CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Smoking treatment interventions and policies to promote their use: a critical review

Friend, Karen, Levy, David T.·2001·Nicotine & Tobacco Research
DOI 10.1080/14622200110072165
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments, the involvement of health care workers in providing advice and the use of treatment is limited. Barriers to treatment access have been suggested as part of the reason physicians do not routinely provide brief interventions and smokers do not use proven cessation methods. The purpose of this paper is to review tobacco treatments and policy research, and highlight where more research is warranted to develop more effective policies at the private and public levels. Special attention is devoted to the recently released Guidelines (Fiore et al., Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: USDHHS, 2000). We also consider the policy issues faced by private and public insurers, such as cost-effectiveness, the different forms that policies could take, and potential problems in implementing those policies. The efficacy of brief interventions and cessation treatments has been well studied. Less understood, however, is their impact in population-based investigations. In particular, more information is needed on the prevalence of their use and on how treatment use depends on prior smoking, treatment history, and demographic subgroup. Public and private health policies designed to increase access to cessation treatments and information dissemination through brief interventions by health care providers also have the potential to increase cessation. Further research on the impact of these interventions on use and quit rates, particularly over longer periods of time, and how these effects depend on the form of the intervention, is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14622200110072165

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The Gordian Knot of clinical tobacco control is an inability to achieve more consistent delivery of evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions by real-world healthcare personnel.

    “The Gordian Knot of clinical tobacco control is an inability to achieve more consistent delivery of evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions by real-world healthcare personnel (6, 49–52).”

    From The Multiphase Optimization Strategy for Engineering Effective Tobacco Use Interventions (2011) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Friend, K., & Levy, D. T.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Pacific Institute For Research and Evaluation (US)
Corresponding author
Friend, Karen
ORCID
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-11-01
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
299-310
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
DOI
10.1080/14622200110072165
OpenAlex
W2002575846
Cited by
35
References
82
Citations by year
2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
smoking cessation, tobacco dependence treatment, brief intervention, provider recommendation, tobacco control, cost-effectiveness, health insurance coverage, quit rates
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Policy, Health Promotion, Humans, Mental Health Services, Public Policy, Smoking, 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