Michael Fiore1, Rob Adsit1, Mark Zehner1, Danielle McCarthy1, Susan Lundsten2, Paul Hartlaub3, Todd Mahr2, Allison Gorrilla1, Amy Skora1, Timothy Baker1. 1. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Community and Preventive Care Services, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Family and Preventive Medicine, Brown Deer, Quality and Safety, Primary Care, Ascension Medical Group, Brown Deer, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine whether interoperable, electronic health record-based referral (eReferral) produces higher rates of referral and connection to a state tobacco quitline than does fax-based referral, thus addressing low rates of smoking treatment delivery in health care. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-three primary care clinics from 2 healthcare systems (A and B) in Wisconsin were randomized, unblinded, over 2016-2017, to 2smoking treatment referral methods: paper-based fax-to-quit (system A =6, system B = 6) or electronic (eReferral; system A = 5, system B = 6). Both methods referred adult patients who smoked to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quitline. A total of 14 636 smokers were seen in the 2 systems (system A: 54.5% women, mean age 48.2 years; system B: 53.8% women, mean age 50.2 years). RESULTS:Clinics with eReferral, vs fax-to-quit, referred a higher percentage of adult smokers to the quitline: system A clinic referral rate = 17.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.2%-18.5%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 3.5%-4.2%) (P < .001); system B clinic referral rate = 18.9% (95% CI, 18.3%-19.6%) vs 5.2% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.6%) (P < .001). Average rates of quitline connection were higher in eReferral than F2Q clinics: system A = 5.4% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.8%) vs 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.5%) (P < .001); system B = 5.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.7%) vs 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Electronic health record-based eReferral provided an effective, closed-loop, interoperable means of referring patients who smoke to telephone quitline services, producing referral rates 3-4 times higher than the current standard of care (fax referral), including especially high rates of referral of underserved individuals. CONCLUSIONS: eReferral may help address the challenge of providing smokers with treatment for tobacco use during busy primary care visits.ClinicalTrials.gov; No. NCT02735382.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine whether interoperable, electronic health record-based referral (eReferral) produces higher rates of referral and connection to a state tobacco quitline than does fax-based referral, thus addressing low rates of smoking treatment delivery in health care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three primary care clinics from 2 healthcare systems (A and B) in Wisconsin were randomized, unblinded, over 2016-2017, to 2 smoking treatment referral methods: paper-based fax-to-quit (system A =6, system B = 6) or electronic (eReferral; system A = 5, system B = 6). Both methods referred adult patients who smoked to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quitline. A total of 14 636 smokers were seen in the 2 systems (system A: 54.5% women, mean age 48.2 years; system B: 53.8% women, mean age 50.2 years). RESULTS: Clinics with eReferral, vs fax-to-quit, referred a higher percentage of adult smokers to the quitline: system A clinic referral rate = 17.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.2%-18.5%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 3.5%-4.2%) (P < .001); system B clinic referral rate = 18.9% (95% CI, 18.3%-19.6%) vs 5.2% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.6%) (P < .001). Average rates of quitline connection were higher in eReferral than F2Q clinics: system A = 5.4% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.8%) vs 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.5%) (P < .001); system B = 5.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-5.7%) vs 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Electronic health record-based eReferral provided an effective, closed-loop, interoperable means of referring patients who smoke to telephone quitline services, producing referral rates 3-4 times higher than the current standard of care (fax referral), including especially high rates of referral of underserved individuals. CONCLUSIONS: eReferral may help address the challenge of providing smokers with treatment for tobacco use during busy primary care visits.ClinicalTrials.gov; No. NCT02735382.
Authors: Vilma E Cokkinides; Michael T Halpern; Elizabeth M Barbeau; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Robert T Adsit; Bradley M Fox; Thanos Tsiolis; Carolyn Ogland; Michelle Simerson; Linda M Vind; Sean M Bell; Amy D Skora; Timothy B Baker; Michael C Fiore Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Lorenzo Moja; Koren H Kwag; Theodore Lytras; Lorenzo Bertizzolo; Linn Brandt; Valentina Pecoraro; Giulio Rigon; Alberto Vaona; Francesca Ruggiero; Massimo Mangia; Alfonso Iorio; Ilkka Kunnamo; Stefanos Bonovas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jeffrey G Willett; Nancy E Hood; Emily K Burns; Joyce L Swetlick; Steven M Wilson; Darryl A Lang; Arnold H Levinson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Stephen F Rothemich; Steven H Woolf; Robert E Johnson; Amy E Burgett; Sharon K Flores; David W Marsland; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Eve Angeline Hood-Medland; Susan L Stewart; Hien Nguyen; Mark Avdalovic; Scott MacDonald; Shu-Hong Zhu; Antonio Mayoral; Elisa K Tong Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Donna Shelley; Charles M Cleland; Trang Nguyen; Nancy VanDevanter; Nina Siman; Hoang Van Minh; Nam Nguyen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Joshua Wadlin; Daniel E Ford; Michael C Albert; Nae-Yuh Wang; Geetanjali Chander Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Kristin M Berg; Robert T Adsit; Amy D Skora; Matthew P Swedlund; Mark E Zehner; Danielle E McCarthy; Russell E Glasgow; Michael C Fiore Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Paul D Creswell; Danielle E McCarthy; Philip Trapskin; Ann Sheehy; Amy Skora; Robert T Adsit; Mark E Zehner; Timothy B Baker; Michael C Fiore Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Heather D'Angelo; Alex T Ramsey; Betsy Rolland; Li-Shiun Chen; Steven L Bernstein; Lisa M Fucito; Monica Webb Hooper; Robert Adsit; Danielle Pauk; Marika S Rosenblum; Paul M Cinciripini; Anne Joseph; Jamie S Ostroff; Graham W Warren; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-06-12
Authors: Thulasee Jose; Joshua W Ohde; J Taylor Hays; Michael V Burke; David O Warner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-06 Impact factor: 3.390