Cited by 95Smoking Behavior and CessationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computer-Based, Tailored Intervention to Increase Smoking Cessation Counseling by Primary Care Physicians

Open access
Unrod, Marina, Smith, Meredith, Spring, Bonnie, DePue, Judith, Redd, William, Winkel, Gary·2007·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Objective The primary care visit represents an important venue for intervening with a large population of smokers. However, physician adherence to the Smoking Cessation Clinical Guideline (5As) remains low. We evaluated the effectiveness of a computer-tailored intervention designed to increase smoking cessation counseling by primary care physicians.Methods Physicians and their patients were randomized to either intervention or control conditions. In addition to brief smoking cessation training, intervention physicians and patients received a one-page report that characterized the patients' smoking habit and history and offered tailored recommendations. Physician performance of the 5As was assessed via patient exit interviews. Quit rates and smoking behaviors were assessed 6 months postintervention via patient phone interviews. Intervention effects were tested in a sample of 70 physicians and 518 of their patients. Results were analyzed via generalized and mixed linear modeling controlling for clustering.Measurements and main results Intervention physicians exceeded controls on "Assess" (OR 5.06; 95% CI 3.22, 7.95), "Advise" (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.70, 4.59), "Assist-set goals" (OR 4.31; 95% CI 2.59, 7.16), "Assist-provide written materials" (OR 5.14; 95% CI 2.60, 10.14), "Assist-provide referral" (OR 6.48; 95% CI 3.11, 13.49), "Assist-discuss medication" (OR 4.72;95% CI 2.90, 7.68), and "Arrange" (OR 8.14; 95% CI 3.98, 16.68), all p values being < 0.0001. Intervention patients were 1.77 (CI 0.94, 3.34,p = 0.078) times more likely than controls to be abstinent (12 versus 8%), a difference that approached, but did not reach statistical significance, and surpassed controls on number of days quit (18.4 versus 12.2, p < .05) but not on number of quit attempts.Conclusions The use of a brief computer-tailored report improved physicians' implementation of the 5As and had a modest effect on patients' smoking behaviors 6 months postintervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-006-0069-0

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Only a small minority of providers continue on to agree on goals, assist with treatment, and arrange follow-up.

    “In contrast, only a small minority continue on to agree on goals, assist with treatment, and arrange follow-up,22,47,48”
  • The latter, less frequently performed 3 A's have the greatest impact on healthful behavior change.

    “and it is these latter, less frequently performed 3 A’s that have the greatest impact on healthful behavior change.22,47–51”
  • For both obesity and smoking, a majority of providers now perform the first 2 A's: Assess the risk behavior and advise behavior change.

    “However, progress has been made, and for both obesity and smoking, a majority of providers now perform the first 2 A’s: Assess the risk behavior and advise behavior change.46–48”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 95

Authors
Unrod, M., Smith, M., Spring, B., DePue, J., Redd, W., & Winkel, G.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Unrod, Marina
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2007-02-06
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
478-484
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1980513389
Cited by
95
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS10547-0182)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
smoking cessation counseling, computer-tailored intervention, primary care physicians, physician adherence, smoking cessation training, smoking cessation referral, smoking cessation medication
MeSH terms
Adult, Counseling, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Physician's Role, Physicians, Family, Smoking Cessation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review