Training general practitioners in the ABC versus 5As method of delivering stop-smoking advice: a pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial
This study assessed the effectiveness of a 3.5-h training session for general practitioners (GPs) in providing brief stop-smoking advice and compared two methods of giving advice - ABC versus 5As - on the rates of delivery of such advice and of recommendations of evidence-based smoking cessation tre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | ERJ open research 2021-07, Vol.7 (3), p.621, Article 00621 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | This study assessed the effectiveness of a 3.5-h training session for general practitioners (GPs) in providing brief stop-smoking advice and compared two methods of giving advice - ABC versus 5As - on the rates of delivery of such advice and of recommendations of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment during routine consultations.
A pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial was carried out including a pre-/post-design for the analyses of the primary outcome in 52 GP practices in Germany. Practices were randomised (1:1) to receive a 3.5-h training session (ABC or 5As). In total, 1937 tobacco-smoking patients, who consulted trained GPs in these practices in the 6 weeks prior to or following the training, were included. The primary outcome was patient-reported rates of GP-delivered stop-smoking advice prior to and following the training, irrespective of the training method. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported receipt of recommendation/prescription of behavioural therapy, pharmacotherapy or combination therapy for smoking cessation, and the effectiveness of ABC versus 5As regarding all outcomes.
GP-delivered stop-smoking advice increased from 13.1% (n=136 out of 1039) to 33.1% (n=297 out of 898) following the training (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.25, 95% CI 2.34-4.51). Recommendation/prescription rates of evidence-based treatments were low ( |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2312-0541 2312-0541 |
DOI: | 10.1183/23120541.00621-2020 |