OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of a simple system-wide screening assessment tool, an expanded vital sign stamp, to increase rates of smoker identification, physician advice to quit smoking, and physician assistance in quitting and abstinence rates. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This study is a pretest, posttest design in which 5 primary health care clinics were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition, which received the vital sign stamp, or the control condition. Participants (N = 9439) were surveyed by using exit interviews at the 5 clinics, both before and after the vital sign intervention was implemented. Participants who were identified as smokers were then contacted 1 year later for follow-up. The study began in February 1995, and all follow-up visits were completed by December 1998. RESULTS: Implementation of the vital sign stamp significantly increased the rates at which physicians asked participants about their smoking status (17.2% vs 7.5%). However, the rates of physicians advising smokers to quit, assisting them in quitting, and arranging follow-up either stayed constant or decreased. The number of quit attempts and abstinence rates also stayed constant. CONCLUSION: A simple system-wide screening assessment tool, while effective in identifying more tobacco users, did not increase the rates at which physicians advised or assisted smokers to quit. Further system-wide changes may be needed to ensure that effective tobacco-dependence treatments are given to smokers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of a simple system-wide screening assessment tool, an expanded vital sign stamp, to increase rates of smoker identification, physician advice to quit smoking, and physician assistance in quitting and abstinence rates. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This study is a pretest, posttest design in which 5 primary health care clinics were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition, which received the vital sign stamp, or the control condition. Participants (N = 9439) were surveyed by using exit interviews at the 5 clinics, both before and after the vital sign intervention was implemented. Participants who were identified as smokers were then contacted 1 year later for follow-up. The study began in February 1995, and all follow-up visits were completed by December 1998. RESULTS: Implementation of the vital sign stamp significantly increased the rates at which physicians asked participants about their smoking status (17.2% vs 7.5%). However, the rates of physicians advising smokers to quit, assisting them in quitting, and arranging follow-up either stayed constant or decreased. The number of quit attempts and abstinence rates also stayed constant. CONCLUSION: A simple system-wide screening assessment tool, while effective in identifying more tobacco users, did not increase the rates at which physicians advised or assisted smokers to quit. Further system-wide changes may be needed to ensure that effective tobacco-dependence treatments are given to smokers.
Authors: David O Warner; Annie LeBlanc; Sandeep Kadimpati; Kristin S Vickers; Yu Shi; Victor M Montori Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Steffani R Bailey; John D Heintzman; Miguel Marino; R Lorie Jacob; Jon E Puro; Jennifer E DeVoe; Tim E Burdick; Brian L Hazlehurst; Deborah J Cohen; Stephen P Fortmann Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Megan E Piper; Timothy B Baker; Robin Mermelstein; Linda M Collins; David L Fraser; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Bruce A Christiansen; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Madeline Oguss; Michael C Fiore Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Michael Fiore; Rob Adsit; Mark Zehner; Danielle McCarthy; Susan Lundsten; Paul Hartlaub; Todd Mahr; Allison Gorrilla; Amy Skora; Timothy Baker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Stephen F Rothemich; Steven H Woolf; Robert E Johnson; Amy E Burgett; Sharon K Flores; David W Marsland; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Linda M Collins; Robin Mermelstein; Megan E Piper; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Douglas E Jorenby; David Fraser; Wei-Yin Loh; Wendy E Theobald; Michael C Fiore Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Thomas K Houston; Rajani S Sadasivam; Daniel E Ford; Joshua Richman; Midge N Ray; Jeroan J Allison Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 7.327