Preventive medicine · 1999
Can brief intervention through community dental care have an effect on adolescent smoking?
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kentala J, Utriainen P, Pahkala K, Mattila K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Community dental clinics are good settings for smoking intervention. The aim here was to put forward a strategy for preventing adolescent smoking by means of a brief intervention.
METHODS: A total of 2,586 12-year-olds participated in this follow-up study. They were asked upon arrival for their annual routine dental examination to complete a smoking questionnaire and were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the usual care control group according to the last digit of their date of birth (odd or even). The intervention comprised annually inquiring about smoking, showing photographs of the harmful effects of smoking on the teeth, allowing participants to examine their own mouth with a mirror, and finally counselling them in accordance with their answer to the question on smoking habits. The smoking status reported was not verified by other means.
RESULTS: The prevalence of smoking at the end of the 2-year follow-up was 18.1%, in the intervention group and 20.8% among the controls. However, no statistically significant differences between groups were found.
CONCLUSIONS: These results reflect the difficulties of achieving successful results with long-term smoking cessation programs with adolescents in unstable conditions.
METHODS: A total of 2,586 12-year-olds participated in this follow-up study. They were asked upon arrival for their annual routine dental examination to complete a smoking questionnaire and were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the usual care control group according to the last digit of their date of birth (odd or even). The intervention comprised annually inquiring about smoking, showing photographs of the harmful effects of smoking on the teeth, allowing participants to examine their own mouth with a mirror, and finally counselling them in accordance with their answer to the question on smoking habits. The smoking status reported was not verified by other means.
RESULTS: The prevalence of smoking at the end of the 2-year follow-up was 18.1%, in the intervention group and 20.8% among the controls. However, no statistically significant differences between groups were found.
CONCLUSIONS: These results reflect the difficulties of achieving successful results with long-term smoking cessation programs with adolescents in unstable conditions.