Cited by 38Smoking Behavior and CessationElectronic Health Records SystemsHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Development of an Interactive, Web-Delivered System to Increase Provider–Patient Engagement in Smoking Cessation

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient self-management interventions for smoking cessation are effective but underused. Health care providers do not routinely refer smokers to these interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to uncover barriers and facilitators to the use of an e-referral system that will be evaluated in a community-based randomized trial. The e-referral system will allow providers to refer smokers to an online smoking intervention during routine clinical care. METHODS: We devised a four-step development and pilot testing process: (1) system conceptualization using Delphi to identify key functionalities that would overcome barriers in provider referrals for smoking cessation, (2) Web system programming using agile software development and best programming practices with usability refinement using think-aloud testing, (3) implementation planning using the nominal group technique for the effective integration of the system into the workflow of practices, and (4) pilot testing to identify practice recruitment and system-use barriers in real-world settings. RESULTS: Our Delphi process (step 1) conceptualized three key e-referral functions: (1) Refer Your Smokers, allowing providers to e-refer patients at the point of care by entering their emails directly into the system, (2) practice reports, providing feedback regarding referrals and impact of smoking-cessation counseling, and (3) secure messaging, facilitating provider-patient communication. Usability testing (step 2) suggested the system was easy to use, but implementation planning (step 3) suggested several important approaches to encourage use (eg, proactive email cues to encourage practices to participate). Pilot testing (step 4) in 5 practices had limited success, with only 2 patients referred; we uncovered important recruitment and system-use barriers (eg, lack of study champion, training, and motivation, registration difficulties, and forgetting to refer). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a system to be used in a clinical setting is complex, as several issues can affect system use. In our ongoing large randomized trial, preliminary analysis with the first 50 practices using the system for 3 months demonstrated that our rigorous preimplementation evaluation helped us successfully identify and overcome these barriers before the main trial. TRIAL: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00797628; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00797628 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/61feCfjCy).

Overview

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 · 10.2196/jmir.1721

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 38

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 2002, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 51, 642
  2. Sciamanna, CN, 1999, MD Comput, 16, 54
  3. 2005, FDA Consum, 39, 4
  4. Kushniruk, AW, 1995, Medinfo, 8 Pt 2, 1566

Metadata

Authors
Sadasivam, R. S., Delaughter, K., Crenshaw, K., Sobko, H. J., Williams, J. H., Coley, H. L., Ray, M. N., Ford, D. E., Allison, J. J., & Houston, T. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Sadasivam, Rajani S
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2011-10-18
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
e87
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049278570
Cited by
38
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA129091)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR031982)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
smoking cessation, patient self-management, barriers and facilitators, clinical workflow integration, secure messaging, provider-patient communication, recruitment barriers, system usability
MeSH terms
Delphi Technique, Health Personnel, Humans, Pilot Projects, Professional-Patient Relations, Referral and Consultation, Smoking Cessation, Point-of-Care Systems, Internet

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