligible will be randomized to either a smartphone experimental group or patient-initiated follow up (usual care). As this study seeks to assess feasibility, the primary data will include (1) recruitment rates, (2) retention rates, and (3) adherence, measured through user engagement with the app., Discussion: This pilot trial will be the first to evaluate a commercially available smartphone app for tobacco cessation in a hospitalized setting. Data generated by this study can be used for larger fully powered trials such as comparative effectiveness studies against apps developed by academics or health scientists based on behavioral theories, or cost-effectiveness analyses of mobile interventions., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03538678 . Registered on 28 May 2018.