Abstract
PURPOSE Guidelines encourage primary care clinicians to document smoking status when obtaining patients’ blood pressure, temperature, and pulse rate (vital signs), but whether this practice promotes cessation counseling is unclear. We examined whether the vital sign intervention influences patient-reported frequency and intensity of tobacco cessation counseling.
METHODS This study was a cluster-randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN). At intervention practices, nurses and medical assistants were instructed to assess the tobacco use status of every adult patient and record it with the traditional vital signs. Control practices did not use any systematic tobacco screening or identification system. Outcomes were the proportion of smokers reporting clinician counseling of any kind and the frequency of 2 counseling subcomponents: simple quit advice and more intensive discussion.
RESULTS A total of 6,729 adult patients (1,149 smokers) at 18 primary care practices completed exit questionnaires during a 6-month comparison period. Among 561 smokers at intervention practices, 61.9% reported receiving any counseling, compared with 53.4% of the 588 smokers at control practices, for a difference of 8.6% (P = .04). The effect was largely restricted to simple advice, which was reported by 59.9% of intervention patients and 51.5% of control patients (P=.04). There was no significant increase in more extensive discussion, with 32.5% and 29.3% of patients at intervention and control practices, respectively, reporting this type of counseling (P=.18).
CONCLUSIONS The vital sign intervention promotes tobacco counseling at primary care practices through a modest increase in simple advice to quit. When implemented as a stand-alone intervention, it does not appear to increase intensive counseling.
- Smoking
- tobacco
- smoking cessation
- vital signs
- vital sign intervention
- health behavior
- counseling
- primary care
- office visits
- practice-based research
Footnotes
-
Conflicts of interest: Dr. Johnson has been paid by Altria Group, Inc, for statistical consulting services unrelated to this study. All of the other authors report no potential conflicts of interest.
-
Funding support: This study was funded through 2 grants to Dr Rothemich from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, including a Generalist Physician Faculty Scholars Program award (036798) and a supplemental grant (043145).
-
Disclaimer: The Foundation had no role in the design or conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Drs Rothemich and Johnson had full access to all data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
-
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00245323.
Preliminary findings of this work were presented as a poster at the North Primary Care Research Group Meeting, October 12, 2004, Orlando, FL; at the AHRQ PBRN Research Conference, July 21, 2005, Washington, DC; and at the North American Primary Care Research Group Meeting, October 16, 2005, Quebec City, Ontario.
- Received for publication March 6, 2006.
- Revision received May 15, 2007.
- Accepted for publication June 4, 2007.
- © 2008 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.