The impact of a brief tobacco-use cessation intervention in public health dental clinics

Oregon Research Institute, Eugene 97403-1983, USA.
Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) (Impact Factor: 2.01). 02/2005; 136(2):179-86; quiz 230-1. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0139
Source: PubMed


Public health dental clinic patients use tobacco at disproportionately high rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a tobacco-use cessation program delivered via public health dental practitioners.
Two public health dental clinics participated in this quasiexperimental design study. First, all patients in one clinic who used tobacco (n = 178) received usual care. Next, the authors trained all practitioners to conduct a tobacco-use assessment and provide a brief cessation intervention. Subsequently, all patients in both clinics who used tobacco (N = 190) received the intervention. All enrolled patients had an income at or below the federal poverty level. The authors conducted follow-up assessments at six weeks and three and six months after enrollment.
Differences in self-reported quitting by condition between participants in the two groups were significant across all endpoints. Patients in the intervention group were more likely to quit than those receiving usual care (15.5 versus 4.3 percent) and after 12 months (18.8 versus 4.6 percent). Controlling for enrollment differences between patients in the two groups (age, race/ethnicity, time to first cigarette after waking), the authors found that differences between groups were significant for quitting at three months (P < .05; odds ratio [OR] = 4.85; 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.20, 19.60), and six months (P < . 01; OR = 5.25; 95 percent CI = 1.35, 20.36).
The results of this study suggest the viability and effectiveness of delivering a tobacco intervention to low-income smokers via public dental practitioners. A randomized clinical trial is warranted.
The potential reach of public health dental clinics is great. Because of the high percentage of tobacco-using patients in these clinics, the public health impact of a program such as the one reported here would be significant.

5 Reads
  • Source
    • "A recent national survey found that 89% of dentists and 96% of dental hygienists reported that treating tobacco use was an important professional responsibility [10]. There are approximately 475 federally-funded, community or neighborhood health centers with dental clinics and another 250 community dental clinics throughout the US [11]. These community dental health centers serve predominantly low-income populations known to have a high prevalence of smoking [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although dental care settings provide an exceptional opportunity to reach smokers and provide brief cessation advice and treatment to reduce oral and other tobacco-related health conditions, dental care providers demonstrate limited adherence to evidence-based guidelines for treatment of tobacco use and dependence. Guided by a multi-level, conceptual framework that emphasizes changes in provider beliefs and organizational characteristics as drivers of improvement in tobacco treatment delivery, the current protocol will use a cluster, randomized design and multiple data sources (patient exit interviews, provider surveys, site observations, chart audits, and semi-structured provider interviews) to study the process of implementing clinical practice guidelines for treating tobacco dependence in 18 public dental care clinics in New York City. The specific aims of this comparative-effectiveness research trial are to: compare the effectiveness of three promising strategies for implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines--staff training and current best practices (CBP), CBP + provider performance feedback (PF), and CBP + PF + provider reimbursement for delivery of tobacco cessation treatment (pay-for-performance, or P4P); examine potential theory-driven mechanisms hypothesized to explain the comparative effectiveness of three strategies for implementation; and identify baseline organizational factors that influence the implementation of evidence-based tobacco use treatment practices in dental clinics. The primary outcome is change in providers' tobacco treatment practices and the secondary outcomes are cost per quit, use of tobacco cessation treatments, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence. We hypothesize that the value of these promising implementation strategies is additive and that incorporating all three strategies (CBP, PF, and P4P) will be superior to CBP alone and CBP + PF in improving delivery of cessation assistance to smokers. The findings will improve knowledge pertinent to the implementation, dissemination, and sustained utilization of evidence-based tobacco use treatment in dental practices.Trial registration: NCT01615237.
    Implementation Science 02/2014; 9(1):25. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-9-25 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Participants in both groups then gave written informed consent to participate. A brief intervention protocol had been recommended previously (Tomar, 2001; Gordon et al., 2005). The protocol in the intervention group consisted of 5 visits. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Smoking exerts detrimental effects on dental treatment and oral health. Our goal was to evaluate effectiveness in terms of the abstinence rate in smoking-cessation intervention delivered by dental professionals. Individuals who were willing to quit smoking were randomly assigned to either an intervention or a non-intervention group. Intensive intervention was provided, consisting of 5 counseling sessions, including an additional nicotine replacement regimen. Reported abstinence was verified by the salivary cotinine level. Thirty-three persons in the intervention and 23 in the non-intervention group started the trial. On an intent-to-treat basis, 3-, 6- and 12-month continuous abstinence rates in the intervention group were 51.5%, 39.4%, and 36.4%, respectively, while the rates in the non-intervention group were consistent at 13.0%. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) by logistic stepwise regression analyses were 7.1 (1.8, 28.5), 8.9 (1.7, 47.2), and 6.4 (1.3, 30.7), respectively. Intensive smoking-cessation intervention in the dental setting was therefore effective.
    Journal of dental research 12/2009; 89(1):66-70. DOI:10.1177/0022034509350867 · 4.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The hazards associated with cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use have been well documented. In addition to its association with many cancers and coronary conditions, tobacco plays a role in the aetiology of a number of oral morbidities. Dental care practitioners are a largely untapped resource for providing advice and brief counselling to tobacco-using patients, and there are good reasons to believe that they can be effective. Data from seven randomised trials indicate there is ample evidence for the efficacy of dental office-based interventions, but adoption of these tobacco cessation activities into practice has been slow. The limited research on dissemination of tobacco interventions is promising, but there is a need to develop and evaluate new methods for encouraging adoption, implementation and maintenance of tobacco interventions into routine dental care. Several studies currently under way may help to increase the effectiveness and dissemination of office-based tobacco cessation programmes into routine dental care. If dental practitioners provided cessation assistance routinely to their patients and achieved even modest success rates, the public health impact would be enormous. Researchers and clinicians must continue to work together towards universal adoption of effective tobacco cessation interventions at each clinical encounter.
    Drug and Alcohol Review 02/2006; 25(1):27-37. DOI:10.1080/09595230500459495 · 1.55 Impact Factor
Show more