Interventions to Reduce Tobacco-Related Health Disparities

The science of tobacco-related health disparities has come a long way since the release of the 1998 Report of the Surgeon General, “Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups”.1 In that report, there was a small section devoted to “tobacco control and education efforts of smokers from four racial/ethnic minority groups.” A major conclusion in the 1998 report was that prevention and cessation efforts in racial/ethnic communities are limited by underdeveloped tobacco control infrastructures and low levels of resources for research, program development, and program dissemination. This report inspired a number of national, regional, and local initiatives by funding agencies, health departments, and individuals to begin to address some of the concerns. Once such effort that began in 2003 was the Tobacco Research Network on Disparities (TReND), a research network funded by the National Cancer Institute and the American Legacy Foundation to advance the science of health disparities, translate scientific knowledge into practice, and inform public policy. TReND discussed multiple strategies to increase the visibility and value of the science of tobacco-related health disparities since many minority racial/ethnic smokers, low socioeconomic status (SES) smokers, sexual minority smokers, and the intersection of these groups experienced disparities across the tobacco use and disease continuum. P. Fagan, PhD, MPH, and D. Vallone, PhD, MPH, co-chaired this network, which had a limited funding lifespan. TReND wanted to integrate the science of tobacco-related disparities into infrastructures that had long-standing commitment, resources, and a constituency that had the skills and talents to advance this important area of science. After much discussion, TReND approached the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco (SRNT) and explored opportunities to strengthen the infrastructure in SRNT as a strategy to advance the science of tobacco-related health disparities from the molecular to the policy levels. In 2006, Drs P. Fagan and D. Vallone, co-chairs for TReND and members of SRNT, presented the idea of forming a SRNT Tobacco and Health Disparities (TRHD) Committee to then President, Ellen Gritz, PhD. The idea to form a committee within SRNT was discussed during the 12th annual meeting held February 15–18 2006 in Orlando, Florida. Following this meeting, Drs D. Vallone and P. Fagan submitted a formal proposal to the SRNT Board to revise the SRNT Special Populations Subcommittee. The previous Special Populations Subcommittee hosted a workshop at the 2004 SRNT 10th annual meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, but since that time the activities were primarily focused on the diversity scholarships led by former subcommittee chairs including Drs Edward Singleton, Linda Pederson, and Philip Gardiner. Dr Gritz received board approval for the formation of the TRHD Committee in the spring of 2006. As founders of the revised Committee, Drs P. Fagan and D. Vallone were charged with forming a stable infrastructure for the committee, which including developing the goals, objectives, and strategic plan; securing resources; organizing symposia; continuing the diversity scholarship; diversifying the membership; increasing the submission of manuscripts to Nicotine & Tobacco Research; participating on the program planning committee; and facilitating communications and collaborations across other committees. Drs P. Fagan and Dennis Trinidad served as first co-chairs of the newly approved committee from 2006–2008 and led participatory efforts among SRNT members to develop the strategic plan, established an Advisory Committee, and provided leadership to the Committee that was detailed in the formal proposal submitted to SRNT in 2006. The goals, which were developed through a participatory strategic process, were to: (1) advance tobacco-related health disparities research; (2) engage researchers of diverse backgrounds, expertise, and levels of experience in collaborative disparities-related research efforts and promote networking among SRNT members working in the field of tobacco-related health disparities; (3) provide guidance to the SRNT Board and committees as necessary to inform issues related to tobacco-related health disparities; and (4) educate the research community on the importance of identifying and addressing tobacco-related health disparities. In 2011 the Committee was changed to a Network as part of overall strategic planning efforts of the SRNT. Since the inception of the revised and revived Network, Drs K. S. Okuyemi, Jack Burkhalter, Lisa Sanderson Cox, Steven Fu, Patricia Nez Henderson, and Joanne D’Silva, have also served as co-chairs of the Network. These pioneers along with numerous TRHD Advisory Committee members, SRNT past presidents, past funders such as the National Cancer Institute, American Legacy Foundation, California’s Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and ClearWay Minnesota helped to sustain an integrated network within SRNT. The TRHD Network served as model for revised structure of all networks in SRNT. Each SRNT network now has an Advisory Committee and structure of rotating leadership. All networks have annual meetings at the SRNT conferences, have visibility on the SRNT website, and receive phenomenal support from Executive Director Bruce Wheeler. The TRHD network has also engaged a wealth of young researchers in the field from diverse disciplines. In addition, the TRHD network took advantage of many opportunities, all of which cannot be captured here. Important benchmarks included stabilizing the diversity scholarship and hosting a networking breakfast/lunch to recognize the scholars and introduce them to senior members of SRNT. These efforts and the annual network meetings have increased the diversity of membership to SRNT. The TRHD Network hosted the first pre-conference workshop on the “Cultural Tailoring of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Minority Racial/Ethnic and Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Populations” in 2010 as follow-up to the 2008 Public Health Service Guidelines, Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: Clinical Practice Guidelines2 that recommended that there be further research on the effectiveness of culturally adapted versus generic interventions. SRNT has had taken a lead role in increasing the visibility, value for, and significance of tobacco and health disparities research worldwide. It has now been 9 years since the inception of the revised TRHD Network and we celebrate our successes with the publication of this themed issue, Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Related Health Disparities, led by guest editors and two past chairs of the TRHD Network, Drs K. S. Okuyemi and P. Fagan as well as a longstanding member of the network, Dr L. R. Reitzel. This special issue takes us back to the conclusions in the 1998 Report of the Surgeon General1 that stated that prevention and cessation programs are underdeveloped for minority racial/ethnic groups, and highlights interventions among groups at increased risk for tobacco-related health disparities as identified in the 2014 “Anniversary” Report of the Surgeon General, including low SES smokers and individuals with mental illness who smoke.3 This special issue responds to these priority populations by highlighting the current state of the science in advancing interventions to reduce tobacco-related disparities in minority racial/ethnic, low SES, sexual minorities, the mentally ill, and the intersection of these groups. This special issue includes 20 papers with topics spanning reviews of strategies to reduce or eliminate tobacco-related health disparities to empirical interventions addressing cessation and other smoking-related outcomes among at-risk populations from communities in the United States and abroad, as summarized below. Garrett and colleagues4 set the stage for the special issue by providing an overview of how tobacco control policies and programs that are effective at a population level may inadvertently contribute to tobacco-related health disparities among some groups if the key social determinants of health are not considered in implementation. Specific recommendations are offered for achieving equity in impact and outcomes across diverse groups. Next, Gibson and colleagues5 provide an example of such considerations in their evaluation of the effectiveness of graphic warning labels on cigarette packs relative to text-only warnings among the general population, blacks, Hispanics, and individuals of low education. Results supported the relative impact of graphic warning labels on factors associated with quitting intentions and behaviors among all groups, suggesting that graphic warning labels would not unintentionally exacerbate tobacco-related health disparities. Tong and colleagues6 highlights the role of community partnerships in achieving the goal of eliminating tobacco-related disparities. Specifically, they describe the role of the National Cancer Institute’s Community Networks Program in understanding and reducing tobacco disparities through a community-based participatory research, education, and training paradigm. Together, these three initial papers feature complementary pathways to guide future work—particularly policy and community-based participatory work—focused on the reduction, and ultimately the elimination, of tobacco-related health disparities. The next several papers focus on interventions and their barriers among individuals with mental illness or comorbid substance use issues, among whom smoking prevalence is disproportionately high.7,8 Quitlines are of interest as an intervention strategy among at-risk populations given their affordability to the consumer and their potential reach; however, their effectiveness among vulnerable population subgroups is under-investigated. Lukowski and colleagues9 examined quitline outcomes by mental health status in six states, and reported that individuals with mental health conditions were as likely to complete a follow-up interview as those without mental illness. However, individuals who believed their mental health conditions would interfere with cessation were less likely to quit than their counterparts who did not share these beliefs. Griffin and colleagues10 examined potential barriers to quitline use among methadone maintained, opioid dependent smokers. Their results highlight factors associated with a lack of quitline use to include inconsistent cell phone service and phone charging issues. Together, these studies highlight the promise of quitlines to affect disparities among individuals with mental health and substance abuse comorbidities, but emphasized the need to tailor treatment to address barriers in future quitline-based intervention studies. The next few studies examine how mental illness and substance use comorbidities affect other cessation intervention modalities. First, Zawertailo and colleagues11 examine how current depressive symptoms affect smoking status among smokers receiving cessation interventions within addictive treatment settings in Ontario, Canada, with null results suggesting that depressive symptoms do not represent a barrier to cessation success in these settings. Baker and colleagues12 describe results of a healthy lifestyles intervention focused on reduction in cardiovascular risk factors for smokers with psychotic disorders, which yielded promising effects for smoking outcomes regardless of delivery mode (in person vs. by telephone). Miller and colleagues13 reflected on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies among opioid-dependent smokers, and provide suggestions for future directions in this area. Authors found that the literature to date suggests that smoking pharmacotherapies may have limited effectiveness in opioid-dependent patients. However, it is possible that methodological details may have undermined prior investigations of pharmacotherapy efficacy. Greater attention to several important parameters—particularly the timing of the quit attempt, medication adherence and the possibility of an atypical nicotine withdrawal profile—may strengthen future scientific and clinical efforts to use pharmacotherapies with opioid-dependent smokers. Finally, recognizing that pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation tends to be underutilized among individuals with mental illness, Brunette and colleagues14 evaluated their program to expand cessation pharmacotherapy intervention reach via videoconference efforts directed at prescribers. Results suggest that single session educational outreach with audit and feedback can increase cessation pharmacotherapy utilization, and that videoconference delivery could be an effective, scalable approach to improve workforce capacity in systems serving smokers with mental illness. The next several papers focus on other underserved population groups at risk of tobacco-related health disparities, including individuals with HIV/AIDS, sexual minorities, homeless, and individuals of low SES. First, Shelley and colleagues15 examined the correlates of adherence to varenicline among people living with HIV/AIDS. Unadjusted analyses showed that information and motivation were associated with increased adherence self-efficacy, and adherence self-efficacy was associated with increased adherence. However, these associations with adherence were no longer significant after controlling for race/ethnicity and education, suggesting that more research is needed to investigate modifiable psychosocial factors that might mediate medication adherence. Stanton and colleagues16 reported outcomes of a smoking cessation intervention tailored toward Latinos with HIV/AIDS. Authors found that baseline smoking frequency, older age, and higher intensity of patch use during the trial were significant predictors of smoking abstinence at 6 months. However, the study found no evidence that the tailored intervention improved cessation rates. Fallin and colleagues17 reported on a social branding intervention, CRUSH, which was designed to decrease smoking among young adult bar patrons identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Results indicated that campaign exposure was associated with a lower likelihood of past 30-day smoking and suggested that targeted social branding interventions may hold promise for reducing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender smoking-related disparities. Tucker and colleagues18 indicated that homeless youth smokers report high rates of motivation to quit and interest in receiving assistance for quitting, highlighting the potential acceptability of cessation interventions among this elusive population. A study by Segan and colleagues19 described results from a nurse-led intervention for smoking cessation among homeless adults in Australia. Although quit rates were low, the study found that integrating nurse support with readily accessible cessation interventions such as government subsidized pharmacotherapy plus quitline support was feasible, acceptable, and associated with significant financial savings and psychological benefits. Christiansen and colleagues20 presented an intervention to increase motivation among low SES smokers using an evidence-based quitline cessation treatment, which involved goal- and belief-focused components. Results of this “pre-intervention” showed that quitline call rates for those motivated to quit were significantly higher than unmotivated smokers in the control conditions. Authors concluded that a brief, targeted motivational intervention focusing on cessation goals and beliefs increased engagement of low SES smokers with the quitline. Finally, Hickman and colleagues21 used a stage-tailored, computer assisted intervention and examined the effects of brief individual counseling and nicotine replacement therapy on smokers with serious mental illness, drug/alcohol addiction, and unstable housing. Results from their randomized feasibility and replication trial did not show differences in smoking abstinence rates between the intervention and a control group receiving nicotine replacement therapy and print materials, but results supported that quit rates among individuals with mental illness and unstable housing were comparable to those in the general population. Overall, these studies reinforce our understanding that vulnerable and underserved groups at risk of tobacco-related health disparities are indeed accepting of tailored interventions, and that such interventions show promise for reducing disparities. Greater attention, from both investigators and funding agencies, is needed to launch a next generation of interventions among groups who experience disparities. The final four papers in this themed issue focus on intervention issues of relevance to specific ethnic groups in the United States and as well as at-risk populations abroad. First, Robinson and colleagues22 describe results from two US studies that suggest that black smokers report attending more to smoking cues than white smokers. Results provide support for a potential mechanism underlying tobacco-related health disparities among black smokers, who tend to reside in cue rich environments.23,24 Tsoh and colleagues25 report on a mixed methods feasibility study of a lay health worker-delivered, social-network-family-focused intervention for smoking cessation for Chinese and Vietnamese men in the United States. Results suggested that the approach was feasible and acceptable, and that the intervention led to a significant increase in the use of evidence-based cessation resources. Evaluation of the long-term efficacy of the intervention in a larger scale controlled study is warranted. Robertson and colleagues26 reviewed literature published on indigenous Australian tobacco research from 2004 to 2013 and found dearth of intervention studies focused on these remote communities that suffer tobacco-related health disparities. Authors suggest that the lack of intervention research to guide policies calls for a more systematic use of research translation strategies targeted at indigenous groups. Finally, Ayo-Yusuf and colleagues27 a to examine the impact of tobacco control policies on social disparities in smoking in from 2003 to Results suggested that annual in cigarette were effective in reducing smoking prevalence among those with the education. the special issue by back to a focus on policy and potential to affect tobacco-related health disparities in the United States as well as the papers in this themed issue on in research on interventions addressing tobacco-related health disparities. In the the of the literature in this area was primarily or focused on risk factors of disparities, which have been to as first and generation research on disparities, The current of papers a of and including randomized controlled trial mixed and community-based participatory research The methodological used for the studies reported in these papers is evidence of the and that has in research addressing tobacco-related disparities the It is however, that we are a with to interventions to reduce tobacco have to or not reduction or other reduce disparities. the time the evidence was for the 1998 Surgeon Report and the 2008 Public Health Service on Treating Tobacco Use and many that could intervention were not on the of the tobacco control community or were not in the US use of tobacco was not an which has increased with the increasing use of tobacco and and R. stated in 2014 to that it is in reduction and other including and nicotine replacement a and a smoking cessation by R. the in 2013 and of the papers included in this themed issue reported research on tobacco and or or or A understanding the impact of these and their on health disparities is As an represent a nicotine delivery and are an health Since their in the United States in have been and are to the in In the United the from a of adults reported that of adults used some or Among high reported use in the past and rates are among and as to and other vs. vs. vs. past use rates are low among with and of of blacks, and of Among high used in the past and of of blacks, of Hispanics, and of Among used in the past of and of to small are not reported for and other These are not of disparities among minority racial/ethnic groups, but which is In are limited for all populations and more information is needed the use of these with and and which would increase quitting and nicotine among groups. cessation interventions do not for and the for and intervention are more intervention research using cannot be investigators have been to the approval from the and As the more for intervention research, it is that researchers are including populations that are disproportionately by tobacco-related and the papers in this issue represent a diverse in tobacco-related health disparities, there a dearth of research those that integrate public community-based and within the study to address disparities. The of tobacco-related health disparities are and interventions that from and be key in for reducing health disparities. example of such by is the which is a for how factors determinants of smoking to disproportionately to smoking in populations by tobacco-related health Although was specific to of social factors with of the are to other such as in nicotine and tobacco Finally, this special issue an for funding to priority of has been an increased focus on research and the which is focused on a person The for reducing disparities are not but the National for Minority Health and Health Disparities provide leadership in this area through collaborative research many years there has been a for it is not how the current funding have or science that might improve interventions to reduce disparities. The focus on research has we that interventions, if accessible and to groups, could be and have potential to reduce disparities. funding the National of the for Disease and and the and would likely on if and integrated clinical and interventions were a that collaborations across the of tobacco control research and be for eliminating tobacco-related health disparities, and we to a of attention to this area in future funding is supported by from the National Cancer Institute at the National of are to the Tobacco-Related Disparities Network of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco for their support in the of this themed