Hazel Gilbert1, Irwin Nazareth, Stephen Sutton. 1. Department of Primary Care & Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, UK. hazel.gilbert@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specialist National Health Service clinics for smoking cessation have increased in number, but most smokers prefer less intensive self-help and many smokers have no serious intentions to attempt to quit. Computer-tailored self-help materials can be adapted to provide advice to less motivated smokers, and can also take into account features such as level of education and socio-economic circumstance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of delivering tailored feedback to a large population by identifying smokers from general practice records, with the aim of informing a large-scale trial of effectiveness. METHOD:Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of smokers (n = 876) aged between 18 and 65 years, identified from records in four practices. Smokers returning the questionnaire (n = 78) were randomized to receive standard information, or to receive standard information plus computer-tailored feedback reports. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 3 months after the return of the baseline questionnaire. RESULTS: The recruitment strategy yielded a response rate of 8.9%, and a 66.7% follow-up rate. There were no significant differences in outcome between the two conditions, and no significant differences in outcome between practices. In the Intervention group significantly more of those who remembered receiving the tailored advice letter had made a quit attempt (6[60%]/3[21.4%], P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of carrying out such a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of delivering an intervention for smoking cessation in primary care, and highlighted issues that should be addressed in considering the design of a large-scale trial.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Specialist National Health Service clinics for smoking cessation have increased in number, but most smokers prefer less intensive self-help and many smokers have no serious intentions to attempt to quit. Computer-tailored self-help materials can be adapted to provide advice to less motivated smokers, and can also take into account features such as level of education and socio-economic circumstance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of delivering tailored feedback to a large population by identifying smokers from general practice records, with the aim of informing a large-scale trial of effectiveness. METHOD: Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of smokers (n = 876) aged between 18 and 65 years, identified from records in four practices. Smokers returning the questionnaire (n = 78) were randomized to receive standard information, or to receive standard information plus computer-tailored feedback reports. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 3 months after the return of the baseline questionnaire. RESULTS: The recruitment strategy yielded a response rate of 8.9%, and a 66.7% follow-up rate. There were no significant differences in outcome between the two conditions, and no significant differences in outcome between practices. In the Intervention group significantly more of those who remembered receiving the tailored advice letter had made a quit attempt (6[60%]/3[21.4%], P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of carrying out such a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of delivering an intervention for smoking cessation in primary care, and highlighted issues that should be addressed in considering the design of a large-scale trial.
Authors: José S Marcano Belisario; Michelle N Bruggeling; Laura H Gunn; Serena Brusamento; Josip Car Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-12-12
Authors: Lori A Bastian; Laura J Fish; Bercedis L Peterson; Andrea K Biddle; Jennifer Garst; Pauline Lyna; Stephanie Molner; Gerold Bepler; Mike Kelley; Francis J Keefe; Colleen M McBride Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-03-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Hazel Gilbert; Stephen Sutton; Richard Morris; Steve Parrot; Simon Galton; Irwin Nazareth Journal: Trials Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Stephen Sutton; Susan Smith; James Jamison; Sue Boase; Dan Mason; A Toby Prevost; James Brimicombe; Melanie Sloan; Hazel Gilbert; Felix Naughton Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kathrin Schuck; Roy Otten; Marloes Kleinjan; Jonathan B Bricker; Rutger C M E Engels Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 3.295