OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an intervention aimed at increasing the quantity and quality of brief opportunistic general practitioner (GP) advice to smokers encouraging and supporting quit attempts. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with two groups: (1) control and (2) GP desktop resource (GDR). Smoking cessation activities of GPs were assessed by an independent postal survey 1 month after distribution of resource. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: One hundred and seven GPs in West Dorset. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' self-reported rates of advising and counselling smokers on cessation over the previous week. RESULTS: The rate of opportunistic advice per week in the GDR group was 4.9 (SD = 4.1), compared with 2.8 (SD = 1.8) in the control group, F = 8.2, p = 0.0025, one-tailed. The rate of giving counselling was also higher 2.2 (SD = 3.2) in the intervention group versus 1.0 (SD = 1.4) in the control group, F = 4.0), p = 0.025, one-tailed. The proportion who had recommended or prescribed NRT was greater, although not significantly (54%, versus 46%, Fisher's exact p = 0.1, one-tailed). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the GDR can increase the rate of delivery of opportunistic advice and provision of counselling. Given the importance of this activity, a larger trial appears to be warranted to examine the long-term effect and the effect on cessation rates in patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an intervention aimed at increasing the quantity and quality of brief opportunistic general practitioner (GP) advice to smokers encouraging and supporting quit attempts. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with two groups: (1) control and (2) GP desktop resource (GDR). Smoking cessation activities of GPs were assessed by an independent postal survey 1 month after distribution of resource. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: One hundred and seven GPs in West Dorset. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' self-reported rates of advising and counselling smokers on cessation over the previous week. RESULTS: The rate of opportunistic advice per week in the GDR group was 4.9 (SD = 4.1), compared with 2.8 (SD = 1.8) in the control group, F = 8.2, p = 0.0025, one-tailed. The rate of giving counselling was also higher 2.2 (SD = 3.2) in the intervention group versus 1.0 (SD = 1.4) in the control group, F = 4.0), p = 0.025, one-tailed. The proportion who had recommended or prescribed NRT was greater, although not significantly (54%, versus 46%, Fisher's exact p = 0.1, one-tailed). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the GDR can increase the rate of delivery of opportunistic advice and provision of counselling. Given the importance of this activity, a larger trial appears to be warranted to examine the long-term effect and the effect on cessation rates in patients.
Authors: Henri-Jean Aubin; Gérard Peiffer; Anne Stoebner-Delbarre; Eric Vicaut; Yasmine Jeanpetit; Anne Solesse; Geneviève Bonnelye; Daniel Thomas Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 3.295