OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate a smoking cessation intervention provided to women smokers as follow-up to cervical cancer screening. METHODS:Women who had had a Pap test in the prior month (N = 4,053) were called to complete a survey that assessed smoking status; 580 identified smokers were randomized to receive Usual care (n = 292) or a Self-help intervention (n = 288) that included a self-help booklet, a smoking and reproductive health information card, and three telephone counseling calls. Women were followed up at 6 and 15 months post-base line. RESULTS:Cessation rates in the Usual care (UC) and Self-help (SH) groups did not differ at the 6-month (UC 10.5% vs SH 10.9%, P = 0.56) or 15-month follow-up (UC 15.5% vs SH 10.6%, P = 0.17). Among women with an abnormal Pap test result there were no differences by study group in cessation rates at 6-month (UC 9.8% vs SH 11.0%, P = 0.71) or 15-month follow-up (UC 14.6% vs SH 13.4%, P = 0.96). CONCLUSION: Integrating interventions into the clinical setting and involving providers at the point of care may have greater potential for capitalizing on this "teachable moment." Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate a smoking cessation intervention provided to women smokers as follow-up to cervical cancer screening. METHODS:Women who had had a Pap test in the prior month (N = 4,053) were called to complete a survey that assessed smoking status; 580 identified smokers were randomized to receive Usual care (n = 292) or a Self-help intervention (n = 288) that included a self-help booklet, a smoking and reproductive health information card, and three telephone counseling calls. Women were followed up at 6 and 15 months post-base line. RESULTS: Cessation rates in the Usual care (UC) and Self-help (SH) groups did not differ at the 6-month (UC 10.5% vs SH 10.9%, P = 0.56) or 15-month follow-up (UC 15.5% vs SH 10.6%, P = 0.17). Among women with an abnormal Pap test result there were no differences by study group in cessation rates at 6-month (UC 9.8% vs SH 11.0%, P = 0.71) or 15-month follow-up (UC 14.6% vs SH 13.4%, P = 0.96). CONCLUSION: Integrating interventions into the clinical setting and involving providers at the point of care may have greater potential for capitalizing on this "teachable moment." Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
Authors: Marthe Bl Mansour; Mathilde R Crone; Henk C van Weert; Niels H Chavannes; Kristel M van Asselt Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Charlotte J Hagerman; George Luta; Paula G Bellini; Cassandra Stanton; David B Abrams; Jenna A Kramer; Eric Anderson; Shawn Regis; Andrea McKee; Brady McKee; Ray Niaura; Harry Harper; Michael Ramsaier Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Keleigh M Lee; Karen K Saules; Cynthia S Pomerleau; Anthony W Opipari; Sandy M Snedecor; Ananda Sen; Neo Vannest; Rees Midgley; Lewis Kleinsmith Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Robert A Schnoll; E Paul Wileyto; Frank T Leone; Corey Langer; Richard Lackman; Tracey Evans Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Elisheva R Danan; Scott E Sherman; Barbara A Clothier; Diana J Burgess; Erika A Pinsker; Anne M Joseph; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Steven S Fu Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2019-06-25