Effectiveness of a structured motivational intervention including smoking cessation advice and spirometry information in the primary care setting: The ESPITAP study

Study Group on Respiratory Tract Diseases (GEPAR), Primary Care Research Institute (IDIAP) Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.26). 11/2011; 11(1):859. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-859
Source: PubMed


There is current controversy about the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions that are based on information obtained by spirometry. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness in the primary care setting of structured motivational intervention to achieve smoking cessation, compared with usual clinical practice.

Multicentre randomized clinical trial with an intervention and a control group.
12 primary care centres in the province of Tarragona (Spain). SUBJECTS OF STUDY: 600 current smokers aged between 35 and 70 years with a cumulative habit of more than 10 packs of cigarettes per year, attended in primary care for any reason and who did not meet any of the exclusion criteria for the study, randomly assigned to structured intervention or standard clinical attention.
Usual advice to quit smoking by a general practitioner as well as a 20-minute personalized visit to provide detailed information about spirometry results, during which FEV1, FVC, FEF 25-75% and PEF measurements were discussed and interpreted in terms of theoretical values. Additional information included the lung age index (defined as the average age of a non-smoker with the same FEV1 as the study participant), comparing this with the chronological age to illustrate the pulmonary deterioration that results from smoking.
Spirometry during the initial visit. Structured interview questionnaire administered at the primary care centre at the initial visit and at 12-month follow-up. Telephone follow-up interview at 6 months. At 12-month follow-up, expired CO was measured in patients who claimed to have quit smoking.
Smoking cessation at 12 months.
Data will be analyzed on the basis of "intention to treat" and the unit of analysis will be the individual smoker.
Among active smokers treated in primary care we anticipate significantly higher smoking cessation in the intervention group than in the control group.
Application of a motivational intervention based on structured information about spirometry results, improved abstinence rates among smokers seen in actual clinical practice conditions in primary care.
ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT01194596.

Download full-text


Available from: Francisco Martín-Luján,
  • Source

    Laeknabladid 06/2012; · 0.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation, and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in January 2013 for trials of interventions involving physicians. We also searched Latin American databases through BVS (Virtual Library in Health) in February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomisation and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We also considered the effect of advice on mortality where long-term follow-up data were available. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. People lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Effects were expressed as relative risks. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2012, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, participants were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics.Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) detected a significant increase in the rate of quitting (relative risk (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.94). Amongst 11 trials where the intervention was judged to be more intensive the estimated effect was higher (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.13) but there was no statistical difference between the intensive and minimal subgroups. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.56). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. This study found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Assuming an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3%, a brief advice intervention can increase quitting by a further 1 to 3%. Additional components appear to have only a small effect, though there is a small additional benefit of more intensive interventions compared to very brief interventions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 05/2013; 5(5):CD000165. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub4 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global health challenge and a leading cause of death worldwide. Several risk factors have been identified, with cigarette smoking being the most important. Diagnostic assessment is based on symptoms, risk of exacerbations and results of lung function testing. A fixed post-bronchodilator ratio for forced expiratory volume in one second to forced expiratory volume (FEV1/FVC) of <0.7 is required to make the diagnosis, and the severity of airflow obstruction defines the grade according to GOLD (Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD). The GOLD strategy makes therapeutic recommendations taking into account the grade, symptomatic assessment and future risk of exacerbations. This review focuses on the therapeutic options for COPD, in accordance with the GOLD strategy. Smoking cessation is the most effective treatment option in all COPD stages. Bronchodilators, namely long-acting antimuscarinic drugs and long-acting beta-agonists, form the mainstay of treatment in COPD. Patients with frequent exacerbations also benefited from the addition of inhaled corticosteroids. Roflumilast is an add-on option for patients with severe COPD. Several controversies are the subject of discussion: (1.) whether pharmacotherapy can modify the natural history of COPD; (2.) whether pharmacotherapy should be started in the early stages of COPD; (3.) the impact of therapy on comorbidities; (4.) whether patients benefit from a combination therapy with a long-acting beta-agonist, a long-acting antimuscarinic drug and an inhaled corticosteroid; (5.) step-down therapy. This overview also reviews the evidence for recommended vaccines in COPD, as well as nonpharmacological therapies. Rehabilitation is an essential part of COPD treatment. Oxygen therapy, noninvasive nocturnal ventilation and surgical treatment options only apply to a highly selected group of patients. Disease management programmes and guideline adherence are briefly discussed. In conclusion, although there is debate as to the extent with which pharmacological therapies influence mortality, adherence to the GOLD strategy is recommended.
    Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift 04/2013; 143. DOI:10.4414/smw.2013.13777 · 2.09 Impact Factor
Show more