BACKGROUND: Reviews state that there is a room for improvements of smoking cessation (SC) intervention in general practice. METHODS:In 2005, all 61 general practitioners (GPs) in four municipalities in Copenhagen, Denmark, were invited to participate. Twenty-four GPs accepted and were cluster randomized to one of three groups: Group A, referral to group-based SC counselling (national model), n = 10; Group B, referral to internet-based SC programme (newly developed), n = 8; or Group C, no referral ('do as usual'), n = 6. A total of 1518/1914 smokers were included, and 760 returned a questionnaire at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: The participating GPs reported significantly more SC counselling than GPs who refused participation (P = 0.04). Self-reported point abstinence was 6.7% (40/600), 5.9% (28/476) and 5.7% (25/442) in Groups A, B and C, respectively. Only 40 smokers attended group-based SC counselling, and 75 logged in at the internet-based SC programme. In cluster analyses, we found no significant additional effect of referral to group-based (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.6-1.8) or internet-based SC programmes (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.6-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found no additional effect on cessation rates of GPs' referring to group-based SC counselling or internet-based SC programme. This finding might, to some degree, be explained by the short time used by the GPs on SC counselling and the selection of the participating doctors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Reviews state that there is a room for improvements of smoking cessation (SC) intervention in general practice. METHODS: In 2005, all 61 general practitioners (GPs) in four municipalities in Copenhagen, Denmark, were invited to participate. Twenty-four GPs accepted and were cluster randomized to one of three groups: Group A, referral to group-based SC counselling (national model), n = 10; Group B, referral to internet-based SC programme (newly developed), n = 8; or Group C, no referral ('do as usual'), n = 6. A total of 1518/1914 smokers were included, and 760 returned a questionnaire at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: The participating GPs reported significantly more SC counselling than GPs who refused participation (P = 0.04). Self-reported point abstinence was 6.7% (40/600), 5.9% (28/476) and 5.7% (25/442) in Groups A, B and C, respectively. Only 40 smokers attended group-based SC counselling, and 75 logged in at the internet-based SC programme. In cluster analyses, we found no significant additional effect of referral to group-based (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.6-1.8) or internet-based SC programmes (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.6-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found no additional effect on cessation rates of GPs' referring to group-based SC counselling or internet-based SC programme. This finding might, to some degree, be explained by the short time used by the GPs on SC counselling and the selection of the participating doctors.
Authors: Jennifer B McClure; Do Peterson; Holly Derry; Karin Riggs; Jackie Saint-Johnson; Vijay Nair; Lawrence An; Susan M Shortreed Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Amanda L Graham; Kelly M Carpenter; Sarah Cha; Sam Cole; Megan A Jacobs; Margaret Raskob; Heather Cole-Lewis Journal: Subst Abuse Rehabil Date: 2016-05-18