Triggering anti-smoking advice by GPs: mode of action of an intervention stimulating smoking cessation advice by GPs

A personalized biomedical risk assessment infographic for people who smoke with COPD: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) causes 3 million deaths each year, yet 38% of COPD patients continue to smoke. Despite proof of effectiveness and universal guideline recommendations, smoking cessation interventions are underused in practice. We sought to develop an infographic featuring personalized biomedical risk assessment through future lung function decline prediction (with vs without ongoing smoking) to both prompt and enhance clinician delivery of smoking cessation advice and pharmacotherapy, and augment patient motivation to quit.

METHODS

We recruited patients with COPD and pulmonologists from a quaternary care center in Toronto, Canada. Infographic prototype content and design was based on best evidence. After face validation, the prototype was optimized through rapid-cycle design. Each cycle consisted of: (1) infographic testing in a moderated focus group and a clinician interview (recorded/transcribed) (with questionnaire completion); (2) review of transcripts for emergent/critical findings; and (3) infographic modifications to address findings (until no new critical findings emerged). We performed iterative transcript analysis after each cycle and a summative qualitative transcript analysis with quantitative (descriptive) questionnaire analysis.

RESULTS

Stopping criteria were met after 4 cycles, involving 20 patients (58% male) and 4 pulmonologists (50% male). The following qualitative themes emerged: Tool content (infographic content preferences); Tool Design (infographic design preferences); Advantages of Infographic Messaging (benefits of an infographic over other approaches); Impact of Tool on Determinants of Smoking Cessation Advice Delivery (impact on barriers and enablers to delivery of smoking cessation advice in practice); and Barriers and Enablers to Quitting (impact on barriers and enablers to quitting). Patient Likert scale ratings of infographic content and format/usability were highly positive, with improvements in scores for 20/21 questions through the design process. Providers scored the infographic at 77.8% ("superior") on the Suitability Assessment of Materials questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a user preference-based personalized biomedical risk assessment infographic to drive smoking cessation in patients with COPD. Our findings suggest that this tool could impact behavioural determinants of provider smoking-cessation advice delivery, while increasing patient quit motivation. Impacts of the tool on provider care, patient motivation to quit, and smoking cessation success should now be evaluated in real-world settings.

Comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care: results of a "best-fit" framework synthesis

Objective

To describe a new, comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care (Clinical Information Interaction Model, or CIIM) based on a systematic synthesis of published research.

Materials and Methods

We used the "best fit" framework synthesis approach. Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, and Engineering Village. Two authors reviewed articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data abstraction and content analysis of 443 published papers were used to create a model in which every element was supported by empirical research.

Results

The CIIM documents how primary care clinicians interact with information as they make point-of-care clinical decisions. The model highlights 3 major process components: (1) context, (2) activity (usual and contingent), and (3) influence. Usual activities include information processing, source-user interaction, information evaluation, selection of information, information use, clinical reasoning, and clinical decisions. Clinician characteristics, patient behaviors, and other professionals influence the process.

Discussion

The CIIM depicts the complete process of information interaction, enabling a grasp of relationships previously difficult to discern. The CIIM suggests potentially helpful functionality for clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support primary care, including a greater focus on information processing and use. The CIIM also documents the role of influence in clinical information interaction; influencers may affect the success of CDSS implementations.

Conclusion

The CIIM offers a new framework for achieving CDSS workflow integration and new directions for CDSS design that can support the work of diverse primary care clinicians.

Balancing trust and power: a qualitative study of GPs perceptions and strategies for retaining patients in preventive health checks

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about how strategies of retaining patients are acted out by general practitioners (GPs) in the clinical encounter. With this study, we apply Grimens' (2009) analytical connection between trust and power to explore how trust and power appear in preventive health checks from the GPs' perspectives, and in what way trust and power affect and/or challenge strategies towards retaining patients without formal education.

DESIGN

Data in this study were obtained through semi-structured interviews with GPs participating in an intervention project, as well as observations of clinical encounters.

RESULTS

From the empirical data, we identified three dimensions of respect: respect for the patient's autonomy, respect for professional authority and respect as a mutual exchange. A balance of respect influenced trust in the relationship between GP and patients and the transfer of power in the encounter. The GPs articulated that a balance was needed in preventive health checks in order to establish trust and thus retain the patient in the clinic. One way this balance of respect was carried out was with the use of humour.

CONCLUSIONS

To retain patients without formal education in the clinical encounter, the GPs balanced trust and power executed through three dimensions of respect. In this study, retaining patients was equivalent to maintaining a trusting relationship. A strategic use of the three dimensions of respect was applied to balance trust and power and thus build or maintain a trusting relationship with patients. KEY POINTS   Little is known about how strategies for retaining patients are acted out by GPs in preventive health checks.  •  Retaining patients requires a balance of trust and power, which is executed through three dimensions of respect by the GPs.  •  Challenges of recruiting and retaining patients in public health initiatives might be associated with the balance of respect.

Asthma management practices in adults--findings from the German Health Update (GEDA) 2010 and the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey (DEGS1) 2008-2011

OBJECTIVES

In Germany, population-wide data on adherence to national asthma management guidelines are lacking, and performance measures (PM) for quality assurance in asthma care are systematically monitored for patients with German national asthma disease management program (DMP) enrollment only. We used national health survey data to assess variation in asthma care PM with respect to patient characteristics and care context, including DMP enrollment.

METHODS

Among adults 18-79 years with self-reported physician-diagnosed asthma in the past 12 months identified from a recent German National Health Interview Survey (GEDA 2010: N = 1096) and the German National Health interview and Examination Survey 2008-2011 (DEGS1: N = 333), variation in asthma care PM was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 38.4% (95% confidence interval: 32.5-44.6%) of adults with asthma were on current inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Regarding non-drug asthma management, low coverage was observed for inhaler technique monitoring (35.2%; 31.2-39.3%) and for provision of an asthma management plan (27.3%; 24.2-30.7%), particularly among those with low education. Specific PM were more complete among persons with than without asthma DMP enrollment (adjusted odds ratios ranging up to 10.19; 5.23-19.86), even if asthma patients were regularly followed in a different care context.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline adherence appears to be suboptimal, particularly with respect to PM related to patient counseling. Barriers to the translation of recommendations into practice need to be identified and continuous monitoring of asthma care PM at the population level needs to be established.

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background

This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities.

Aims

The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice.

Methods

We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff.

Findings

Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely.

Future Research

Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in January 2013 for trials of interventions involving physicians. We also searched Latin American databases through BVS (Virtual Library in Health) in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomisation and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. People lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2012, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, participants were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics.Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in January 2013 for trials of interventions involving physicians. We also searched Latin American databases through BVS (Virtual Library in Health) in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomisation and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. People lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2012, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, participants were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics.Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.

Brief opportunistic smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare advice to quit and offer of assistance

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the effects of opportunistic brief physician advice to stop smoking and offer of assistance on incidence of attempts to stop and quit success in smokers not selected by motivation to quit.

METHODS

We included relevant trials from the Cochrane Reviews of physician advice for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion. We extracted data on quit attempts and quit success. Estimates were combined using the Mantel-Haentszel method and heterogeneity assessed with the I(2) statistic. Study quality was assessed by method of randomization, allocation concealment and follow-up blind to allocation.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. Compared to no intervention, advice to quit on medical grounds increased the frequency of quit attempts [risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-1.33], but not as much as behavioural support for cessation (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.52-3.11) or offering NRT (RR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.48-1.89). In a direct comparison, offering assistance generated more quit attempts than giving advice to quit on medical grounds (RR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.24-2.31 for behavioural support and 1.39, 95% CI: 1.25-1.54 for offering medication). There was evidence that medical advice increased the success of quit attempts and inconclusive evidence that offering assistance increased their success.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians may be more effective in promoting attempts to stop smoking by offering assistance to all smokers than by advising smokers to quit and offering assistance only to those who express an interest in doing so.

Training health professionals in smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death world wide. There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase smoking cessation attempts. A number of trials have examined whether skills training for health professionals can lead them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of training health care professionals in the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of training characteristics such as intervention content, delivery method and intensity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, electronic databases and the bibliographies of identified studies were searched and raw data was requested from study authors where needed. Searches were updated in March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which the intervention was training of health care professionals in smoking cessation. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking at least six months after the intervention. Process outcomes needed to be reported, however trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics of each included study for interventions, participants, outcomes and methods were extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were combined in a meta-analysis where possible and reported in narrative synthesis in text and table.

MAIN RESULTS

Of seventeen included studies, thirteen found no evidence of an effect for continuous smoking abstinence following the intervention. Meta-analysis of 14 studies for point prevalence of smoking produced a statistically and clinically significant effect in favour of the intervention (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55, p= 0.004). Meta-analysis of eight studies that reported continuous abstinence was also statistically significant (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.03, p= 0.03).Healthcare professionals who had received training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls, including: asking patients to set a quit date (p< 0.0001), make follow-up appointments (p< 0.00001), counselling of smokers (p< 0.00001), provision of self-help material (p< 0.0001) and prescription of a quit date (p< 0.00001). No evidence of an effect was observed for the provision of nicotine gum/replacement therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions had a measurable effect on the point prevalence of smoking, continuous abstinence and professional performance. The one exception was the provision of nicotine gum or replacement therapy, which did not differ between groups.

The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

Background

Improving the design and implementation of evidence-based practice depends on successful behaviour change interventions. This requires an appropriate method for characterising interventions and linking them to an analysis of the targeted behaviour. There exists a plethora of frameworks of behaviour change interventions, but it is not clear how well they serve this purpose. This paper evaluates these frameworks, and develops and evaluates a new framework aimed at overcoming their limitations.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases and consultation with behaviour change experts were used to identify frameworks of behaviour change interventions. These were evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behaviour. A new framework was developed to meet these criteria. The reliability with which it could be applied was examined in two domains of behaviour change: tobacco control and obesity.

Results

Nineteen frameworks were identified covering nine intervention functions and seven policy categories that could enable those interventions. None of the frameworks reviewed covered the full range of intervention functions or policies, and only a minority met the criteria of coherence or linkage to a model of behaviour. At the centre of a proposed new framework is a 'behaviour system' involving three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (what we term the 'COM-B system'). This forms the hub of a 'behaviour change wheel' (BCW) around which are positioned the nine intervention functions aimed at addressing deficits in one or more of these conditions; around this are placed seven categories of policy that could enable those interventions to occur. The BCW was used reliably to characterise interventions within the English Department of Health's 2010 tobacco control strategy and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on reducing obesity.

Conclusions

Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a BCW comprising: a 'behaviour system' at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories. Research is needed to establish how far the BCW can lead to more efficient design of effective interventions.

Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison

Background

Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients for both alcohol and tobacco misuse. This pilot study's aims were: (1) To determine the feasibility of combined vital signs screening for tobacco and alcohol misuse, (2) To assess the impact of vital signs screening on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates, and (3) To assess the additional impact of tobacco assessment prompts on intervention rates.

Methods

In five outpatient practices, nurses measuring vital signs were trained to routinely ask a single tobacco question, a prescreening question that identified current drinkers, and the single alcohol screening question for current drinkers. After 4-8 weeks, clinicians were trained in tobacco intervention and nurses were trained to give tobacco abusers a tobacco questionnaire which also served as a clinician intervention prompt. Screening and intervention rates were measured using patient exit interviews (n = 622) at baseline, during the "screening only" period, and during the tobacco prompting phase. Changes in screening and intervention rates were compared using chi square analyses and test of linear trends. Clinic staff were interviewed regarding patient and staff acceptability. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of nurse screening on clinician intervention, the impact of alcohol intervention on concurrent tobacco intervention, and the impact of tobacco intervention on concurrent alcohol intervention.

Results

Alcohol and tobacco screening rates and alcohol intervention rates increased after implementing vital signs screening (p < .05). During the tobacco prompting phase, clinician intervention rates increased significantly for both alcohol (12.4%, p < .001) and tobacco (47.4%, p = .042). Screening by nurses was associated with clinician advice to reduce alcohol use (OR 13.1; 95% CI 6.2-27.6) and tobacco use (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-5.2). Acceptability was high with nurses and patients.

Conclusions

Vital signs screening can be incorporated in primary care and increases alcohol screening and intervention rates. Tobacco assessment prompts increase both alcohol and tobacco interventions. These simple interventions show promise for dissemination in primary care settings.

The French Observational Cohort of Usual Smokers (FOCUS) cohort: French smokers perceptions and attitudes towards smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing governmental anti-smoking measures, smoking prevalence remains at a high level in France.

METHODS

The objectives of this panel study were (1) to estimate smoking prevalence in France, (2) to identify smokers' profiles according to their perceptions, attitudes and behaviour in relation to smoking cessation, (3) to determine predictive factors of quit attempts, and (4) to assess tobacco-related behaviours and their evolutions according to the changes in the smokers' environments. A representative sample of French population was defined using the quota method. The identified cohort of smokers was assessed, in terms of smoking behaviour, previous quit attempts, and intention to quit smoking.

RESULTS

A response rate of 66% for the screening enabled to identify a representative sample of the French population (N = 3 889) comprising 809 current smokers (21%). A majority of current smokers (63%) had made an attempt to quit smoking. Main reasons for having made the last attempt were cost (44%), social pressure (39%), wish to improve physical fitness (36%), fear of a future smoking-related disease (24%), and weariness of smoking (21%). Few attempts (16%) were encouraged by a physician. In those who used some kind of support (38%), NRT was the mostly used. Relapse was triggered by craving (45%), anxiety/stress (34%), a significant life event (21), weight gain (18%), and irritability (16%). Depression was rarely quoted (5%). Forty percent of smokers declared they intended to quit smoking permanently. Main reasons were cost (65%), physical fitness improvement (53%), fear of a future smoking-related disease (43%), weariness of tobacco (34%), and social pressure (30%). Using a smoking cessation treatment was considered by 43% of smokers that intended to quit. Barriers to smoking cessation were mainly fear of increased stress (62%), irritability (51%), and anxiety (42%), enjoying smoking (41%), and weight concerns (33%).

CONCLUSION

Smoking prevalence and smoking cessation attempts rate were lower in this survey than in previous reports. Cost and social pressure were the main reasons for quitting smoking, maybe an effect of dramatic tax increases and smoking ban.

The attitude toward tobacco dependence and barriers to discussing smoking cessation: a survey among Turkish general practitioners

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the general attitude of a sample of Turkish general practitioners (GPs) toward tobacco dependence and to assess their knowledge and behavior regarding smoking cessation (SC).

METHODS

A self-administered questionnaire modified from WHO, Global Health Professional Survey was distributed to GPs, working in our district, Isparta.

RESULTS

As much as 41% of GPs were current smokers. Ever smokers were generally less likely to agree with statements that would change their freedom to smoke in certain places. While 46% of GPs frequently inquired about tobacco use in their patients, 13.5% did not advise any of their patients to quit smoking during the month preceding the questionnaire. The most common barriers reported by GPs to discussing SC with their patients were as follows: considering the discussion not to be effective (57.8%), having low confidence in knowledge (48.1%), having unpleasant personal experience or considering it a thankless task (46.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

It appears essential to reduce the number of GPs who smoke and to improve GP training on SC procedures for integrating SC treatment into primary care in Turkey.

Serious psychological distress among adults with and without disabilities

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to examine the extent to which serious psychological distress (SPD) is associated with behavioral and social correlates among US adults with self-reported disabilities.

METHODS

Self-reported data on disability, SPD, and behavioral and social correlates were collected from 202,383 participants (aged > or = 18 years) of the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Adults with self-reported disabilities were identified using two standardized questions--one relating to activity limitation, the other to special equipment.

RESULTS

The age-adjusted prevalence of SPD among adults with disabilities was nearly seven times higher than among adults without disabilities (14.1 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively). Adults with disabilities who have both activity limitations and who use assistive technology, and those with activity limitations only consistently experienced a higher prevalence of SPD than those who used assistive technology only (age-adjusted prevalence: 21.0 % and 12.7 % vs. 4.9 %). After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, and employment status, in the past 30 days SPD was more common among Hispanic persons, and was significantly associated with younger age, lower educational attainment, marital history, and employment status. Adults with SPD and disabilities experienced increased levels of risk behaviors, life dissatisfaction, and inadequate social support. Most importantly, just over half of adults with disabilities and SPD (51.6 % [95 % CI = 48.6-54.6]) were receiving medical care for a mental health condition compared to 20.6 % (95 % CI = 19.9-21.3) without SPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that SPD is strongly associated with both the behavioral and psychosocial determinants of health, this work underscores the need for evidence-based interventions that may reduce its prevalence among people living with disabilities.

Factors influencing European GPs' engagement in smoking cessation: a multi-country literature review

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation advice by GPs is an effective and cost-effective intervention, but is not implemented as widely as it could be.

AIM

This wide-ranging Europe-wide literature review, part of the European Union (EU) PESCE (General Practitioners and the Economics of Smoking Cessation in Europe) project, explored the extent of GPs' engagement in smoking cessation and the factors that influence their engagement.

METHOD

Two searches were conducted, one for grey literature, across all European countries, and one for academic studies. Data from eligible studies published from 1990 onwards were synthesised and reported under four categories of influencing factors: GP characteristics, patient characteristics, structural factors, and cessation-specific knowledge and skills.

RESULTS

The literature showed that most GPs in Europe question the smoking status of all new patients but fewer routinely ask this of regular patients, or advise smokers to quit. The proportion offering intensive interventions or prescribing treatments is lower still. Factors influencing GPs' engagement in smoking cessation include GPs' own smoking status and their attitudes towards giving smoking cessation advice; whether patients present with smoking-related symptoms, are pregnant, or heavy smokers; time, training, and reimbursement are important structural factors; and some GPs lack knowledge and skills regarding the use of specific cessation methods and treatments, or have limited awareness of specialist cessation services. No single factor or category of factors explains the variations in GPs' engagement in smoking cessation.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to improve the frequency and quality of GPs' engagement in smoking cessation need to address the multifaceted influences on GPs' practice and to reflect the widely differing contexts across Europe.

Self-reported smoking cessation activities among Swiss primary care physicians

Background

Individual counselling, pharmacotherapy, and group therapy are evidence-based interventions that help patients stop smoking. Acupuncture, hypnosis, and relaxation have no demonstrated efficacy on smoking cessation, whereas self-help material may only have a small benefit. The purpose of this study is to assess physicians' current clinical practice regarding smokers motivated to stop smoking.

Methods

The survey included 3385 Swiss primary care physicians. Self-reported use of nine smoking cessation interventions was scored. One point was given for each positive answer about practicing interventions with demonstrated efficacy, i.e. nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, counselling, group therapy, and smoking cessation specialist. No points were given for the recommendation of acupuncture, hypnosis, relaxation, and self-help material. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a good practice score, defined as ≥ 2.

Results

The response rate was 55%. Respondents were predominately over the age of 40 years (88%), male (79%), and resided in urban areas (74%). Seventeen percent reported being smokers. Most of the physicians prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (84%), bupropion (65%), or provided counselling (70%). A minority of physicians recommended acupuncture (26%), hypnosis (8%), relaxation (7%), or self-help material (24%). A good practice score was obtained by 85% of respondents. Having attended a smoking cessation-training program was the only significant predictor of a good practice score (odds ratio: 6.24, 95% CI 1.95–20.04).

Conclusion

The majority of respondents practice recommended smoking cessation interventions. However, there is room for improvement and implementing an evidence-based smoking cessation-training program could provide additional benefit.

Registered nurse initiation of a tobacco intervention protocol: leading quality care

This article summarizes the development and implementation of a registered nurse-initiated protocol to intervene with hospitalized patients who are tobacco-dependent, may be experiencing tobacco withdrawal, and who are hospitalized in a smoke-free environment.

RATIONALE

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Hospitalization provides a unique teachable moment to treat tobacco dependence. Nurses can be effective in talking with patients about tobacco use.

DEVELOPMENT

The clinical nurse specialist spheres of influence model and the role of the clinical nurse specialist were important for developing a tobacco use intervention protocol. A multi-disciplinary team created key objectives. These included identifying and assessing all patients who use tobacco, providing treatment to manage both withdrawal and address tobacco dependence, providing comfort to patients while hospitalized in a tobacco-free environment, encouraging lifelong cessation. The bedside admitting nurse was chosen as the pivotal professional to trigger tobacco use interventions.

IMPLEMENTATION

A protocol was finalized that requires the bedside nurse to assess all patients for past and current tobacco use. The nurse is then prompted to (1) provide information about tobacco dependence and treatment, (2) ask if the patient wants nicotine patch therapy to address withdrawal and, (3) order a consult with a specialist at the patient's request. Extensive and varied educational programs were developed to support the implementation of the protocol.

OUTCOMES

The tobacco use intervention protocol has become important for providing assessment and intervention to patients who use tobacco. It has increased the number of specialist consults provided to patients. It has increased compliance with quality reporting data by national quality accrediting bodies.

Quality of care for older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma based on comparisons to practice guidelines and smoking status

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of respiratory diseases in older adults and compare the demographic, health and smoking characteristics of those with and without these diseases. Furthermore, we evaluate the association between smoking status and patterns in health care and how concordant this care is with guidelines.

METHODS

Using a nationally representative sample of 29,902 older adults who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (1992-2002), we compared guideline recommendations on the treatment and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma with survey utilization data, including the use of bronchodilators, spirometry and influenza vaccine.

RESULTS

26% to 30% of older adults were diagnosed with or self-reported chronic respiratory diseases; however 69% received no pharmacological treatment and 30% of patients reporting use of pharmacological treatments did not receive short-acting bronchodilator inhalers. Current smokers appeared to receive significantly less care for respiratory diseases than non-smokers or former smokers.

CONCLUSION

Disparities between recommended and actual care for older adults with chronic lung disease require further research. The needs of older adults with co-morbidities and nicotine addiction deserve special attention in care as well as guideline development and implementation.

Physician advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. Date of the most recent search: September 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomization and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2007, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, subjects were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics. Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.