AIMS: To establish whether proactively identifying all smokers in primary care populations and offering smoking cessation support is effective in increasing long-term abstinence from smoking. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Twenty-four general practices in Nottinghamshire, randomized bypractice to active or control intervention. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients registered with the practices who returned a questionnaire confirming that they were current smokers (n = 6856). INTERVENTION: Participants were offered smoking cessation support by letter and those interested in receiving it were contacted and referred into National Health Service (NHS) stop smoking services if required. MEASUREMENTS: Validated abstinence from smoking, use of smoking cessation services and number of quit attempts in continuing smokers at 6 months. FINDINGS: Smokers in the intervention group were more likely than controls to report that they had used local cessation services during the study period [16.6% and 8.9%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-2.78], and continuing smokers (in the intervention group) were more likely to have made a quit attempt in the last 6 months (37.4% and 33.3%, respectively, adjusted OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.51). Validated point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6 months was higher in the intervention than the control groups (3.5% and 2.5%, respectively) but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted OR controlling for covariates: 1.64, 95% CI 0.92-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: Proactively identifying smokers who want to quit in primary care populations, and referring them to a cessation service, increased contacts with cessation services and the number of quit attempts. We were unable to detect a significant effect on long-term cessation rates, but the study was not powered to detect the kind of difference that might be expected.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To establish whether proactively identifying all smokers in primary care populations and offering smoking cessation support is effective in increasing long-term abstinence from smoking. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four general practices in Nottinghamshire, randomized by practice to active or control intervention. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients registered with the practices who returned a questionnaire confirming that they were current smokers (n = 6856). INTERVENTION: Participants were offered smoking cessation support by letter and those interested in receiving it were contacted and referred into National Health Service (NHS) stop smoking services if required. MEASUREMENTS: Validated abstinence from smoking, use of smoking cessation services and number of quit attempts in continuing smokers at 6 months. FINDINGS: Smokers in the intervention group were more likely than controls to report that they had used local cessation services during the study period [16.6% and 8.9%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-2.78], and continuing smokers (in the intervention group) were more likely to have made a quit attempt in the last 6 months (37.4% and 33.3%, respectively, adjusted OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.51). Validated point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6 months was higher in the intervention than the control groups (3.5% and 2.5%, respectively) but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted OR controlling for covariates: 1.64, 95% CI 0.92-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: Proactively identifying smokers who want to quit in primary care populations, and referring them to a cessation service, increased contacts with cessation services and the number of quit attempts. We were unable to detect a significant effect on long-term cessation rates, but the study was not powered to detect the kind of difference that might be expected.
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Ashley E Jensen; Katelyn Bennett; Nicole Skursky; Scott E Sherman; Mark D Schwartz Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Nancy A Rigotti; Asaf Bitton; Jennifer K Kelley; Bettina B Hoeppner; Douglas E Levy; Elizabeth Mort Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: G R Kruse; E Park; J E Haberer; L Abroms; N N Shahid; S E Howard; Y Chang; J S Haas; N A Rigotti Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sara Kalkhoran; Elizabeth M Inman; Jennifer H K Kelley; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Jeffrey A Linder; Nancy A Rigotti; Louise I Schneider; Jennifer H K Kelley; Phyllis Brawarsky; Jennifer S Haas Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-04-27
Authors: Gina R Kruse; Elyse R Park; Yuchiao Chang; Jessica E Haberer; Lorien C Abroms; Naysha N Shahid; Sydney Howard; Jennifer S Haas; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Man Ping Wang; Yi Nam Suen; William Ho-Cheung Li; Christina Oi-Bun Lam; Socrates Yong-da Wu; Antonio Cho-Shing Kwong; Vienna W Lai; Sophia S Chan; Tai Hing Lam Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873