Article

Internet Delivered Support for Tobacco Control in Dental Practice: Randomized Controlled Trial

Surgical and Medical Acute care and Advanced illness Research and Transition sciences (SMAART) Center, VA HSR&D REAP, Birmingham VA Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Journal of Medical Internet Research (Impact Factor: 4.67). 02/2008; 10(5):e38. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1095
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The dental visit is a unique opportunity for tobacco control. Despite evidence of effectiveness in dental settings, brief provider-delivered cessation advice is underutilized.
To evaluate an Internet-delivered intervention designed to increase implementation of brief provider advice for tobacco cessation in dental practice settings.
Dental practices (N = 190) were randomized to the intervention website or wait-list control. Pre-intervention and after 8 months of follow-up, each practice distributed exit cards (brief patient surveys assessing provider performance, completed immediately after the dental visit) to 100 patients. Based on these exit cards, we assessed: whether patients were asked about tobacco use (ASK) and, among tobacco users, whether they were advised to quit tobacco (ADVISE). All intervention practices with follow-up exit card data were analyzed as randomized regardless of whether they participated in the Internet-delivered intervention.
Of the 190 practices randomized, 143 (75%) dental practices provided follow-up data. Intervention practices' mean performance improved post-intervention by 4% on ASK (29% baseline, adjusted odds ratio = 1.29 [95% CI 1.17-1.42]), and by 11% on ADVISE (44% baseline, OR = 1.55 [95% CI 1.28-1.87]). Control practices improved by 3% on ASK (Adj. OR 1.18 [95% CI 1.07-1.29]) and did not significantly improve in ADVISE. A significant group-by-time interaction effect indicated that intervention practices improved more over the study period than control practices for ADVISE (P = 0.042) but not for ASK.
This low-intensity, easily disseminated intervention was successful in improving provider performance on advice to quit.
clinicaltrials.gov NCT00627185, http://www.webcitation.org/5c5Kugvzj.

1 Follower
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Brief clinician delivered advice helps in tobacco cessation efforts. This study assessed the impact of our intervention on instances of advice given to dental patients during visits on tobacco use quit rates 6 months after the intervention. METHODS: The intervention was cluster randomized trial at the dental practice level. Intervention dental practices were provided a longitudinal technology-assisted intervention, oralcancerprevention.org that included a series of interactive educational cases and motivational email cues to remind dental provides to complete guideline-concordant brief behavioral counseling at the point of care. In all dental practices, exit cards were given to the first 100 consecutive patients, in which tobacco users provided contact information for a six month follow-up telephone survey. RESULTS: A total of 564 tobacco using dental patients completed a six month follow-up survey. Among intervention patients, 55% reported receiving advice to quit tobacco, and 39% of control practice patients reported receiving advice to quit tobacco (p < 0.01). Six-month tobacco use quit rates were not significantly between the Intervention (9%) and Control (13%) groups, (p = 0.088). CONCLUSION: Although we increased rates of cessation advice delivered in dental practices, this study shows no evidence that brief advice by dentist's increases long-term abstinence in smokers.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00627185.
    BMC Oral Health 02/2013; 13(1):13. DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-13-13 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Tobacco use is still the leading preventable cause of death and morbidity in the U.S. Web-assisted tobacco interventions are an effective but underutilized tool in assisting smokers with quitting. The dental visit is an excellent opportunity to assist smokers in quitting by referring them to these tobacco-cessation online programs. Purpose The study purpose was to test two patient referral methods—paper referrals (information prescriptions) versus paper plus e-referrals—to a web-assisted smoking-cessation induction system. Design RCT that used implementation research methods. Participants/setting A total of 100 community-based dental practices were enrolled and 1814 smokers were referred to the web-assisted tobacco induction system. Intervention The study intervention was a proactive e-referral of smokers to a web-assisted tobacco induction system called Decide2Quit.org, and the control group used paper referrals (information prescriptions) to refer smokers to the Decide2Quit.org. Main outcome measurements The outcome measurements were the referral numbers, Decide2Quit registration numbers, and the smokers’ quit rate. Data were collected in 2010–2011 and analyses were completed in 2012. Results Although total referrals from intervention practices was lower than control, subsequent proportions of registrations among smokers referred to Decide2Quit.org were nearly fourfold higher (adjusted mean percentages: 29.5% vs 7.6%, p<0.01) in intervention compared with control practices. Subsequent rates of cessation among referred smokers were threefold higher (adjusted mean percentages: 3.0% vs 0.8%, p=0.03) in intervention practices as compared with control. Conclusions Intervention practices using the e-referral system had higher smoker registration numbers and higher quit smoking rates than the control practices. This study finds that e-referrals are effective in getting smokers to the web-assisted smoking-cessation induction system and in assisting with quitting that more than compensates for any additional effort that e-referrals require on the part of the practitioner. Clinical Trial Registration DPBRN Hygienists Internet Quality Improvement in Tobacco Cessation (HiQuit); NCT01108432
    American journal of preventive medicine 02/2014; 46(2):158–165. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.018 · 4.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users. This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by oral health professionals and offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-November 2011), EMBASE (1988-November 2011), CINAHL (1982-November 2011), Healthstar (1975-November 2011), ERIC (1967-November 2011), PsycINFO (1984-November 2011), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-November 2011), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-November 2011), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-November 2011), and Web of Science (1993-November 2011). We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow-up. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from smoking or all tobacco use (for users of smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. The effect was summarised as an odds ratio, with correction for clustering where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using an inverse variance fixed-effect model. Fourteen clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or in a community school or college setting. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions among smokeless tobacco (ST) users, and eight studies evaluated interventions among cigarette smokers, six of which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. All studies employed behavioral interventions and only one required pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling all 14 studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals can increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44 to 2.03) at six months or longer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 61%). Within the subgroup of interventions for smokers, heterogeneity was smaller (I² = 51%), but was largely attributable to a large study showing no evidence of benefit. Within this subgroup there were five studies which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. Pooling these showed clear evidence of benefit and minimal heterogeneity (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.35, 5 studies, I² = 3%) but this was a posthoc subgroup analysis. Amongst the studies in smokeless tobacco users the heterogeneity was also attributable to a large study showing no sign of benefit, possibly due to intervention spillover to control colleges; the other five studies indicated that interventions for ST users were effective (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.11). Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in conjunction with an oral examination was a consistent intervention component that was also provided in some control groups.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 6(6):CD005084. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005084.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor