OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of two types of intervention to stop tobacco dependency. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. SETTING:Primary care centre. PATIENTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Smokers recruited from among the health centre users through the preventive activities and health promotion programme. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: type of intervention. General variables: age, sex, marital status, educational level, work situation, cohabitation with children, smokers at home, number of years smoking, type of tobacco. There were two types of intervention: a) Minimal Intervention (MI). b) Advanced Intervention (AI). 54 patients were included, with 6 losses. 21 were assigned at random to the MI group and 27 to the AI group. Progress was measured at 15 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and a year. RESULTS: In the MI, 23.8% were abstinent at 15 days; the same percentage at one month and 3 months; 19% at 6 months; and 14.3% remained abstinent after a year. In the AI, 51.9% were abstinent at 15 days; 48.1% at both one and 3 months; 25.9% at 6 months; and 22.2% were still not smoking after a year. No significant differences between the two interventions were found in any of the observations. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not show that one intervention is better than the other. With the passage of time the effect of the intervention decreased in both groups.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of two types of intervention to stop tobacco dependency. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Primary care centre. PATIENTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Smokers recruited from among the health centre users through the preventive activities and health promotion programme. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: type of intervention. General variables: age, sex, marital status, educational level, work situation, cohabitation with children, smokers at home, number of years smoking, type of tobacco. There were two types of intervention: a) Minimal Intervention (MI). b) Advanced Intervention (AI). 54 patients were included, with 6 losses. 21 were assigned at random to the MI group and 27 to the AI group. Progress was measured at 15 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and a year. RESULTS: In the MI, 23.8% were abstinent at 15 days; the same percentage at one month and 3 months; 19% at 6 months; and 14.3% remained abstinent after a year. In the AI, 51.9% were abstinent at 15 days; 48.1% at both one and 3 months; 25.9% at 6 months; and 22.2% were still not smoking after a year. No significant differences between the two interventions were found in any of the observations. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not show that one intervention is better than the other. With the passage of time the effect of the intervention decreased in both groups.
Authors: F Rodríguez-Artalejo; P Lafuente Urdinguio; P Guallar-Castillón; P Garteizaurrekoa Dublang; O Sáinz Martínez; J I Díez Azcárate; M Foj Alemán; J R Banegas Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: M Torrecilla García; M Barrueco Ferrero; J Maderuelo Fernández; C Jiménez Ruiz; M Plaza Martín; M Hernández Mezquita Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2001-05-31 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: M Torrecilla García; M Barrueco; J A Maderuelo; C Jiménez Ruiz; M D Plaza Martín; M A Hernández Mezquita Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2002-09-15 Impact factor: 1.137