4.7 Article

Patient-reported recall of smoking cessation interventions from a health professional

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages 715-717

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.07.010

Keywords

Tobacco use cessation; Smoking cessation; Counseling; Adult; Questionnaires

Funding

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To determine the prevalence and characteristics of current cigarette smokers who report receiving health care provider interventions ('5A's': ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange) for smoking cessation. Methods. Data came from the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey, a telephone survey of United States adults aged >= 18 years. Among current cigarette smokers who reported visiting a health professional in the past year (n = 16,542), estimates were calculated overall and by sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, income, health insurance coverage, and sexual orientation. Results. Among smokers who visited a health professional (75.2%), 87.9% were asked if they used tobacco, 65.8% were advised to quit, and 42.6% were asked if they wanted to quit. Among those wanting to quit, 78.2% were offered assistance and 17.5% had follow-up arranged. Receipt of the 'ask' component was lower among males and uninsured individuals. Receipt of the 'advise' and 'assess' components was lower among those aged 18-24 and uninsured individuals. Receipt of the 'assist' component was lower among non-Hispanic blacks. No differences were observed for the 'arrange' component. Conclusions. Many current smokers report receiving health care provider interventions for smoking cessation. Continued efforts to educate, encourage, and support all health professionals to provide effective, comprehensive tobacco cessation interventions to their patients may be beneficial. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available