Alere Wellbeing

Seattle, United States

Alere Wellbeing

Seattle, United States
Time filter
Source Type

Vidrine J.I.,University of Houston | Cao Y.,University of Houston | Greisinger A.,University of Houston | Miles L.,Alere Wellbeing | And 2 more authors.
JAMA Internal Medicine | Year: 2013

Importance: Several national health care-based smoking cessation initiatives have been recommended to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based treatments, such as quitline (telephone-based tobacco cessation services) assistance. The most notable examples are the 5 As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) and Ask. Advise. Refer. (AAR) programs. Unfortunately, rates of primary care referrals to quitlines are low, and most referred smokers fail to call for assistance. Objective: To evaluate a new approach-Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC)-designed to address barriers to linking smokers with treatment. Design: A pair-matched, 2-treatment-arm, group randomized design in 10 family practice clinics in a single metropolitan area. Five clinics were randomized to the AAC (intervention) and 5 to the AAR (control) conditions. In both conditions, clinic staff were trained to assess and record the smoking status of all patients at all visits in the electronic health record, and smokers were given brief advice to quit. In the AAC clinics, the names and telephone numbers of smokers who agreed to be connected were sent electronically to the quitline daily, and patients were called proactively by the quitline within 48 hours. In the AAR clinics, smokers were offered a quitline referral card and encouraged to call on their own. All data were collected from February 8 through December 27, 2011. Setting: Ten clinics in Houston, Texas. Participants: Smoking status assessments were completed for 42 277 patients; 2052 unique smokers were identified at AAC clinics, and 1611 smokers were identified at AAR clinics. Interventions: Linking smokers with quitline delivered treatment. Main Outcome Measure: Impact was based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) conceptual framework and defined as the proportion of all identified smokers who enrolled in treatment. Results: In the AAC clinics, 7.8% of all identified smokers enrolled in treatment vs 0.6% in the AAR clinics (t4=9.19 [P<.001]; odds ratio, 11.60 [95% CI, 5.53- 24.32]), a 13-fold increase in the proportion of smokers enrolling in treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: The system changes implemented in the AAC approach could be adopted broadly by other health care systems and have tremendous potential to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. © 2013 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

PubMed | University of Washington, Brown University, Stormont Vail Regional Health Center, University of Kansas Medical Center and 2 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: American journal of preventive medicine | Year: 2016

Few hospitals treat patients tobacco dependence. To be effective, hospital-initiated cessation interventions must provide at least 1 month of supportive contact post-discharge.Individually randomized clinical trial. Recruitment commenced July 2011; analyses were conducted October 2014-June 2015.The study was conducted in two large Midwestern hospitals. Participants included smokers who were aged 18 years, planned to stay quit after discharge, and spoke English or Spanish.Hospital-based cessation counselors delivered the intervention. For patients randomized to warm handoff, staff immediately called the quitline from the bedside and handed the phone to participants for enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were referred on the day of hospital discharge.Outcomes at 6 months included quitline enrollment/adherence, medication use, biochemically verified cessation, and cost effectiveness.Significantly more warm handoff than fax participants enrolled in quitline (99.6% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI=1.65, 1.68). One in four (25.4% warm handoff, 25.3% fax) were verified to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up; this did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI=0.82, 1.24). Cessation medication use in the hospital and receipt of a prescription for medication at discharge did not differ between groups; however, significantly more fax participants reported using cessation medication post-discharge (32% vs 25%, p=0.01). The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enrolling participants into warm handoff was $0.14. Hospital-borne costs were significantly lower in warm handoff than in fax ($5.77 vs $9.41, p<0.001).One in four inpatient smokers referred to quitline by either method were abstinent at 6 months post-discharge. Among motivated smokers, fax referral and warm handoff are efficient and comparatively effective ways to link smokers with evidence-based care. For hospitals, warm handoff is a less expensive and more effective method for enrolling smokers in quitline services.

Carlini B.H.,University of Washington | Safioti L.,University of Washington | Rue T.C.,University of Washington | Miles L.,Alere Wellbeing
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health | Year: 2014

Limited English proficient (LEP) individuals face disparities in accessing substance abuse treatment, but little is known on how to reach this population. This study aimed to test online recruitment methods for tobacco and alcohol screening among LEP Portuguese speakers. The study was advertised in Portuguese using Facebook, Google, online newsletters and E-mail. Participants clicked ads to consent and access a screening for tobacco and alcohol dependence. Ads yielded 690 screening responses in 90 days. Respondents had a mean age of 42.7 (SD 12), with a higher proportion of women than men, 95 % born in Brazil with high levels of LEP and low levels of acculturation. Facebook ads yielded 41.4 % of responses, and were the lowest cost recruitment channel ($8.9, $31.10 and $20.40 per respondent, hazardous drinker and smoker, respectively). Online recruitment of LEP populations is feasible. Future studies should test similar strategies in other LEP groups. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York.

Bricker J.B.,Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center | Bricker J.B.,University of Washington | Bush T.,Alere Wellbeing | Zbikowski S.M.,Alere Wellbeing | And 2 more authors.
Nicotine and Tobacco Research | Year: 2014

Objective: We conducted a pilot randomized trial of telephone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) versus cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for smoking cessation. Method: Participants were 121 uninsured South Carolina State Quitline callers who were adult smokers (at least 10 cigarettes/day) and who wanted to quit within the next 30 days. Participants were randomized to 5 sessions of either ACT or CBT telephone counseling and were offered 2 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Results: ACT participants completed more calls than CBT participants (M = 3.25 in ACT vs. 2.23 in CBT; p = .001). Regarding satisfaction, 100% of ACT participants reported their treatment was useful for quitting smoking (vs. 87% for CBT; p = .03), and 97% of ACT participants would recommend their treatment to a friend (vs. 83% for CBT; p = .06). On the primary outcome of intent-to-treat 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months postrandomization, the quit rates were 31% in ACT versus 22% in CBT (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7-3.4). Among participants depressed at baseline (n = 47), the quit rates were 33% in ACT versus 13% in CBT (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.6). Consistent with ACT's theory, among participants scoring low on acceptance of cravings at baseline (n = 57), the quit rates were 37% in ACT versus 10% in CBT (OR = 5.3, 95% CI = 1.3-22.0). Conclusions: ACT is feasible to deliver by phone, is highly acceptable to quitline callers, and shows highly promising quit rates compared with standard CBT quitline counseling. As results were limited by the pilot design (e.g., small sample), a fullscale efficacy trial is now needed. © The Author 2014.

Zbikowski S.M.,Alere Wellbeing | Magnusson B.,Alere Wellbeing | Pockey J.R.,Medical Center Blvd | Tindle H.A.,University of Pittsburgh | Weaver K.E.,Medical Center Blvd
Maturitas | Year: 2012

Objectives: Cigarette smoking poses substantial health risks at any age, but is particularly dangerous for older smokers, who are already at heightened risk for various health conditions. Studies suggest that older smokers are motivated to quit and succeed, but few of these have been randomized controlled trials. There is a need to systematically evaluate the research on effective interventions in older smokers. Methods: We followed PRISMA guidelines in the development of this systematic review, which included randomized controlled trials of cessation interventions with smokers aged 50 or older. Results: We found 740 unique titles matching specified search criteria; 13 met final eligibility criteria. Nearly all the cessation treatments combined counseling with other strategies. Eight studies provided smoking cessation medications. None of the studies used newer forms of technology such as web- or text-based interventions. Nine of the 13 studies reported a significant intervention effect at one or more time points, with three studies reporting sustained treatment effects at 12 mos or longer. In general, more intensive interventions and those with combined approaches including medications and follow-up counseling achieved the best outcomes. Conclusion: The quit rates from these studies and the relative effectiveness of different intervention approaches are consistent with the general smoking cessation literature. However, in most studies, treatment effects were of short duration, and absolute quit rates were low, leaving the vast majority of older smokers at high risk for smoking-related health conditions. This systematic review suggests a need for additional research to design and test future interventions specifically tailored for older smokers. © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Carlini B.H.,Alere Wellbeing | Carlini B.H.,University of Washington | McDaniel A.M.,Indiana University | Weaver M.T.,Indiana University | And 4 more authors.
BMC Public Health | Year: 2012

Background: Tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition that typically requires multiple quit attempts and extended treatment. When offered the opportunity, relapsed smokers are interested in recycling back into treatment for a new, assisted quit attempt. This manuscript presents the results of a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of interactive voice response (IVR) in recycling low income smokers who had previously used quitline (QL) support back to QL support for a new quit attempt. Methods: A sample of 2985 previous QL callers were randomized to either receive IVR screening for current smoking (control group) or IVR screening plus an IVR intervention. The IVR intervention consists of automated questions to identify and address barriers to re-cycling in QL support, followed by an offer to be transferred to the QL and reinitiate treatment. Re-enrollment in QL services for both groups was documented. Results: The IVR system successfully reached 715 (23.9%) former QL participants. Of those, 27% (194/715) reported to the IVR system that they had quit smoking and were therefore excluded from the study and analysis. The trials final sample was composed of 521 current smokers. The re-enrollment rate was 3.3% for the control group and 28.2% for the intervention group (p≤.001). Logistic regression results indicated an 11.2 times higher odds for re-enrollment of the intervention group than the control group (p≤.001). Results did not vary by gender, race, ethnicity, or level of education, however recycled smokers were older (Mean =45.2; SD = 11.7) than smokers who declined a new treatment cycle (Mean = 41.8; SD = 13.2); (p = 0.013). The main barriers reported for not engaging in a new treatment cycle were low self-efficacy and lack of interest in quitting. After delivering IVR messages targeting these reported barriers, 32% of the smokers reporting low self-efficacy and 4.8% of those reporting lack of interest in quitting re-engaged in a new QL treatment cycle. Conclusion: Proactive IVR outreach is a promising tool to engage low income, relapsed smokers back into a new cycle of treatment. Integration of IVR intervention for recycling smokers with previous QL treatment has the potential to decrease tobacco-related disparities. Trial registration: Identifier: NCT01260597. © 2012 Carlini et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Bush T.M.,Alere Wellbeing | Levine M.D.,University of Pittsburgh | Magnusson B.,Alere Wellbeing | Cheng Y.,University of Pittsburgh | And 4 more authors.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Year: 2014

Background: The use and effectiveness of tobacco quitlines by weight is still unknown. Purpose: This study aims to determine if baseline weight is associated with treatment engagement, cessation, or weight gain following quitline treatment. Methods: Quitline participants (n∈=∈595) were surveyed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Results: Baseline weight was not associated with treatment engagement. In unadjusted analyses, overweight smokers reported higher quit rates and were more likely to gain weight after quitting than obese or normal weight smokers. At 3 months, 40 % of overweight vs. 25 % of normal weight or obese smokers quit smoking (p∈=∈0.01); 42 % of overweight, 32 % of normal weight, and 33 % of obese quitters gained weight (p∈=∈0.05). After adjusting for covariates, weight was not significantly related to cessation (approaching significance at 6 months, p∈=∈0.06) or weight gain. Conclusions: In the first quitline study of this kind, we found no consistent patterns of association between baseline weight and treatment engagement, cessation, or weight gain. © 2013 The Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Bush T.,Alere Wellbeing | Hsu C.,Group Health Research Institute | Levine M.D.,University of Pittsburgh | Magnusson B.,Alere Wellbeing | Miles L.,Formerly with Alere Wellbeing
BMC Public Health | Year: 2015

Background: Weight gain that commonly accompanies smoking cessation can undermine a person's attempt to quit and increase the risk for metabolic disorders. Research indicates that obese smokers have more weight concerns and gain more weight after quitting than non-obese smokers, yet little is known about possible reasons for these outcomes. We sought to gain an understanding of obese smokers' experiences of quitting and their attitudes and beliefs about the association between smoking and weight gain. Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with obese smokers who called a state tobacco quitline. Interviewers elicited discussion of obese smokers' thoughts about smoking, the effects of quitting on change in weight, challenges they faced with quitting, and how quitlines might better serve their needs. Results: Participants (n = 29) discussed their fear of gaining weight after quitting, their beliefs about smoking and their weight and significant experiences related to quitting. Participants' awareness of weight gain associated with quitting was based on prior experience or observation of others who quit. Most viewed cessation as their primary goal and discussed other challenges as being more important than their weight, such as managing stress or coping with a chronic health condition. Although weight gain was viewed as less important than quitting, many talked about changes they had made to mitigate the anticipated weight gain. Conclusions: Weight gain is a concern for obese smokers interested in quitting. Understanding the relative importance of body weight and other challenges related to smoking cessation can help tailor interventions for the specific group of smokers who are obese and interested in smoking cessation. © 2014 Bush et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

PubMed | University of California at San Diego, AZ Electronic and Alere Wellbeing
Type: | Journal: Addictive behaviors | Year: 2016

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.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.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.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.

PubMed | Georgetown University, Alere Wellbeing, Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies and ICF International
Type: | Journal: Substance abuse and rehabilitation | Year: 2016

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of Internet interventions in promoting smoking cessation among adult tobacco users relative to other forms of intervention recommended in treatment guidelines.This review followed Cochrane Collaboration guidelines for systematic reviews. Combinations of Internet, web-based, and smoking cessation intervention and related keywords were used in both automated and manual searches. We included randomized trials published from January 1990 through to April 2015. A modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for each study. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects method to pool RRs. Presentation of results follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.Forty randomized trials involving 98,530 participants were included. Most trials had a low risk of bias in most domains. Pooled results comparing Internet interventions to assessment-only/waitlist control were significant (RR 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.21, I (2)=51.7%; four studies). Pooled results of largely static Internet interventions compared to print materials were not significant (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63-1.10, I (2)=0%; two studies), whereas comparisons of interactive Internet interventions to print materials were significant (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.25-3.52, I (2)=41.6%; two studies). No significant effects were observed in pooled results of Internet interventions compared to face-to-face counseling (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.97-1.87, I (2)=0%; four studies) or to telephone counseling (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.13, I (2)=0%; two studies). The majority of trials compared different Internet interventions; pooled results from 15 such trials (24 comparisons) found a significant effect in favor of experimental Internet interventions (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, I (2)=76.7%).Internet interventions are superior to other broad reach cessation interventions (ie, print materials), equivalent to other currently recommended treatment modes (telephone and in-person counseling), and they have an important role to play in the arsenal of tobacco-dependence treatments.

Loading Alere Wellbeing collaborators
Loading Alere Wellbeing collaborators