Open AccessHow can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review
Author(s) -
Ugalde Anna,
White Victoria,
Rankin Nicole M.,
Paul Christine,
Segan Catherine,
Aranda Sanchia,
Wong Shee Anna,
Hutchinson Alison M.,
Livingston Patricia M.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
ca: a cancer journal for clinicians
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 62.937
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1542-4863
pISSN - 0007-9235
DOI - 10.3322/caac.21709
Subject(s) - smoking cessation , psychological intervention , psycinfo , cinahl , medicine , medline , implementation research , fidelity , nursing , computer science , telecommunications , pathology , political science , law
Abstract Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking‐cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking‐cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best‐practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation , hospitals , and implementation . In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource‐intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long‐term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking‐cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.