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., number NCT01194596.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Even though smoking has decreased significantly over the last few years, the majority of Icelanders 40 years of age or older have a history of smoking. Limited information is available on respiratory symptoms and diagnosis of chronic obstructive lung diseases (COPD) in this group. During a four week period at the Akureyri Primary Care Center all individuals above the age of 40 were given a questionnaire on smoking, respiratory symptoms and medical treatment. There were a total of 416 individuals and the response rate was 63%. Spirometry was done on those who had smoked. Of the 259 responders, 150 (57,9%) had a history of smoking. In this group 117 (45,2%) had quit but 33 (12,7%) were still smoking. Of those that had a history of smoking 16% had COPD according to spirometry results and 2/3 did not have a previous diagnosis. Respiratory symptoms were more common with increasing obstruction. Of the smokers 26% had never been advised by a physician to stop smoking. A total of 14,3% of the whole group had a previous diagnosis of emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic bronchitis. Altogether 23,5% had previously been diagnosed with asthma, asthmatic bronchitis or allergic bronchitis. A history of smoking was common among the primary care patients. One in six who had a smoking history were found to have COPD and the majority were unaware of the diagnosis. Respiratory diagnoses were common. By spirometric evaluation many smokers are diagnosed with previously unknown COPD.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2012 · Laeknabladid
  • Source

    Full-text · Article · Jun 2012 · Laeknabladid
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · May 2013 · Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Show more