BACKGROUND:Public health dental clinic patients use tobacco at disproportionately high rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a tobacco-use cessation program delivered via public health dental practitioners. METHODS:Two public health dental clinics participated in this quasiexperimental design study. First, all patients in one clinic who used tobacco (n = 178) received usual care. Next, the authors trained all practitioners to conduct a tobacco-use assessment and provide a brief cessation intervention. Subsequently, all patients in both clinics who used tobacco (N = 190) received the intervention. All enrolled patients had an income at or below the federal poverty level. The authors conducted follow-up assessments at six weeks and three and six months after enrollment. RESULTS: Differences in self-reported quitting by condition between participants in the two groups were significant across all endpoints. Patients in the intervention group were more likely to quit than those receiving usual care (15.5 versus 4.3 percent) and after 12 months (18.8 versus 4.6 percent). Controlling for enrollment differences between patients in the two groups (age, race/ethnicity, time to first cigarette after waking), the authors found that differences between groups were significant for quitting at three months (P < .05; odds ratio [OR] = 4.85; 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.20, 19.60), and six months (P < . 01; OR = 5.25; 95 percent CI = 1.35, 20.36). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest the viability and effectiveness of delivering a tobacco intervention to low-income smokers via public dental practitioners. A randomized clinical trial is warranted. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The potential reach of public health dental clinics is great. Because of the high percentage of tobacco-using patients in these clinics, the public health impact of a program such as the one reported here would be significant.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Public health dental clinic patients use tobacco at disproportionately high rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a tobacco-use cessation program delivered via public health dental practitioners. METHODS: Two public health dental clinics participated in this quasiexperimental design study. First, all patients in one clinic who used tobacco (n = 178) received usual care. Next, the authors trained all practitioners to conduct a tobacco-use assessment and provide a brief cessation intervention. Subsequently, all patients in both clinics who used tobacco (N = 190) received the intervention. All enrolled patients had an income at or below the federal poverty level. The authors conducted follow-up assessments at six weeks and three and six months after enrollment. RESULTS: Differences in self-reported quitting by condition between participants in the two groups were significant across all endpoints. Patients in the intervention group were more likely to quit than those receiving usual care (15.5 versus 4.3 percent) and after 12 months (18.8 versus 4.6 percent). Controlling for enrollment differences between patients in the two groups (age, race/ethnicity, time to first cigarette after waking), the authors found that differences between groups were significant for quitting at three months (P < .05; odds ratio [OR] = 4.85; 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.20, 19.60), and six months (P < . 01; OR = 5.25; 95 percent CI = 1.35, 20.36). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest the viability and effectiveness of delivering a tobacco intervention to low-income smokers via public dental practitioners. A randomized clinical trial is warranted. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The potential reach of public health dental clinics is great. Because of the high percentage of tobacco-using patients in these clinics, the public health impact of a program such as the one reported here would be significant.
Authors: Judith S Gordon; Judy A Andrews; Karen M Crews; Thomas J Payne; Herbert H Severson; Edward Lichtenstein Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Preeti Prakash; Marilynn G Belek; Barbara Grimes; Steven Silverstein; Richard Meckstroth; Barbara Heckman; Jane A Weintraub; Stuart A Gansky; Margaret M Walsh Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: Judith S Gordon; Judy A Andrews; David A Albert; Karen M Crews; Thomas J Payne; Herbert H Severson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Judith S Gordon; E Melinda Mahabee-Gittens; Judy A Andrews; Steven M Christiansen; David J Byron Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Beth C Bock; Karen S Hudmon; James Christian; Amanda L Graham; Frederick R Bock Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-01-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Richard Holliday; Bosun Hong; Elaine McColl; Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Philip M Preshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-02-19
Authors: Thomas K Houston; Joshua S Richman; Midge N Ray; Jeroan J Allison; Gregg H Gilbert; Richard M Shewchuk; Connie L Kohler; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2008-11-04 Impact factor: 5.428