Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: An innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country.

OBJECTIVES: A lack of physician training is a major obstacle for effective tobacco dependence treatment. This study assessed the feasibility of an active learning training program and its effects on smoking cessation counselling skills of medical residents in Armenia, an Eastern European country with high smoking prevalence. STUDY
DESIGN: The study used a pre-post assessment of smoking cessation counselling activities and a course evaluation survey to assess the feasibility of the intervention in a different environment.
METHODS: We adapted an active learning training model developed in Switzerland. Residents were trained in Yerevan, Armenia, using video-taped counselling sessions, role plays, standardized patients (actors), group discussions and immediate feedback. The training evaluation was done using a semi-structured anonymous questionnaire. The study assessed the physicians' self-reported smoking cessation counselling activities before and 6 months after the training. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to assess pre-post differences in physicians' counselling skills measured on ordinal scale.
RESULTS: Of the 37 residents trained, 75% were female, 89% aged 20-29 years and 83% were never-smokers. Twenty-eight trainees (76%) returned the course evaluation survey and 32 (86%) answered a questionnaire on skills self-assessment at 6 months follow-up. The majority agreed the course was successful in achieving its learning objectives (64%-96%) and increased their confidence in assisting their patients to quit (74%). After 6 months, the physicians were more likely than at baseline to adhere to evidence-based counselling strategies, including assessing the smoking status and dependence and matching the advice to the patient motivation. The training did not, however, improve the prescription of tobacco dependence medications.
CONCLUSIONS: Six months after the training, several self-reported smoking cessation counselling activities had significantly improved compared to baseline. This training model is acceptable for medical residents in Yerevan, Armenia and offers a promising approach in addressing the lack of physician counselling skills in similar settings and populations.

Introduction

Eastern Europe has the highest rates of smoking in Europe [1] but affordable smoking cessation interventions are lacking in this region [2]. Treatments that combine physician counselling and pharmacotherapy increase smoking cessation rates; such treatments are not just cost-effective, they are cost-saving [3]. Trained physicians are about twice as likely to offer help to patients who smoke as non-trained physicians, and a lack of training or inadequate training is one of the major obstacles for consistent and effective tobacco dependence treatment [4]. The existence of smoking cessation training programs is strongly associated with country income category, to the advantage of high-income countries: only 1% of health care providers trained in smoking cessation in 2007 were working in low-income countries [2]. Another obstacle to the provision of quitting assistance is health care providers’ smoking status; physicians who smoke are less likely to advise patients to quit smoking [5]. The majority of European medical students recognize the need for smoking cessation training, but up to 40% of medical students in Eastern European countries use tobacco products [6].

Many postgraduate programs for physicians’ smoking cessation training are available in Europe; however, their effectiveness in changing provider practices and patient smoking outcomes is not adequately evaluated. Most often, these courses cover brief intervention, pharmacotherapy, motivational interviewing skills and the stages of behavioural change [7]. One such scheme, an innovative postgraduate training program implemented in teaching hospitals in Switzerland, was shown to improve both physician counselling skills and patient-related outcomes [3]. The effects of this program were explained by the combined impact of active learning methods (as opposed to traditional top-down teaching), the availability of trained faculty and framing the smoking problem in the local (Swiss) context [8]. We recently applied this well-established training program in Armenia, a country in Eastern Europe where 50.9% of men and 3.2% of women are tobacco smokers [1]. In this study, our aim was to assess the feasibility of the training intervention and its effects on the smoking cessation counselling skills of medical residents in Yerevan, Armenia.

Materials and methods

Study setting

This training course was conducted at the American University of Armenia (AUA) in Yerevan. The study participants were medical residents of Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU).

Data collection and instruments

Data for this study were collected from medical residents from May 2015 to January 2016. Data collection included an evaluation survey at the completion of the training course, and a self-assessment of smoking cessation counselling skills before and 6 months after the training course, to allow participants time to practice the skills acquired. All surveys were self-administered, anonymous, and collected by a third party in the absence of the course instructor. The questionnaires validated in previous studies [8] were translated from English in Armenian. The questionnaire that evaluated the cessation counselling course was administered immediately after the training and included 10 items on the course objectives (three-point rating scale), five items to assess the course duration and seven items on the overall quality of the course (five-point Likert scale). The respondents also answered two open-ended questions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the training course.

The questionnaire that evaluated the medical residents’ smoking cessation counselling activities contained 23 items covering tobacco dependence assessment, smoking cessation counselling strategies, and pharmacological treatment. The structured questionnaire had four-point Likert-type response options to assess the residents’ use of counselling strategies before and 6 months after the training, including the “5 As”: asking about tobacco use, advising every smoker to quit, assessing their willingness to quit, assisting in making a quit attempt and arranging a follow-up visit [9], among others.

Analysis

Given the purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the intervention we aimed to recruit a sample size of 40 participants. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to assess pre-post changes in physicians’ counselling skills measured on an ordinal scale (Likert-type questions). Descriptive statistics were calculated for the overall assessment of the course. Statistical significance was defined at p<0.05.

Recruitment

The Faculty of Postgraduate and Continuing Medical Education contacted in May-June 2015 a selected sample of medical residents in different years of study at Yerevan State Medical University and invited to the training. The inclusion criteria were the specialization in cardiology, gastroenterology and pulmonology as it was assumed that these specialists were more likely to devote time to smoking cessation counselling. Residents in surgery, gynaecology, emergency medicine and other narrow specialties were not invited. No other restrictions were applied in the recruitment process. All residents meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to the training.

Training materials

The original Swiss materials, including trainer’s manual, case scenarios, slides, video-taped counselling sessions, and patient brochures were translated from French into Armenian by professional services. The Armenian lead co-investigator (first author) reviewed the translated materials for the medical terminology and the relevance to local context and added the data on smoking epidemics in Armenia. In addition, two teaching faculty members of the YSMU Department of Family Medicine reviewed and adjusted the case scenarios and the patient brochures for cultural appropriateness.

Standardized patient training

Three professional actors were recruited and trained as standardised patients using written scenarios featuring various patient profiles across a range of socio-demographic (age, gender, education, marital and employment status) and smoker’s characteristics (motivation to quit, addiction severity, etc.).

Training

A two-day small-group training workshop for medical residents was conducted at the American University of Armenia and included 4-hour sessions scheduled to allow practice between the sessions. In the first session, the trainer briefly introduced the concepts of behaviour change stages in tobacco addiction, followed by a demonstration of video-materials and role plays. The trainees were asked to complete observation checklists to assess the videotaped cases and the role plays. The assessment results were discussed in groups of 3–4 participants and then in a classroom, with a feedback from the trainer. The second day session included a brief presentation on pharmacological treatment options and practicing with standardized patients. Residents received patient education brochures after the training.

Results

Participants’ characteristics

Of 48 physicians who were invited, 37 attended the training course (77%) and 36 returned the demographic forms. Of these, the majority were female (n = 27, 75%), aged 20–29 years (n = 32, 89%), and non-smokers (n = 30, 83%). Cardiology and gastroenterology were the two most common fields of specialization. Six of nine male physicians were current smokers. Ten physicians, including four females, reported use of other tobacco products, mostly narghile (waterpipe) and cigars (Table 1).

Table 1

Participants’ characteristics at baseline (n = 36).

Demographic characteristics & smoking status	Categories	% (N)
Gender	Male	25.0 (9)
	Female	75.0 (27)
Age, years	20–29	88.9 (32)
	30–39	8.3 (3)
	40–49	2.8 (1)
Marital status	Single	69.4 (25)
	Married	27.8 (10)
	Divorced/separated	2.8 (1)
Specialty	Cardiology	44.4 (16)
	Gastroenterology	36.1(13)
	Internal medicine	11.1 (4)
	Pulmonology	5.6 (2)
	Dentistry	2.8 (1)
Smoking status	Current smoker	16.7 (6)
	Ex-smoker	0 (0)
	Never-smoker	83.3 (30)
Use of other tobacco products	Narghile	30.0 (3)
	Cigar	30.0 (3)
	Narghile +cigar	20.0 (2)
	Narghile + e-cigarette	10.0 (1)
	Narghile + cigar + e-cigarette	10.0 (1)

Training course evaluation

Of 37 trainees, 28 (76%) returned the course evaluation questionnaire. The proportion of participants who believed that the course “completely achieved” its learning objectives varied in a range of 64%-96% depending on the specific objective. The highest level of agreement was on the item “Understanding the physician’s role in smoking cessation” followed by “Advise smokers with strategies that match their motivation to quit”. Objectives on prescribing medications and increased self-efficacy in helping smokers to quit were met to a lesser extent (Fig 1). The trainees highly appreciated the acquired knowledge and communicating skills. A few found that counselling strategies and video materials could be more relevant to local context.

Fig 1

Achievement of the training objectives.

Each axis of the spider graph represents one of the objectives. The scale on each axis represents the level of achievement on a Likert-like scale (not achieved at all, partially achieved, completely achieved).

Smoking cessation counselling activities

Of 37 participants who completed the baseline self-assessment questionnaire on smoking cessation counselling skills, 32 (86%) answered the same questionnaire at the 6-month follow-up. Significant before-after differences were found on the six of seventeen individual items on counselling strategies (Table 2). The strongest effects were observed on asking about the time to the first cigarette of the day, suggesting an appointment to discuss smoking, and providing self-help materials (all p≤0.001). No differences were found in self-reported medication prescription patterns, including cytisine and nicotine gum/patch.

Table 2

Physicians’ self-reported counselling activities before and after the training course.

Counselling strategy	Before % (n)(N = 37)				After % (n)(N = 32)				P*-value
	Always	Often	Sometimes	Never	Always	Often	Sometimes	Never
Ask if the patient smokes	64.9 (24)	24.3 (9)	10.8 (4)	0.00 (0)	78.3 (25)	18.7 (6)	3.13 (1)	0.0 (0)	0.193
Ask about number of cigarettes per day	46.0 (17)	32.4 (12)	18.9 (7)	2.7 (1)	53.1 (17)	25.0 (17)	21.9 (7)	0.0 (0)	0.638
Ask about time to first cigarette of the day	2.7 (1)	2.7 (1)	29.7 (11)	64.9 (24)	18.8 (6)	21.9 (7)	40.6 (13)	18.8 (6)	<0.001
Ask if patient smokes indoors at home	0.00 (0)	10.8 (4)	29.7 (11)	59.5 (22)	15.6 (5)	12.5 (4)	46.9 (15)	25.0 (8)	0.003
Ask if patient intends to stop smoking	40.5 (15)	40.5 (15)	15.2 (6)	2.7 (1)	59.4 (19)	37.5 (12)	3.1 (1)	0.00 (0)	0.052
Advise reducing the number of daily cigarettes	61.1 (22)	22.2 (8)	11.1 (4)	5.6 (2)	56.3 (18)	25.0 (8)	12.5 (4)	6.3 (2)	0.670
Advise stopping smoking abruptly	73.0 (27)	13.5 (5)	10.8 (4)	2.7 (1)	50.0 (16)	28.1 (9)	21.9 (7)	0.00 (0)	0.076
Discuss the health risks of smoking	48.7 (18)	40.5 (15)	8.1 (3)	2.7 (1)	46.9 (15)	28.1 (9)	25.0 (8)	0.00 (0)	0.525
Discuss the benefits of smoking cessation	46.0 (17)	29.7 (11)	18.9 (7)	5.4 (2)	46.9 (15)	25.0 (8)	29.1(9)	0.00 (0)	0.990
Discuss personal barriers to cessation	13.5 (5)	29.7 (11)	37.8 (14)	18.9 (7)	15.6 (5)	28.1 (9)	43.8(14)	12.5 (4)	0.713
Propose helping the patient quit	22.2 (8)	8.3 (3)	27.8 (10)	41.7 (15)	28.1 (9)	25.0 (8)	37.5 (12)	9.4 (3)	0.017
Advise on behavioural “tricks”	10.8 (4)	13.5 (5)	27.0 (10)	48.7 (18)	9.4 (3)	25.0 (8)	46.9 (15)	18.8 (6)	0.048
Give practical advice to prevent relapse	2.7 (1)	35.1 (13)	27.0 (10)	35.1 (13)	12.5 (4)	28.1 (9)	46.9 (15)	12.5 (4)	0.144
Give self-help materials	2.7 (1)	10.8 (4)	40.5 (15)	46.0 (17)	9.4 (3)	43.8 (14)	40.6 (13)	6.3 (2)	<0.001
Propose an appointment to discuss smoking	0.00 (0)	2.7 (1)	16.2 (6)	81.1 (30)	6.3 (2)	12.5 (4)	37.5 (12)	43.8 (14)	0.001
Refer patient to other specialists	0.00 (0)	5.6 (2)	19.4 (7)	75.0 (27)	3.1 (1)	6.3 (2)	31.3 (10)	59.4 (19)	0.171
Suggest setting a specific date for quitting smoking	5.4 (2)	16.2 (6)	10.8 (4)	67.6 (25)	12.5 (4)	9.4 (3)	37.5 (12	40.6 (13)	0.074
Prescribe cytisine (Tabex®)	2.7 (1)	2.7 (1)	10.8 (4)	83.8 (31)	0.00 (0)	9.4 (3)	28.1 (9)	62.5 (20)	0.057
Prescribe NRT (gum)	0.00 (0)	0.00 (0)	24.3 (9)	75.7 (28)	0.00 (0)	9.4 (3)	28.1 (9)	62.5 (20)	0.170
Prescribe NRT (patch)	0.00 (0)	2.8 (1)	8.3 (3)	88.9 (32)	0.00 (0)	0.00 (0)	28.1 (9)	71.9 (23)	0.092
Prescribe any medication (patch or gum or cytisine)	2.7 (1)	5.4 (2)	24.3 (9)	67.6 (25)	0.00 (0)	12.5 (4)	34.4 (11)	53.1 (17)	0.237

*P-value, Mann-Whitney test

Discussion

In this study, we assessed the feasibility of an innovative smoking cessation training course for medical residents in Armenia. Most participants agreed that the training met its objectives to build the smoking cessation counselling skills, was understandable and acceptable. The strongest effects of the training were related to reconsidering the professional role in helping patients to quit and to learning to advise according to patient motivation to quit. In contrast, prescription of pharmacological treatment was less influenced by the training.

Six months after the course, the trained physicians were more likely to report adhering to evidence-based counselling strategies, including offering help, assessing level of dependence, advising on useful behavioural techniques, proposing an appointment to discuss smoking, and providing educational materials. Prescription of pharmacotherapy remained low at follow-up reflecting the course focus on counselling skills and, possibly, the external factors, including a low access to tobacco dependence medications in Armenia, of which only cytisine has been consistently available locally. In addition to the cost and availability of medications, patient characteristics and physician attitudes and beliefs about the effectiveness of medication and counselling may also influence prescribing patterns [10]. The barriers to using tobacco dependence medications need a further exploration in this local context.

In previous reports, the effects of smoking cessation counselling training for medical residents were mixed, from no effect to a significant improvement in some, but not all, counselling activities [11]. The training model developed in Swiss teaching hospitals (adapted and tested in this study) effectively improved the residents’ counselling skills but not their prescribing practices [3]. Similarly, a Cochrane meta-analysis found a measurable effect of the training on professional performance and on patients’ cessation rates but not on provision of tobacco dependence treatments, specifically nicotine replacement therapy [12]. This Cochrane review was, however, based on studies performed in high-income countries such as the US, UK, and Switzerland.

Our study adds to the scarce evidence on the medical residents’ smoking cessation training in Eastern Europe, a region with high smoking rates. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to apply active learning methods, including standardized patients, to train physicians on tobacco dependence treatment and counselling in post-soviet countries. The ample follow-up period, the high response to the follow-up survey, the use of anonymous and validated questionnaires, and the focus on physician behaviour (vs. knowledge and attitude) are the advantages of the study. The study assessed only self-reported cessation counselling activities, as objective verification was not feasible in this context. Focusing on physician behaviour rather than both physician and patient-related outcomes is another limitation of this feasibility study. Besides, the participants represented only selected fields of specialization whereas other specialists may have a different level of interest in smoking cessation counselling training. No control group was used in this feasibility study with a pre-post design; therefore, the effectiveness of the training program cannot be determined.

Future studies will aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the training model in changing provider and patient related outcomes and to explore the ways to further improve physician counselling and prescribing skills to reach out to the smoker patients in restricted-resource settings.

Ethics approval

Approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Research Board (IRB) of the American University of Armenia (AUA-2014-027). All study participants provided oral informed consent before entering the study.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Jun 2019

Submitted filename: Response to In-House-Review_June 17 2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-16171

Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: an innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Movsisyan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The paper concisely presents the findings of a feasibility study. It is generally clear and readable. Please refer to my comments and those of the reviewer to make minor amendments to the paper.

Throughout – please check your reference formatting – need a space before the (citation).

Page 3 ‘one such scheme’ – it is unclear what this refers to. I suggest breaking the introduction into several paragraphs and beginning a new one at this point – introduce the concept of various programs designed to improve physicians smoking cessation skills and provide a few examples of other programs – not just the Swiss example you have adapted.

Please clarify and emphasise this as a feasibility study and note the future need to evaluate effectiveness through evaluation of practitioner behaviour.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 30 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Conor Gilligan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please correct your reference to "p=0.000" to "p<0.001" or as similarly appropriate, as p values cannot equal zero.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper concisely presents the findings of a feasibility study. It is generally clear and readable. Please refer to my comments and those of the reviewer to make minor amendments to the paper.

Throughout – please check your reference formatting – need a space before the (citation).

Page 3 ‘one such scheme’ – it is unclear what this refers to. I suggest breaking the introduction into several paragraphs and beginning a new one at this point – introduce the concept of various programs designed to improve physicians smoking cessation skills and provide a few examples of other programs – not just the Swiss example you have adapted.

Please clarify and emphasise this as a feasibility study and note the future need to evaluate effectiveness through evaluation of practitioner behaviour.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised version of this manuscript addresses the previous issues raised. Below are some minor additional suggestions.

1) In the discussion could consider acknowledging that the design was a pre-post design for this feasibility study and given that there was no control group the effectiveness of the training program cannot be determined.

2) In the analysis section could consider rephrasing the first sentence to "Given the purpose of this study was to examine feasibility we aimed to recruit a sample size of 40 participants."

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Aug 2019

August 19, 2019

Dr. Conor Gilligan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PONE-D-19-16171

Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: an innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country

Dear Dr. Gilligan,

Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript "Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: an innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country" and the valuable feedback.

On behalf of the authors’ team, I am pleased to submit a revised manuscript with addressed comments raised by the editorial team during the review process. Please kindly find the point-by-point description of our responses to the editors’ and reviewer’s comments.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Narine Movsisyan, MD, MPH

Senior Researcher

School of Public Health

American University of Armenia

40 Baghramyan Avenue

Yerevan 0019 Armenia

Phone: +374 60 612 592

Responses to the Editor’s comments

Editor’s comments:

1. Please check your reference formatting – need a space before the (citation).

Response: The formatting was corrected throughout the text.

2. Page 3 ‘one such scheme’ – it is unclear what this refers to. I suggest breaking the introduction into several paragraphs and beginning a new one at this point – introduce the concept of various programs designed to improve physicians smoking cessation skills and provide a few examples of other programs – not just the Swiss example you have adapted.

Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We started a new paragraph with more information on the smoking cessation graduate training programs available in Europe to put the Swiss program into the context.

“Many postgraduate programs for physicians’ smoking cessation training are available in Europe; however, their effectiveness in changing provider practices and patient smoking outcomes is not adequately evaluated. Most often, these courses cover brief intervention, pharmacotherapy, motivational interviewing skills and the stages of behavioural change (7). One such scheme, an innovative postgraduate training program implemented in teaching hospitals in Switzerland, was shown to improve both physician counselling skills and patient-related outcomes (3).”

3. Please clarify and emphasise this as a feasibility study and note the future need to evaluate effectiveness through evaluation of practitioner behaviour.

Response: We now clearly state that this is a feasibility study and that future studies would need to employ a more rigorous design for the effectiveness evaluation.

“No control group was used in this feasibility study with a pre-post design; therefore, the effectiveness of the training program cannot be determined.

Future studies will aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the training model in changing provider and patient related outcomes and to explore the ways to further improve physician counselling and prescribing skills to reach out to the smoker patients in restricted-resource settings.”

4. Please correct your reference to "p=0.000" to "p<0.001" or as similarly appropriate, as p values cannot equal zero.

Response: Done.

Responses to the Reviewer’s comments

Reviewer’s comments:

The revised version of this manuscript addresses the previous issues raised. Below are some minor additional suggestions.

1. In the discussion could consider acknowledging that the design was a pre-post design for this feasibility study and given that there was no control group the effectiveness of the training program cannot be determined.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a clear statement on this important study limitation.

“No control group was used in this feasibility study with a pre-post design; therefore, the effectiveness of the training program cannot be determined”.

2. In the analysis section could consider rephrasing the first sentence to "Given the purpose of this study was to examine feasibility we aimed to recruit a sample size of 40 participants."

Response: The justification for the study sample size was re-phrased as suggested.

“Given the purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the intervention we aimed to recruit a sample size of 40 participants.”

Other points: A legend was added in the Figure 1 as requested.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_August 19 2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Sep 2019

Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: an innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country

PONE-D-19-16171R1

Dear Dr. Movsisyan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Conor Gilligan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for carefully addressing the comments raised about your paper. The paper reads well and makes an interesting and worthwhile contribution to the literature.

Reviewers' comments:

16 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-16171R1

Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: an innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country

Dear Dr. Movsisyan:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Conor Gilligan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE