INTRODUCTION Although recent research shows that smokers respond differently to the COVID-19 pandemic, it offers little explanation of why some have increased their smoking, while others decreased it. In this study, we examined a possible explanation for these different responses: pandemic-related stress. METHODS We conducted an online survey among a representative sample of Dutch current smokers from 11-18 May 2020 (n=957). During that period, COVID-19 was six weeks past the (initial) peak of cases and deaths in the Netherlands. Included in the survey were measures of how the COVID-19 pandemic had changed their smoking, if at all (no change, increased smoking, decreased smoking), and a measure of stress due to COVID-19. RESULTS Overall, while 14.1% of smokers reported smoking less due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 18.9% of smokers reported smoking more. A multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that there was a dose-response effect of stress: smokers who were somewhat stressed were more likely to have either increased (OR=2.37; 95% CI: 1.49-3.78) or reduced (OR=1.80; 95% CI: 1.07-3.05) their smoking. Severely stressed smokers were even more likely to have either increased (OR=3.75; 95% CI: 1.84-7.64) or reduced (OR=3.97; 95% CI: 1.70-9.28) their smoking. Thus, stress was associated with both increased and reduced smoking, independently from perceived difficulty of quitting and level of motivation to quit. CONCLUSIONS Stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic appears to affect smokers in different ways, some smokers increase their smoking while others decrease it. While boredom and restrictions in movement might have stimulated smoking, the threat of contracting COVID-19 and becoming severely ill might have motivated others to improve their health by quitting smoking. These data highlight the importance of providing greater resources for cessation services and the importance of creating public campaigns to enhance cessation in this dramatic time.

Background There are limited accounts of community-based interventions for reducing distress or providing support for people with common mental disorders (CMDs) in low and middle-income countries. The recently implemented Atmiyata programme is one such community-based mental health intervention focused on promoting wellness and reducing distress through community volunteers in a rural area in the state of Maharashtra, India.Case presentationThis case study describes the content and the process of implementation of Atmiyata and how community volunteers were trained to become Atmiyata champions and mitras (friends). The Atmiyata programme trained Atmiyata champions to provide support and basic counselling to community members with common mental health disorders, facilitate access to mental health care and social benefits, improve community awareness of mental health issues, and to promote well-being. Challenges to implementation included logistical challenges (difficult terrain and weather conditions at the implementation site), content-related challenges (securing social welfare benefits for people with CMDs), and partnership challenges (turnover of public health workers involved in referral chain, resistance from public sector mental health specialists).ConclusionsThe case study serves as an example for how such a model can be sustained over time at low cost. The next steps of the programme include evaluation of the impact of the Atmiyata intervention through a pre-post study and adapting the intervention for further scale-up in other settings in India.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how smoke-free and vape-free home and car policies differ for parents who are dual users of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), who only smoke cigarettes, or who only use e-cigarettes. To identify factors associated with not having smokefree or vape-free policies and how often smoke-free advice is offered at pediatric offices. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 2017 parental interview data collected after their children's visit in 5 control practices participating in the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure trial. RESULTS: Most dual users had smoke-free home policies, yet fewer had a vape-free home policies (63.8% vs 26.3%; P , .01). Dual users were less likely than cigarette users to have smoke-free car (P , .01), vape-free home (P , .001), or vape-free car (P , .001) policies. Inside cars, dual users were more likely than cigarette users to report smoking (P , .001), e-cigarette use (P , .001), and e-cigarette use with children present (P , .001). Parental characteristics associated with not having smoke-free or vape-free home and car policies include smoking $10 cigarettes per day, using e-cigarettes, and having a youngest child .10 years old. Smoke-free home and car advice was infrequently delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Parents may perceive e-cigarette aerosol as safe for children. Dual users more often had smoke-free policies than vape-free policies for the home. Dual users were less likely than cigarette-only smokers to report various child-protective measures inside homes and cars. These findings reveal important opportunities for intervention with parents about smoking and vaping in homes and cars. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Many parents who smoke have not adopted strictly enforced smoke-free policies for their homes and cars. Most parents who smoke also do not receive advice from child health care providers about keeping their homes and cars smoke free. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: This is the first study to examine parents' rules about prohibiting electronic cigarette and regular tobacco use in homes and cars.

BackgroundDisease management programs, especially those based on the Chronic Care Model (CCM), are increasingly common in the Netherlands. While disease management programs have been well-researched quantitatively and economically, less qualitative research has been done. The overall aim of the study is to explore how disease management programs are implemented within primary care settings in the Netherlands; this paper focuses on the early development and implementation stages of five disease management programs in the primary care setting, based on interviews with project leadership teams.MethodsEleven semi-structured interviews were conducted at the five selected sites with sixteen professionals interviewed; all project directors and managers were interviewed. The interviews focused on each project’s chosen chronic illness (diabetes, eating disorders, COPD, multi-morbidity, CVRM) and project plan, barriers to development and implementation, the project leaders’ action and reactions, as well as their roles and responsibilities, and disease management strategies. Analysis was inductive and interpretive, based on the content of the interviews. After analysis, the results of this research on disease management programs and the Chronic Care Model are viewed from a traveling technology framework.ResultsThis analysis uncovered four themes that can be mapped to disease management and the Chronic Care Model: (1) changing the health care system, (2) patient-centered care, (3) technological systems and barriers, and (4) integrating projects into the larger system. Project leaders discussed the paths, both direct and indirect, for transforming the health care system to one that addresses chronic illness. Patient-centered care was highlighted as needed and a paradigm shift for many. Challenges with technological systems were pervasive. Project leaders managed the expenses of a traveling technology, including the social, financial, and administration involved.ConclusionsAt the sites, project leaders served as travel guides, assisting and overseeing the programs as they traveled from the global plans to local actions. Project leaders, while hypothetically in control of the programs, in fact shared control of the traveling of the programs with patients, clinicians, and outside consultants. From this work, we can learn what roadblocks and expenses occur while a technology travels, from a project leader’s point of view.

Background: Substantial strides have been made around the world in reforming mental health systems by shifting away from institutional care towards community-based services. Despite an extensive evidence base on what constitutes effective care for people with severe mental ill-health, many people in Europe do not have access to optimal mental health care. In an effort to consolidate previous efforts to improve community mental health care and support the complex transition from hospital-based to community-based care delivery, the RECOVER-E (LaRge-scalE implementation of COmmunity based mental health care for people with seVere and Enduring mental ill health in EuRopE) project aims to implement and evaluate multidisciplinary community mental health teams in five countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This paper provides a brief overview of the RECOVER-E project and its methods. Methods: Five implementation sites were selected (

IMPORTANCE Despite the availability of free and effective treatment, few pediatric practices identify and treat parental tobacco use. OBJECTIVE To determine if the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) intervention can be implemented and sustained in pediatric practices and test whether implementing CEASE led to changes in practice-level prevalence of smoking among parents over 2 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2015 to October 2017. Ten pediatric practices in 5 states were randomized to either implement the CEASE protocol or maintain usual care (as a control group). All parents who screened positive for tobacco use by exit survey after their child's clinical visit 2 weeks (from April to October 2015) and 2 years after intervention implementation (April to October 2017) were eligible to participate. Data analysis occurred from January 2018 to March 2019. INTERVENTIONS The CEASE intervention is a practice-change intervention designed to facilitate both routine screening in pediatric settings of families for tobacco use and delivery of tobacco cessation treatment to individuals in screened households who use tobacco. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was delivery of meaningful tobacco treatment, defined as the prescription of nicotine replacement therapy or quit line enrollment. Furthermore, changes in practice-level smoking prevalence and cotinine-confirmed quit rates over the 2 years of intervention implementation were assessed. RESULTS Of the 8184 parents screened after their child's visit 2 weeks after intervention implementation, 961 (27.1%) were identified as currently smoking in intervention practices; 1103 parents (23.9%) were currently smoking in control practices. Among the 822 and 701 eligible parents who completed the survey in intervention and control practices, respectively 364 in the intervention practices (44.3%) vs 1 in a control practice (0.1%) received meaningful treatment at that visit (risk difference, 44.0% [95% CI, 9.8%-84.8%]). Two years later, of the 9794 parents screened, 1261 (24.4%) in intervention practices and 1149 (25.0%) in control practices were identified as currently smoking. Among the 804 and 727 eligible parents completing the survey in intervention and control practices, respectively, 113 in the intervention practices (14.1%) vs 2 in the control practices (0.3%) received meaningful treatment at that visit (risk difference, 12.8% [95% CI, 3.3%-37.8%]). Change in smoking prevalence over the 2 years of intervention implementation favored the intervention (−2.7% vs 1.1%; difference −3.7% [95% CI, −6.3% to −1.2%]), as did the cotinine-confirmed quit rate (2.4% vs −3.2%; difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.4%-9.6%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, integrating screening and treatment for parental tobacco use in pediatric practices showed both immediate and long-term increases in treatment delivery, a decline in practice-level parental smoking prevalence, and an increase in cotini...

Redesigning care systems and implementing DMPs based on the chronic care model may improve health behavior among chronically ill patients.

Background Mental health and substance use disorders (SUDs) are the world’s leading cause of years lived with disability; in low-and-middle income countries (LIMCs), the treatment gap for SUDs is at least 75%. LMICs face significant structural, resource, political, and sociocultural barriers to scale-up SUD services in community settings. Aim This article aims to identify and describe the different types and characteristics of psychosocial community-based SUD interventions in LMICs, and describe what context-specific factors (policy, resource, sociocultural) may influence such interventions in their design, implementation, and/or outcomes. Methods A narrative literature review was conducted to identify and discuss community-based SUD intervention studies from LMICs. Articles were identified via a search for abstracts on the MEDLINE, Academic Search Complete, and PsycINFO databases. A preliminary synthesis of findings was developed, which included a description of the study characteristics (such as setting, intervention, population, target SUD, etc.); thereafter, a thematic analysis was conducted to describe the themes related to the aims of this review. Results Fifteen intervention studies were included out of 908 abstracts screened. The characteristics of the included interventions varied considerably. Most of the psychosocial interventions were brief interventions. Approximately two thirds of the interventions were delivered by trained lay healthcare workers. Nearly half of the interventions targeted SUDs in addition to other health priorities (HIV, tuberculosis, intimate partner violence). All of the interventions were implemented in middle income countries (i.e. none in low-income countries). The political, resource, and/or sociocultural factors that influenced the interventions are discussed, although findings were significantly limited across studies. Conclusion Despite this review’s limitations, its findings present relevant considerations for future SUD intervention developers, researchers, and decision-makers with regards to planning, implementing and adapting community-based SUD interventions.