PURPOSE: Guidelines encourage primary care clinicians to document smoking status when obtaining patients' blood pressure, temperature, and pulse rate (vital signs), but whether this practice promotes cessation counseling is unclear. We examined whether the vital sign intervention influences patient-reported frequency and intensity of tobacco cessation counseling. METHODS: This study was a cluster-randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN). At intervention practices, nurses and medical assistants were instructed to assess the tobacco use status of every adult patient and record it with the traditional vital signs. Control practices did not use any systematic tobacco screening or identification system. Outcomes were the proportion of smokers reporting clinician counseling of any kind and the frequency of 2 counseling subcomponents: simple quit advice and more intensive discussion. RESULTS: A total of 6,729 adult patients (1,149 smokers) at 18 primary care practices completed exit questionnaires during a 6-month comparison period. Among 561 smokers at intervention practices, 61.9% reported receiving any counseling, compared with 53.4% of the 588 smokers at control practices, for a difference of 8.6% (P = .04). The effect was largely restricted to simple advice, which was reported by 59.9% of intervention patients and 51.5% of control patients (P=.04). There was no significant increase in more extensive discussion, with 32.5% and 29.3% of patients at intervention and control practices, respectively, reporting this type of counseling (P=.18). CONCLUSIONS: The vital sign intervention promotes tobacco counseling at primary care practices through a modest increase in simple advice to quit. When implemented as a stand-alone intervention, it does not appear to increase intensive counseling.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Guidelines encourage primary care clinicians to document smoking status when obtaining patients' blood pressure, temperature, and pulse rate (vital signs), but whether this practice promotes cessation counseling is unclear. We examined whether the vital sign intervention influences patient-reported frequency and intensity of tobacco cessation counseling. METHODS: This study was a cluster-randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN). At intervention practices, nurses and medical assistants were instructed to assess the tobacco use status of every adult patient and record it with the traditional vital signs. Control practices did not use any systematic tobacco screening or identification system. Outcomes were the proportion of smokers reporting clinician counseling of any kind and the frequency of 2 counseling subcomponents: simple quit advice and more intensive discussion. RESULTS: A total of 6,729 adult patients (1,149 smokers) at 18 primary care practices completed exit questionnaires during a 6-month comparison period. Among 561 smokers at intervention practices, 61.9% reported receiving any counseling, compared with 53.4% of the 588 smokers at control practices, for a difference of 8.6% (P = .04). The effect was largely restricted to simple advice, which was reported by 59.9% of intervention patients and 51.5% of control patients (P=.04). There was no significant increase in more extensive discussion, with 32.5% and 29.3% of patients at intervention and control practices, respectively, reporting this type of counseling (P=.18). CONCLUSIONS: The vital sign intervention promotes tobacco counseling at primary care practices through a modest increase in simple advice to quit. When implemented as a stand-alone intervention, it does not appear to increase intensive counseling.
Authors: D P Hopkins; P A Briss; C J Ricard; C G Husten; V G Carande-Kulis; J E Fielding; M O Alao; J W McKenna; D J Sharp; J R Harris; T A Woollery; K W Harris Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Marc W Manley; Tom Griffin; Steven S Foldes; Carolyn C Link; Rebecca A J Sechrist Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2001-11-06 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Megan E Piper; Michael C Fiore; Stevens S Smith; Douglas E Jorenby; Jackie R Wilson; Mark E Zehner; Timothy B Baker Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.616
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: Thom W Rooke; Alan T Hirsch; Sanjay Misra; Anton N Sidawy; Joshua A Beckman; Laura K Findeiss; Jafar Golzarian; Heather L Gornik; Jonathan L Halperin; Michael R Jaff; Gregory L Moneta; Jeffrey W Olin; James C Stanley; Christopher J White; John V White; R Eugene Zierler Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thom W Rooke; Alan T Hirsch; Sanjay Misra; Anton N Sidawy; Joshua A Beckman; Laura K Findeiss; Jafar Golzarian; Heather L Gornik; Jonathan L Halperin; Michael R Jaff; Gregory L Moneta; Jeffrey W Olin; James C Stanley; Christopher J White; John V White; R Eugene Zierler Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Linda M Collins; Timothy B Baker; Robin J Mermelstein; Megan E Piper; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Bruce A Christiansen; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Michael C Fiore Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-04
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: Lisa Sanderson Cox; Ana-Paula Cupertino; Laura M Mussulman; Niaman Nazir; K Allen Greiner; Jonathan D Mahnken; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Edward F Ellerbeck Journal: Prev Med Date: 2008-05-03 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Gina R Kruse; Yuchiao Chang; Jennifer H K Kelley; Jeffrey A Linder; Jonathan S Einbinder; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.229