Jason M Satterfield1, Steven E Gregorich2, Sara Kalkhoran3, Paula J Lum4, Jessica Bloome4, Nicholas Alvarado2, Ricardo F Muñoz5, Maya Vijayaraghavan2. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: jason.satterfield@ucsf.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of HIV, Infectious Disease and Global Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Institute for International Internet Interventions for Health, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although evidence-based, the 5A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) for smoking cessation are often incompletely delivered by primary care providers. This study examines whether a computer tablet 5A's intervention improves primary care provider adherence to the 5A's. STUDY DESIGN: Cluster RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All primary care providers in three urban, adult primary care clinics were randomized for participation. Any English- or Spanish-speaking patient with a primary care appointment who had smoked >100 lifetime cigarettes and at least one cigarette in the past week was eligible. INTERVENTION: A cluster RCT comparing computer-facilitated 5A's with usual care assessed effects on provider adherence to each of the 5A's as determined by patient report. Intervention subjects used a computer tablet to complete the 5A's immediately before a primary care appointment. A tailored, patient handout and a structured, clinician guide were generated. Data were collected in 2014-2015 and analyzed in 2016-2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider adherence to the 5A's. RESULTS:Providers (N=221) saw 961 patients (n=412 intervention, n=549 control) for a total of n=1,340 encounters with n=1,011 completed post-visit interviews (75.4% completion). Intervention providers had significantly higher odds of completing Assess (AOR=1.32, 95% CI=1.02, 1.73) and Assist (AOR=1.45, 95% CI=1.08, 1.94). When looking at first study visits only, intervention providers had higher odds for Arrange (AOR=1.72, 95% CI=1.23, 2.40) and all 5A's (AOR=2.04, 95% CI=1.35, 3.07) but study visit did not influence receipt of the other 5A's. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-facilitated 5A's delivery model was effective in improving the fidelity of provider-delivered 5A's to diverse primary care patients. This relatively low-cost, time-saving intervention has great potential for smoking cessation and other health behaviors. Future studies should identify ways to promote and sustain technology implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02046408.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Although evidence-based, the 5A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) for smoking cessation are often incompletely delivered by primary care providers. This study examines whether a computer tablet 5A's intervention improves primary care provider adherence to the 5A's. STUDY DESIGN: Cluster RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All primary care providers in three urban, adult primary care clinics were randomized for participation. Any English- or Spanish-speaking patient with a primary care appointment who had smoked >100 lifetime cigarettes and at least one cigarette in the past week was eligible. INTERVENTION: A cluster RCT comparing computer-facilitated 5A's with usual care assessed effects on provider adherence to each of the 5A's as determined by patient report. Intervention subjects used a computer tablet to complete the 5A's immediately before a primary care appointment. A tailored, patient handout and a structured, clinician guide were generated. Data were collected in 2014-2015 and analyzed in 2016-2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider adherence to the 5A's. RESULTS: Providers (N=221) saw 961 patients (n=412 intervention, n=549 control) for a total of n=1,340 encounters with n=1,011 completed post-visit interviews (75.4% completion). Intervention providers had significantly higher odds of completing Assess (AOR=1.32, 95% CI=1.02, 1.73) and Assist (AOR=1.45, 95% CI=1.08, 1.94). When looking at first study visits only, intervention providers had higher odds for Arrange (AOR=1.72, 95% CI=1.23, 2.40) and all 5A's (AOR=2.04, 95% CI=1.35, 3.07) but study visit did not influence receipt of the other 5A's. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-facilitated 5A's delivery model was effective in improving the fidelity of provider-delivered 5A's to diverse primary care patients. This relatively low-cost, time-saving intervention has great potential for smoking cessation and other health behaviors. Future studies should identify ways to promote and sustain technology implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02046408.
Authors: T J Payne; N W Gaughf; M J Sutton; C E Sheffer; O U Elci; K L Cropsey; S Taylor; T Netters; C Whitworth; P Deutsch; K M Crews Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Elyse R Park; Ilana F Gareen; Sandra Japuntich; Inga Lennes; Kelly Hyland; Sarah DeMello; JoRean D Sicks; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King; Linda J Neff; Jennifer Whitmill; Stephen D Babb; Corinne M Graffunder Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Maya Vijayaraghavan; Patrick Yuan; Steven Gregorich; Paula Lum; Nicole Appelle; Anna Maria Napoles; Sara Kalkhoran; Jason Satterfield Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2017-02-21
Authors: Susan Hrisos; Martin P Eccles; Jill J Francis; Heather O Dickinson; Eileen F S Kaner; Fiona Beyer; Marie Johnston Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Anna María Nápoles; Nicole Appelle; Sara Kalkhoran; Maya Vijayaraghavan; Nicholas Alvarado; Jason Satterfield Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Michael Chaiton; Lori Diemert; Joanna E Cohen; Susan J Bondy; Peter Selby; Anne Philipneri; Robert Schwartz Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Jennifer A Minnix; James G Fox; Shawn P E Nishi; Lisa M Lowenstein; Kristin G Maki; Viola B Leal; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Paul M Cinciripini; Robert J Volk Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Manan M Nayak; Emanuele Mazzola; Michael T Jaklitsch; Jeremy E Drehmer; Emara Nabi-Burza; Raphael Bueno; Jonathan P Winickoff; Mary E Cooley Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 5.163
Authors: Ariel M Domlyn; Carolyn Crowder; Howard Eisenson; Kathryn I Pollak; James M Davis; Patrick S Calhoun; Sarah M Wilson Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-09-02
Authors: Emilie Manolios; Jordan Sibeoni; Maria Teixeira; Anne Révah-Levy; Laurence Verneuil; Ljiljana Jovic Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.871