Explore the vast range of titles available.

Procedural anxiety is a concern for a number of patients undergoing radiation therapy. While procedural anxiety is often treated pharmacologically, there is a clinical need for effective alternative strategies for patients who are contraindicated from medication use, and those who prefer not to take unnecessary medications. Objectives The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer, in the radiation oncology department, just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety. The secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of these interventions in reducing physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety and anxiety‐related treatment disruptions. Design Systematic review. Data Sources Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception up until February 2022. Inclusion Criteria Population: Adult patients with cancer undergoing external beam radiation therapy. Intervention: Nonpharmacological interventions delivered within the radiation therapy department. Comparison: standard care controls, or standard care plus an alternative intervention. Outcomes: level of self‐reported procedural anxiety (primary), physiological symptoms of anxiety (secondary) and measures of anxiety‐related treatment disruptions (secondary). Data Extraction and Analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data. A meta‐analysis was originally planned but deemed not feasible as the studies could not be confidently pooled for meta‐analysis, due to the variability in the interventions, study designs and the generally low number of studies. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. Results Screening of 2363 records identified nine studies that met inclusion criteria: six studies of music interventions, two of video‐based patient education and one of aromatherapy. Overall, three studies received a global rating of strong methodological quality and low risk of bias. Three studies reported a significant effect of the intervention on reducing the primary outcome of self‐reported procedural anxiety: two music interventions (both strong methodological quality), and one video‐based patient education (moderate methodological quality). One of the studies (a music intervention) also reported a significant reduction in the secondary outcome of physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety (systolic blood pressure). Conclusions The evidence for nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety is limited, with very few well‐designed studies. There is a need for interventions for procedural anxiety during radiation therapy to be evaluated through rigorous randomised controlled trials. The purpose of this review is to summarise the evidence of nonpharmacological interventions targeting procedural anxiety in patients undergoing RT. Specifically, this review will focus on interventions that could feasibly be incorporated into existing procedures within the RT department, offering maximum utility for healthcare providers who manage patient anxiety. There were nine studies that met criteria for inclusion: six studies of music interventions, two of video‐based information‐provision and one of aromatherapy. The evidence for nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer, just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety is limited, with very few well‐designed studies.

Persons with a mental disorder smoke at higher rates and suffer disproportionate tobacco-related burden compared with the general population. The aim of this study was to determine if a smoking cessation intervention initiated during a psychiatric hospitalization and continued postdischarge was effective in reducing smoking behaviors among persons with a mental disorder. A randomized controlled trial was conducted at an Australian inpatient psychiatric facility. Participants were 205 patient smokers allocated to a treatment as usual control (n = 101) or a smoking cessation intervention (n = 104) incorporating psychosocial and pharmacological support for 4 months postdischarge. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 1 week, 2, 4, and 6 months postdischarge and included abstinence from cigarettes, quit attempts, daily cigarette consumption, and nicotine dependence. Rates of continuous and 7-day point prevalence abstinence did not differ between treatment conditions at the 6-month follow-up; however, point prevalence abstinence was significantly higher for intervention (11.5%) compared with control (2%) participants at 4 months (OR = 6.46, p = .01). Participants in the intervention condition reported significantly more quit attempts (F[1, 202.5] = 15.23, p = .0001), lower daily cigarette consumption (F[4, 586] = 6.5, p < .001), and lower levels of nicotine dependence (F[3, 406] = 8.5, p < .0001) compared with controls at all follow-up assessments. Postdischarge cessation support was effective in encouraging quit attempts and reducing cigarette consumption up to 6 months postdischarge. Additional support strategies are required to facilitate longer-term cessation benefits for smokers with a mental disorder.

Background Persons with a mental illness are less likely to be successful in attempts to quit smoking. A number of smoking and environmental characteristics have been shown to be related to quitting behaviour and motivation of smokers generally, however have been less studied among smokers with a mental illness. This study aimed to report the prevalence of smoking characteristics and a variety of physical and social environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and explore their association with quitting behaviour and motivation. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken of 754 smokers admitted to four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to explore the association between smoking and environmental characteristics and recent quitting behaviour and motivation. Results Participants were primarily daily smokers (93 %), consumed >10 cigarettes per day (74 %), and highly nicotine dependent (51 %). A third (32 %) lived in a house in which smoking was permitted, and 44 % lived with other smokers. The majority of participants believed that significant others (68–82 %) and health care providers (80–91 %) would be supportive of their quitting smoking. Reflecting previous research, the smoking characteristics examined were variously associated with quitting behaviour and motivation. Additionally, participants not living with other smokers were more likely to have quit for a longer duration ( OR 2.02), and those perceiving their psychiatrist to be supportive of a quit attempt were more likely to have had more quit attempts in the past six months ( OR 2.83). Conclusions Modifiable characteristics of the physical and social environment, and of smoking, should be considered in smoking cessation interventions for persons with a mental illness.

Background Mental health inpatients smoke at higher rates than the general population and are disproportionately affected by tobacco dependence. Despite the advent of smoke free policies within mental health hospitals, limited systems are in place to support a cessation attempt post hospitalisation, and international evidence suggests that most smokers return to pre-admission smoking levels following discharge. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial that will test the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of linking inpatient smoking care with ongoing community cessation support for smokers with a mental illness. Methods/Design This study will be conducted as a randomised controlled trial. 200 smokers with an acute mental illness will be recruited from a large inpatient mental health facility. Participants will complete a baseline survey and will be randomised to either a multimodal smoking cessation intervention or provided with hospital smoking care only. Randomisation will be stratified by diagnosis (psychotic, non-psychotic). Intervention participants will be provided with a brief motivational interview in the inpatient setting and options of ongoing smoking cessation support post discharge: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); referral to Quitline; smoking cessation groups; and fortnightly telephone support. Outcome data, including cigarettes smoked per day, quit attempts, and self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (validated by exhaled carbon monoxide), will be collected via blind interview at one week, two months, four months and six months post discharge. Process information will also be collected, including the use of cessation supports and cost of the intervention. Discussion This study will provide comprehensive data on the potential of an integrated, multimodal smoking cessation intervention for persons with an acute mental illness, linking inpatient with community cessation support. Trial Registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZTCN: ACTRN12609000465257

Background Up to 95% of people entering treatment for use of alcohol or other drugs (AOD) smoke tobacco. Smokers receiving treatment for AOD use are interested in quitting and make quit attempts, but relapse is more common and rapid compared with the general population of smokers. New ways to address smoking in this population are needed. Electronic nicotine devices (ENDs) or electronic cigarettes hold significant potential as both cessation aids and harm reduction support. This study focuses on the potential of ENDs to facilitate smoking cessation and to sustain it in the medium term among people in treatment for AOD use. The aim of this trial is to explore the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of ENDs for smoking cessation compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for clients after discharge from a smoke-free AOD residential withdrawal service. Methods/design The study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. In total, 100 participants will be recruited following admission to a smoke-free residential withdrawal service in Melbourne, Australia. Participants will complete a baseline survey and be randomised to either the END group ( n  = 50) or the NRT group ( n  = 50) prior to discharge. Both groups will receive telephone counselling support from quitline. Follow-up measures will be assessed at 6 and 12 weeks following discharge. The primary outcome is continuous abstinence from smoking at 12 weeks post discharge. Secondary outcomes include: 7-day point prevalence from smoking, point prevalence abstinence from all nicotine (including NRT and ENDs), cravings and withdrawal, time to relapse, and treatment adherence (use of NRT, ENDs and quitline). Discussion This is the first randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of ENDs within a population dependent on AOD, a priority group with very high levels of smoking. The research will test a model of how to incorporate novel smoking cessation support into a period of high treatment receptiveness. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12617000849392 . Registered on 8 June 2017.

Abstract Introduction The QuitNic pilot trial aimed to test the feasibility of providing a nicotine vaping product (NVP) compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers upon discharge from a smoke-free residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service. Methods QuitNic was a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial. At discharge from residential withdrawal, 100 clients received telephone Quitline behavioral support and either 12-week supply of NRT or an NVP. Treatment adherence and acceptability, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), frequency of cravings, and severity of withdrawal symptoms were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks. Results are reported for complete cases and for abstinence outcomes, penalized imputation results are reported where missing is assumed smoking. Results Retention on was 63% at 6 weeks and 50% at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, 68% of the NRT group reported using combination NRT while 96% of the NVP group used the device. Acceptability ratings for the products were high in both groups. At 12 weeks, 14% of the NVP group and 18% of the NRT group reported not smoking at all in the last 7 days. Mean CPD among continued smokers decreased significantly between baseline to 12 weeks in both groups; from 19.91 to 4.72 for the NVP group (p < .001) and from 20.88 to 5.52 in the NRT group (p < .001). Cravings and withdrawal symptoms significantly decreased for both groups. Conclusions Clients completing residential withdrawal readily engaged with smoking cessation post-treatment when given the opportunity. Further research is required to identify the most effective treatments postwithdrawal for this population at elevated risk of tobacco-related harm. Trial registration number ACTRN12617000849392 Implications This pilot study showed that smoking cessation support involving options for nicotine replacement and Quitline-delivered cognitive behavioral counseling is attractive to people after they have been discharged from SUD treatment. Both nicotine vaping products and nicotine replacement therapies were highly acceptable and used by participants who reported reductions in cravings for cigarettes and perceptions of withdrawal symptoms and reductions in number of cigarettes smoked. Some participants self-reported abstinence from cigarettes—around one in five reported having quit smoking cigarettes at 12 weeks postdischarge. The results have significant public health implications for providing quit support following discharge from SUD treatment.

Psychiatric inpatient settings represent an opportunity to initiate the provision of tobacco cessation care to smokers with a mental illness. This study describes the use of evidence-based smoking cessation aids proactively and universally offered to a population of psychiatric inpatients upon discharge, and explores factors associated with their uptake. Data derived from the conduct of a randomised controlled trial were analysed in terms of the proportion of participants ( N  = 378) that utilised cessation aids including project delivered telephone smoking cessation counselling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and Quitline support. Factors associated with uptake of cessation aids were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. A large proportion of smokers utilised project delivered cessation counselling calls (89 %) and NRT (79 %), while 11 % used the Quitline. The majority accepted more than seven project delivered telephone cessation counselling calls (52 %), and reported NRT use during more than half of their accepted calls (70 %). Older age, higher nicotine dependence, irregular smoking and seeing oneself as a non-smoker were associated with uptake of behavioural cessation aids. Higher nicotine dependence was similarly associated with use of pharmacological aids, as was NRT use whilst an inpatient. Most smokers with a mental illness took up a proactive offer of aids to support their stopping smoking. Consideration by service providers of factors associated with uptake may increase further the proportion of such smokers who use evidence-based cessation aids and consequently quit smoking successfully.