Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a stepped primary care smoking cessation intervention (ISTAPS study): design of a cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: There is a considerable body of evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions in individuals who wish to quit smoking. However, there are no large-scale studies testing the whole range of interventions currently recommended for helping people to give up smoking; specifically those interventions that include motivational interviews for individuals who are not interested in quitting smoking in the immediate to short term. Furthermore, many of the published studies were undertaken in specialized units or by a small group of motivated primary care centres. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped smoking cessation intervention based on a trans-theoretical model of change, applied to an extensive group of Primary Care Centres (PCC).Cluster randomised clinical trial. Unit of randomization: basic unit of care consisting of a family physician and a nurse, both of whom care for the same population (aprox. 2000 people). Intention to treat analysis.Smokers (n = 3024) aged 14 to 75 years consulting for any reason to PCC and who provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.6-month implementation of recommendations of a Clinical Practice Guideline which includes brief motivational interviews for smokers at the precontemplation - contemplation stage, brief intervention for smokers in preparation-action who do not want help, intensive intervention with pharmacotherapy for smokers in preparation-action who want help, and reinforcing intervention in the maintenance stage.usual care.Self-reported abstinence confirmed by exhaled air carbon monoxide concentration of

SUBMITTER: Cabezas C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2666720 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a stepped primary care smoking cessation intervention (ISTAPS study): design of a cluster randomised trial.

Cabezas Carmen C Martin Carlos C Granollers Silvia S Morera Concepció C Ballve Josep Lluis JL Zarza Elvira E Blade Jordi J Borras Margarida M Serra Antoni A Puente Diana D

BMC public health 20090204

<h4>Background</h4>There is a considerable body of evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions in individuals who wish to quit smoking. However, there are no large-scale studies testing the whole range of interventions currently recommended for helping people to give up smoking; specifically those interventions that include motivational interviews for individuals who are not interested in quitting smoking in the immediate to short term. Furthermore, many of the published studies were ...[more]

PMID: 19193233

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceParental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresThe trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs.ResultsThe study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

Project description:BackgroundCigarette smoking in people with cancer is associated with negative treatment-related outcomes including increased treatment toxicity and complications, medication side effects, decreased performance status and morbidity. Evidence-based smoking cessation care is not routinely provided to patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation implementation intervention on abstinence from smoking in people diagnosed with cancer.MethodsA stepped wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All sites begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, sites will move to the intervention condition. Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation of Care to Quit will include (i) building the capability and motivation of a critical mass of key clinical staff and identifying champions; and (ii) identifying and implementing cessation care models/pathways. Two thousand one hundred sixty patients with cancer (diagnosed in the prior six months), aged 18+, who report recent combustible tobacco use (past 90 days or in the 30 days prior to cancer diagnosis) and are accessing anti-cancer therapy, will be recruited at nine sites. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be 6-month abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes include biochemical verification of abstinence from smoking, duration of quit attempts, tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, provision and receipt of smoking cessation care, mental health and quality of life and cost effectiveness of the intervention.DiscussionThis study will implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres and has the potential for wide dissemination.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN ( ACTRN12621000154808 ) prior to the accrual of the first participant and will be updated regularly as per registry guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized efficacy clinical trials conducted in research settings may not accurately reflect the benefits of tobacco dependence treatments when used in real-world clinical settings. Effectiveness trials (eg, in primary care settings) are needed to estimate the benefits of cessation treatments in real-world use.MethodsA total of 1346 primary care patients attending routine appointments were recruited by medical assistants in 12 primary care clinics. Patients were randomly assigned to 5 active pharmacotherapies: 3 monotherapies (nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, and bupropion hydrochloride sustained release [SR]) and 2 combination therapies (patch + lozenge and bupropion SR + lozenge). Patients were referred to a telephone quit line for cessation counseling. Primary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 6 months after quitting and number of days to relapse.ResultsAmong 7128 eligible smokers (> or =10 cigarettes per day) attending routine primary care appointments, 1346 (18.9%) were enrolled in the study. Six-month abstinence rates for the 5 active pharmacotherapies were the following: bupropion SR, 16.8%; lozenge, 19.9%; patch, 17.7%; patch + lozenge, 26.9%; and bupropion SR + lozenge, 29.9%. Bupropion SR + lozenge was superior to all of the monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.46-0.56); patch + lozenge was superior to patch and bupropion monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.56 and 0.54, respectively).ConclusionsOne in 5 smokers attending a routine primary care appointment was willing to make a serious quit attempt that included evidence-based counseling and medication. In this comparative effectiveness study of 5 tobacco dependence treatments, combination pharmacotherapy significantly increased abstinence compared with monotherapies. Provision of free cessation medications plus quit line counseling arranged in the primary care setting holds promise for assisting large numbers of smokers to quit. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00296647.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a) a Multiple Health Behaviour Change (MHBC) intervention on reducing smoking, increasing physical activity and adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern in people aged 45-75 years compared to usual care; and b) an implementation strategy.MethodsA cluster randomised effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial-type 2 with two parallel groups was conducted in 25 Spanish Primary Health Care (PHC) centres (3062 participants): 12 centres (1481 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 13 (1581 participants) to the control group (usual care). The intervention was based on the Transtheoretical Model and focused on all target behaviours using individual, group and community approaches. PHC professionals made it during routine care. The implementation strategy was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were analysed using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for clustering. A mixed-methods data analysis was used to evaluate implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and fidelity) and determinants of implementation success.Results14.5% of participants in the intervention group and 8.9% in the usual care group showed a positive change in two or all the target behaviours. Intervention was more effective in promoting dietary behaviour change (31.9% vs 21.4%). The overall adoption rate by professionals was 48.7%. Early and final appropriateness were perceived by professionals as moderate. Early acceptability was high, whereas final acceptability was only moderate. Initial and final acceptability as perceived by the participants was high, and appropriateness moderate. Consent and recruitment rates were 82.0% and 65.5%, respectively, intervention uptake was 89.5% and completion rate 74.7%. The global value of the percentage of approaches with fidelity ≥50% was 16.7%. Eight CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation, five corresponding to the Inner Setting domain.ConclusionsCompared to usual care, the EIRA intervention was more effective in promoting MHBC and dietary behaviour change. Implementation outcomes were satisfactory except for the fidelity to the planned intervention, which was low. The organisational and structural contexts of the centres proved to be significant determinants of implementation effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03136211 . Registered 2 May 2017, "retrospectively registered".

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether primary care outreach facilitation improves the quality of care for general practice patients from refugee backgrounds.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with stepped wedge allocation to early or late intervention groups.Setting, participants31 general practices in three metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne with high levels of refugee resettlement, November 2017 - August 2019.InterventionTrained facilitators made three visits to practices over six months, using structured action plans to help practice teams optimise routines of refugee care.Major outcome measureChange in proportion of patients from refugee backgrounds with documented health assessments (Medicare billing). Secondary outcomes were refugee status recording, interpreter use, and clinician-perceived difficulty in referring patients to appropriate dental, social, settlement, and mental health services.ResultsOur sample comprised 14 633 patients. The intervention was associated with an increase in the proportion of patients with Medicare-billed health assessments during the preceding six months, from 19.1% (95% CI, 18.6-19.5%) to 27.3% (95% CI, 26.7-27.9%; odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.42-2.50). The impact of the intervention was greater in smaller practices, practices with larger proportions of patients from refugee backgrounds, recent training in refugee health care, or higher baseline provision of health assessments for such patients. There was no impact on refugee status recording, interpreter use increased modestly, and reported difficulties in refugee-specific referrals to social, settlement and dental services were reduced.ConclusionsLow intensity practice facilitation may improve some aspects of primary care for people from refugee backgrounds. Facilitators employed by local health services could support integrated approaches to enhancing the quality of primary care for this vulnerable population.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001970235 (retrospective).

Project description:IntroductionEmergency departments (ED) care for society's most vulnerable older adults who present with exacerbations of chronic disease at the end of life, yet the clinical paradigm focuses on treatment of acute pathologies. Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aims to implement and evaluate Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) on ED disposition, healthcare utilisation and survival in older adults with serious illness.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial to test the effectiveness of PRIM-ER in 35 EDs across the USA. The intervention includes four core components: (1) evidence-based, multidisciplinary primary palliative care education; (2) simulation-based workshops; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback. The study is divided into two phases: a pilot phase, to ensure feasibility in two sites, and an implementation and evaluation phase, where we implement the intervention and test the effectiveness in 33 EDs over 2 years. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we will assess the primary outcomes in approximately 300 000 patients: ED disposition to an acute care setting, healthcare utilisation in the 6 months following the ED visit and survival following the index ED visit. Analysis will also determine the site, provider and patient-level characteristics that are associated with variation in impact of PRIM-ER.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at New York University School of Medicine to evaluate the CMS data. Oversight will also be provided by the National Institutes of Health, an Independent Monitoring Committee and a Clinical Informatics Advisory Board. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03424109; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:There is current controversy about the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions that are based on information obtained by spirometry. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness in the primary care setting of structured motivational intervention to achieve smoking cessation, compared with usual clinical practice.Multicentre randomized clinical trial with an intervention and a control group.12 primary care centres in the province of Tarragona (Spain).600 current smokers aged between 35 and 70 years with a cumulative habit of more than 10 packs of cigarettes per year, attended in primary care for any reason and who did not meet any of the exclusion criteria for the study, randomly assigned to structured intervention or standard clinical attention.Usual advice to quit smoking by a general practitioner as well as a 20-minute personalized visit to provide detailed information about spirometry results, during which FEV1, FVC, FEF 25-75% and PEF measurements were discussed and interpreted in terms of theoretical values. Additional information included the lung age index (defined as the average age of a non-smoker with the same FEV1 as the study participant), comparing this with the chronological age to illustrate the pulmonary deterioration that results from smoking.Spirometry during the initial visit. Structured interview questionnaire administered at the primary care centre at the initial visit and at 12-month follow-up. Telephone follow-up interview at 6 months. At 12-month follow-up, expired CO was measured in patients who claimed to have quit smoking.Smoking cessation at 12 months.Data will be analyzed on the basis of "intention to treat" and the unit of analysis will be the individual smoker.Among active smokers treated in primary care we anticipate significantly higher smoking cessation in the intervention group than in the control group.Application of a motivational intervention based on structured information about spirometry results, improved abstinence rates among smokers seen in actual clinical practice conditions in primary care.ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT01194596.

Project description:ObjectivesDizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care.DesignCluster randomized controlled trial.Setting45 primary care practices in The Netherlands.Participants168 participants aged ?65y who consulted their general practitioner for dizziness and experienced significant dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) ?30). Participants were part of to the intervention group (n = 83) or control group (n = 85), depending on whether they were enlisted in an intervention practice or in a control practice.InterventionsThe multifactorial intervention consisted of: medication adjustment in case of ?3 prescribed fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and/or stepped mental health care in case of anxiety disorder and/or depression and/or exercise therapy in case of impaired functional mobility. The intervention was compared to usual care.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was dizziness-related impairment. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), dizziness frequency, fall frequency, anxiety and depression, use of FRIDs.ResultsIntention-to-treat analysis showed no significant intervention effect on dizziness-related impairment (DHI score difference -0.69 [95% CI -5.66;4.28]; p = 0.79). The intervention proved effective in reducing the number of FRIDs (FRID difference -0.48 [95% CI -0.89;-0.06]; p = 0.02). No significant intervention effects were found on other secondary outcomes. The uptake of and adherence to the interventions was significantly lower in patients eligible for ?2 interventions compared to patients eligible for one intervention (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older patients showed no significant intervention effect on most outcomes and adherence to the multifactorial intervention was low. Although multifactorial treatment for older dizzy people seems promising in theory, we question its feasibility in daily practice. Future research could focus on a sequential treatment for dizziness, e.g. measuring effectiveness of various evidence-based therapies in a stepwise approach.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity pharmacies serve people with high levels of tobacco-related illness, but throughput in NHS Stop Smoking Services in pharmacies remains relatively low. We investigated the effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase service uptake and retention.MethodsWe randomised 60 pharmacies in England and Wales to the STOP intervention or usual practice in a pragmatic, parallel-group, controlled trial over 11 months. Smokers were blind to the allocation. The intervention was theory-based consultation skills training for pharmacy staff with environmental prompts (badges, calendars and behavioural cues). The primary outcome was the number of smokers attending an initial consultation and setting a quit date.ResultsThe intervention made no significant difference in setting a quit date, retention or quit rate. A total of 631 adult smokers (service users) enrolled and set a quit date in intervention pharmacies compared to 641 in usual practice pharmacies, a rate ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23) adjusted for site and number of prescriptions. A total of 432 (68%) service users were retained at 4 weeks in intervention and 500 (78%) in usual practice pharmacies (odds ratio 0.80, 0.41 to 1.55). A total of 265 (42%) service users quit smoking at 4 weeks in intervention and 276 (43%) in usual practice pharmacies (0.96, 0.65 to 1.43). The pharmacy staff were positive about the intervention with 90% (56/62) stating that it had improved their skills. Sixty-eight per cent would strongly recommend the training to others although there was no difference in self-efficacy for service delivery between arms. Seventy of 131 (53%) service users did not complete the 6-month follow-up assessment. However, 55/61 (90%) service users who completed follow-up were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. All usual practice arm service users (n = 33) and all but one in the intervention arm (n = 27) would recommend the service to smokers.ConclusionsWe found high levels of retention and acceptable quit rates in the NHS pharmacy stop smoking service. Despite pharmacy staff providing positive feedback on the STOP intervention, it made no difference to service throughput. Thus, other factors may currently limit service capacity to help smokers to quit.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN16351033 . Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a stepped primary care smoking cessation intervention (ISTAPS study): design of a cluster randomised trial.

Publications

Effectiveness of a stepped primary care smoking cessation intervention (ISTAPS study): design of a cluster randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets