Search

Abstract Background Electronic health records (EHRs) could identify long-term health effects of nicotine vaping. We characterised the extent to which vaping is recorded in primary care EHRs in the UK, on a population level. Methods We performed descriptive analysis of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), primary care electronic health records of 25% of the UK population (~ 16 million patients). Patients aged ≥ 18 years whose vaping status was recorded using medical codes between 2006 and 2022 were identified. We reported the frequency of vaping codes; their distribution by patient age, gender, and ethnicity; trends in vaping recording over time (including interrupted time series analyses); and transitions in patient smoking status. Results Seven medical codes indicated current or former vaping, from 150,114 patients. When their vaping status was first recorded, mean patient age was 50.2 years (standard deviation: 15.0), 52.4% were female, and 82.1% were White. Of those recorded as currently vaping, almost all (98.9%) had records of their prior smoking status: 55.0% had been smoking, 38.3% had stopped smoking, 5.6% had never smoked. Of those who were smoking prior to being recorded as vaping, more than a year after the vaping record, over a third (34.2%) were still smoking, under a quarter (23.7%) quit smoking, 1.7% received a ‘never smoked’ status, and there was no smoking status for 40.4%. The ‘e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury’ (EVALI) outbreak was significantly associated with a declining trend in new records of current vaping between September 2019 and March 2020; and an immediate significant increase in new records of former vaping, followed by a declining trend. Conclusions Few patients are being asked about vaping. Most who vape had smoked, and many quit smoking after starting vaping. To enable electronic health records to provide stronger evidence on health effects, we recommend improved completeness, accuracy and consistency.

Abstract Background Internationally, there is an ‘evidence-practice gap’ in the rate healthcare professionals assess tobacco use and offer cessation support in clinical practice, including primary care. Evidence is needed for implementation strategies enacted in the ‘real-world’. Aim: To identify implementation strategies aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care, their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and any perceived facilitators and barriers for effectiveness. Methods ‘Embase’, ‘Medline’, ‘PsycINFO’, ‘CINAHL’, ‘Global Health’, ‘Social Policy & Practice’, ‘ASSIA Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts’ databases, and grey literature sources were searched from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated an implementation strategy implemented on a nation-/state-wide scale, targeting any type of healthcare professional within the primary care setting, aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision. Primary outcome measures: implementation strategy identification, and effectiveness (practitioner-/patient-level). Secondary outcome measures: perceived facilitators and barriers to effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results Of 49 included papers, half were of moderate/low risk of bias. The implementation strategy domains identified involved utilizing financial strategies, changing infrastructure, training and educating stakeholders, and engaging consumers. The first three increased practitioner-level smoking status recording and cessation advice provision. Interventions in the utilizing financial strategies domain also appeared to increase smoking cessation (patient-level). Key facilitator: external policies/incentives (tobacco control measures and funding for public health and cessation clinics). Key barriers: time and financial constraints, lack of free cessation medications and follow-up, deprioritisation and unclear targets in primary care, lack of knowledge of healthcare professionals, and unclear messaging to patients about available cessation support options. No studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Some implementation strategy categories increased the rate of smoking status recording and cessation advice provision in primary care. We found some evidence for interventions utilizing financial strategies having a beneficial impact on cessation. Identified barriers to effectiveness should be reduced. More pragmatic approaches are recommended, such as hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs and utilising Multiphase Optimization Strategy methodology. Protocol registration PROSPERO:CRD42021246683