TY - JOUR
T1 - Does the smoking status of general practitioners affect the efficacy of smoking cessation counselling?
AU - Ulbricht, Sabina
AU - Baumeister, Sebastian E.
AU - Meyer, Christian
AU - Schmidt, Carsten Oliver
AU - Schumann, Anja
AU - Rumpf, Hans Jürgen
AU - John, Ulrich
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Dr. J.R. Thyrian for his proofreading and helpful commentary during the writing of this article. This study, as part of the German research network EARLINT (Early Substance Use Intervention), has been funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (grant nos. 01EB0120, 01EB0420,) and by the Social Ministry of Mecklenburg – West Pomerania (grant no. IX311a406.68.43.05).
Funding Information:
The study was reviewed by the local ethical committee of the University Greifswald. All ethical safeguards were met. There are no perceived conflicts of financial interests related to the research reported in the manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and will take public responsibility for the content. The study Pro GP (“Proactive smoking interventions for general medical practices”), as part of the Research Collaboration on Early Substance Use Intervention (EARLINT), has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant nos. 01EB0120, 01EB0420) and the Social Ministry of the State of Mecklenburg – West Pomerania (grant no. IX311a406.68.43.05).
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2009/1
Y1 - 2009/1
N2 - Objective: To examine the association between the smoking status of general practitioners (GPs) and abstinence rates among patients receiving GP-delivered brief advice for smoking cessation. Methods: A quasi-experimental multilevel study with follow-up assessments at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after baseline was conducted using a random sample of 39 general practices in a defined area (participation rate = 87.2%). Patients aged 18-70 were consecutively screened for smoking status (n = 11,560) over the course of 3 weeks and were assigned to a control group (week 1), a computer expert system intervention (week 2), or a personal counselling intervention with the GP (week 3). For the current analysis, patients participating in study week 2 were excluded. A total of 1260 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 80.2% took part: 609 patients in study week 1 and 402 patients from study week 3. GPs participated in a training session concerning smoking counselling, which was held between study weeks 2 and 3. Self-reported 4-week and 6-month prolonged abstinence measures at the 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups were assessed. Results: The smoking status of the GP was neither significantly related to 4-week prolonged abstinence nor 6-month prolonged abstinence among patients in a main effects model. Further modelling revealed that the intervention group modified the effect of the non-smoking status of the GP on the likelihood to quit smoking. A significant interactive effect was found between the non-smoking status of the GP and the intervention group on both abstinence measures. Conclusion: The non-smoking status of the GP had a positive effect among counselled patients. Practice implications: The consideration of lifestyle behavioural variables such as the smoking status of the GP will be essential for further research concerning the efficacy of smoking interventions.
AB - Objective: To examine the association between the smoking status of general practitioners (GPs) and abstinence rates among patients receiving GP-delivered brief advice for smoking cessation. Methods: A quasi-experimental multilevel study with follow-up assessments at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after baseline was conducted using a random sample of 39 general practices in a defined area (participation rate = 87.2%). Patients aged 18-70 were consecutively screened for smoking status (n = 11,560) over the course of 3 weeks and were assigned to a control group (week 1), a computer expert system intervention (week 2), or a personal counselling intervention with the GP (week 3). For the current analysis, patients participating in study week 2 were excluded. A total of 1260 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 80.2% took part: 609 patients in study week 1 and 402 patients from study week 3. GPs participated in a training session concerning smoking counselling, which was held between study weeks 2 and 3. Self-reported 4-week and 6-month prolonged abstinence measures at the 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups were assessed. Results: The smoking status of the GP was neither significantly related to 4-week prolonged abstinence nor 6-month prolonged abstinence among patients in a main effects model. Further modelling revealed that the intervention group modified the effect of the non-smoking status of the GP on the likelihood to quit smoking. A significant interactive effect was found between the non-smoking status of the GP and the intervention group on both abstinence measures. Conclusion: The non-smoking status of the GP had a positive effect among counselled patients. Practice implications: The consideration of lifestyle behavioural variables such as the smoking status of the GP will be essential for further research concerning the efficacy of smoking interventions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56949103921&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.047
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.047
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 18818045
AN - SCOPUS:56949103921
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 74
SP - 23
EP - 28
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
IS - 1
ER -