Journal of general internal medicine · 2019
Proactive Population Health Strategy to Offer Tobacco Dependence Treatment to Smokers in a Primary Care Practice Network.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеPragmatic Clinical TrialПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kalkhoran Sara, Inman Elizabeth M, Kelley Jennifer H K, Ashburner Jeffrey M, Rigotti Nancy A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Population-based strategies can expand the reach of tobacco cessation treatment beyond clinical encounters.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of two population-based tobacco cessation strategies, compared with usual care, on providing tobacco treatment outside of clinical encounters.
DESIGN: 3-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
PARTICIPANTS: Current smokers ≥ 18 years old with a primary care provider at one of five community health centers in Massachusetts were identified via the electronic health record (n = 5225) and recruited using automated phone calls.
INTERVENTIONS: One intervention group involved engagement with a health system-based tobacco coach (internal care coordination), and the other connected patients to a national quitline (external community referral).
MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of smokers with documentation of any evidence-based cessation treatment in the 6 months after enrollment.
KEY RESULTS: Of 639 individuals who responded to the proactive treatment offer, 233 consented and were randomized 1:1:1 to study arm. At 6-month follow-up, the pooled intervention group, compared with usual care, had higher documentation of any smoking cessation treatment (63% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), cessation medication prescription (52% vs. 30%, p = 0.002), and counseling (47% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Internal care coordination was more effective than external community referral at connecting smokers to any cessation treatment (76% vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and at providing cessation medication (66% vs. 39%, p < 0.001), but comparable at linking smokers to cessation counseling resources.
CONCLUSIONS: Smokers responding to a population-based, proactive outreach strategy had better provision of tobacco cessation treatment when referred to either a health system-based or community-based program compared with usual care. The health system-based strategy outperformed the quitline-based one in several measures. Future work should aim to improve population reach and test the effect on smoking cessation rates.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03612895.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of two population-based tobacco cessation strategies, compared with usual care, on providing tobacco treatment outside of clinical encounters.
DESIGN: 3-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
PARTICIPANTS: Current smokers ≥ 18 years old with a primary care provider at one of five community health centers in Massachusetts were identified via the electronic health record (n = 5225) and recruited using automated phone calls.
INTERVENTIONS: One intervention group involved engagement with a health system-based tobacco coach (internal care coordination), and the other connected patients to a national quitline (external community referral).
MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of smokers with documentation of any evidence-based cessation treatment in the 6 months after enrollment.
KEY RESULTS: Of 639 individuals who responded to the proactive treatment offer, 233 consented and were randomized 1:1:1 to study arm. At 6-month follow-up, the pooled intervention group, compared with usual care, had higher documentation of any smoking cessation treatment (63% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), cessation medication prescription (52% vs. 30%, p = 0.002), and counseling (47% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Internal care coordination was more effective than external community referral at connecting smokers to any cessation treatment (76% vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and at providing cessation medication (66% vs. 39%, p < 0.001), but comparable at linking smokers to cessation counseling resources.
CONCLUSIONS: Smokers responding to a population-based, proactive outreach strategy had better provision of tobacco cessation treatment when referred to either a health system-based or community-based program compared with usual care. The health system-based strategy outperformed the quitline-based one in several measures. Future work should aim to improve population reach and test the effect on smoking cessation rates.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03612895.