BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Smoking Cessation Practice Guideline recommends systematic assessment of smoking status and counseling of smokers at every visit, but the actual effectiveness of the guideline in primary care practice is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled before-after trial of a guideline-derived intervention that includes routine identification and brief counseling of smokers by nurses and medical assistants, coupled with free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and telephone counseling of those smokers who are willing to make a quit attempt, and feedback on performance of guideline-recommended activities. The intervention was pilot tested at 1 family practice (FP) clinic over a 2-month period; patterns of usual care were observed concurrently at four control FP clinics. We obtained exit interviews of 651 consecutive adult smokers who presented for routine, nonemergency care. Abstinence (7-day point prevalence) was determined by telephone interview during 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Concordance with guidelines was significantly greater for all recommended actions at the test site during the intervention versus baseline (P < or = 0.05). Significantly more intervention versus baseline patients at the test site reported abstinence at 2-month follow-up (21 vs. 4%, P = 0.0004), and more patients tended to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up (21 vs. 11%, P = 0.08). No significant differences in 2- or 6-month quit rates between intervention and baseline patients were observed at the control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a guideline-driven smoking cessation intervention that focuses primarily on smokers who are interested in making a quit attempt is associated with increased abstinence in primary care practice.
BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Smoking Cessation Practice Guideline recommends systematic assessment of smoking status and counseling of smokers at every visit, but the actual effectiveness of the guideline in primary care practice is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled before-after trial of a guideline-derived intervention that includes routine identification and brief counseling of smokers by nurses and medical assistants, coupled with free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and telephone counseling of those smokers who are willing to make a quit attempt, and feedback on performance of guideline-recommended activities. The intervention was pilot tested at 1 family practice (FP) clinic over a 2-month period; patterns of usual care were observed concurrently at four control FP clinics. We obtained exit interviews of 651 consecutive adult smokers who presented for routine, nonemergency care. Abstinence (7-day point prevalence) was determined by telephone interview during 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Concordance with guidelines was significantly greater for all recommended actions at the test site during the intervention versus baseline (P < or = 0.05). Significantly more intervention versus baseline patients at the test site reported abstinence at 2-month follow-up (21 vs. 4%, P = 0.0004), and more patients tended to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up (21 vs. 11%, P = 0.08). No significant differences in 2- or 6-month quit rates between intervention and baseline patients were observed at the control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a guideline-driven smoking cessation intervention that focuses primarily on smokers who are interested in making a quit attempt is associated with increased abstinence in primary care practice.
Authors: Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Vance Rabius; Margo Hilliard Alford; Yisheng Li; David W Wetter Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2010 Jul-Aug
Authors: William C Wadland; Jodi Summers Holtrop; David Weismantel; Pramod K Pathak; Huda Fadel; Jeff Powell Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sophia Papadakis; Marie Gharib; Josh Hambleton; Robert D Reid; Roxane Assi; Andrew L Pipe Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Jason T Newsom; Nathalie Huguet; Michael J McCarthy; Pamela Ramage-Morin; Mark S Kaplan; Julie Bernier; Bentson H McFarland; Jillian Oderkirk Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Robert L Ferrer; Priti Mody-Bailey; Carlos Roberto Jaén; Sherrie Gott; Sara Araujo Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: J Paul Seale; Sylvia Shellenberger; Mary M Velasquez; John M Boltri; Ike Okosun; Monique Guyinn; Dan Vinson; Monica Cornelius; J Aaron Johnson Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Sanjay Shete; Yumei Cao; Anthony Greisinger; Penny Harmonson; Barry Sharp; Lyndsay Miles; Susan M Zbikowski; David W Wetter Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 21.873