ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of a 3.5h-training for general practitioners (GPs) in two different methods of giving brief stop-smoking advice – 5A (ask, advice, assess, assist, arrange) or ABC (ask, brief advice, cessation support) – during routine consultations with smoking patients.
DESIGN Pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post-design for the primary outcome and cluster randomisation for secondary outcomes.
SETTING General practices (cluster) in the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Region of the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The study opened to recruitment in June 2017 and closed in July 2019, with final follow-up in February 2020.
PARTICIPANTS General practices with their GPs were randomised (1:1) to receive training in either 5A or ABC. Tobacco smoking patients aged ≥ 18 years, who routinely consulted these GPs six weeks prior or six six following the training were eligible to participate. Non-smokers, those with limited literacy or incapability to provide informed consent, or who did not see their GP in person were ineligible.
INTERVENTIONS Two different standardised 3.5h-trainings (ABC or 5A), in small groups of ∼8 GPs, in delivering brief stop-smoking advice, moderated by a senior researcher and an experienced GP peer-trainer and including role-plays with professional actors.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome: patient-reported receipt of GP advice to quit, measured during a face-to-face interview directly following the consultation in the GP practice. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported receipt of GP delivered recommendation/prescription of evidence-based behavioural counselling; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); varenicline or bupropion; any pharmacotherapy (NRT, varenicline or bupropion); or a combination of behavioural support and pharmacotherapy. A further aim was to compare the effectiveness of the two methods (ABC vs. 5A) against each other regarding all outcomes. All analyses were adjusted for a priori defined potentially relevant confounders and by using imputed patient data for missing data on confounding variables. Main analyses were double-checked using complete cases patient data.
RANDOMISATION AND MASKING Two different methods of randomisation were applied, depending on how many GPs were available for the scheduled training dates (six training cycles over the course of two years, with two trainings – 5A and ABC – per cycle): computer-generated block randomisation, or randomisation by virtue of the GPs temporal availability. GPs could not be fully blinded with respect to their training allocation. Patients were blinded to the nature and aim of the study until the end of the data collection.
RESULTS 52 GP practices (with 69 GPs) participated in the training and data collection (ABC training: 27 GP practices, 5A training: 25 GP practices). Of 5,406 unique patients who routinely consulted their GP within 5 weeks prior/post training and provided informed consent to participate, 1,937 (35.9%) were current tobacco smokers. Of these, 1,039 were interviewed prior to, and 898 following, the training. The rates of stop-smoking advice delivered by GPs (primary outcome) increased from 13.1% (n=136/1,039) to 33.1% (n=297/898) following the training (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=3.25, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.34 to 4.51). Overall, recommendation/prescription rates of cessation treatment were low a priori (<2%), but had increased after the training (e.g., behavioural counselling: aOR=7.15, 95%CI=4.02 to 12.74; any pharmacotherapy: aOR=7.99, 95%CI=4.11 to 15.52). The increase in rates of stop-smoking advice following the training was higher in the ABC vs. 5A group (aOR=1.71, 95%CI=0.94 to 3.12), but the difference failed to be statistically significant (p=0.08).
CONCLUSIONS Our brief training offers a highly effective strategy to improve the delivery of evidence-based smoking cessation advice in general practice. ABC seems to be more feasible to apply for GPs during routine consultations. Approaches to further increase the delivery of stop-smoking advice, and upscaling implementation strategies for the ABC training in general practice, should be evaluated.
TRIAL REGISTRATION German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
Systematic review evidence shows that brief physician stop-smoking advice increases the likelihood that smokers attempt to quit and become abstinent, particularly if offered together with evidence-based smoking cessation treatment.
Clinical guidelines recommend such advice to be routinely delivered by primary care physicians (general practitioners, (GPs)), but the implementation of these recommendations by GPs in Germany – a country where approximately one third of the population still smokes tobacco - is low.
A strategy is needed to overcome barriers preventing GPs from routinely providing stop-smoking advice, such as a lack in knowledge and skills. No experimental study has evaluated such a strategy in German general practice so far.
Two methods of brief stop-smoking advice exist – 5A (ask, advice, assess, assist, arrange) or ABC (ask, brief advice, cessation support) – but it is unclear which method can be more effectively implemented by trained GPs.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
This cluster randomised controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of a 3.5h-training for GPs in providing brief stop-smoking advice and compared two different methods (ABC vs. 5A) on the rates of delivery of such advice and recommendations of evidence-based cessation treatment in 1,937 smoking patients from 52 GP practices in Germany.
The training, irrespective of the training method, was strongly associated with an increase in the rates of GP delivered advice and recommendation of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment.
The data suggests that a training according to ABC is more effective than 5A in increasing the rates of GP delivered stop-smoking advice.
Upscaling and implementation strategies should be evaluated for the ABC training in German general practice.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work other than the governmental funding source (see funding statment); DK received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer for an investigator-initiated trial on the effectiveness of practice nurse counselling and varenicline for smoking cessation in primary care in 2009 (Dutch Trial Register NTR3067). HM has received honoraria for speaking at smoking cessation meetings and attending advisory board meetings that have been organised by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, TR has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Glaxo Smith Kline, Astra Zeneca and Roche as a speaker in activities related to continuing medical education and financial support for investigator-initiated trials from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, RW has undertaken research and consultancy for companies that develop and manufacture smoking cessation medications (Pfizer, Johnsons & Johnson, and Glaxo Smith Kline) and is an advisor to the UK’s National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Clinical Trial
DRKS00012786
Clinical Protocols
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-4328-2
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health (grant number ZMVI1-2516DSM221, governmental funding) who had no involvement in the design of the study, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email co-authors Verena Leve: Verena.Leve{at}med.uni-duesseldorf.de, Jaqueline Hildebrandt: jaq.hildebrandt{at}gmail.com, Christian Funke: Christian.Funke{at}med.uni-duesseldorf.de, Stephanie Becker: StephanieKatharina.Klosterhalfen{at}med.uni-duesseldorf.de, Diana Lubisch: Diana.Lubisch{at}med.uni-duesseldorf.de, Olaf Reddemann: Olaf.Reddemann{at}med.uni-duesselorf.de, Hayden McRobbie: hayden{at}thedragon.institute, Tobias Raupach: raupach{at}med.uni-goettingen.de, Robert West: robertwest100{at}gmail.com, Stefan Wilm: Stefan.Wilm{at}med.uni-duesseldorf.de, Wolfgang Viechtbauer: Wolfgang.Viechtbauer{at}maastrichtuniversity.nl, Daniel Kotz: Daniel.Kotz{at}med.uni-duesseldorf.de
Data Availability
The data underlying this study are third-party data (de-identified participant data, syntax of statistical analyses) and are available to researchers on reasonable request from the corresponding author (sabrina.kastaun@med.uni-duesseldorf.de). All proposals requesting data access will need to specify how it is planned to use the data, and all proposals will need approval of the trial co-investigator team before data release.
Abbreviations
- BCT
- Behaviour Change Techniques
- BMG
- “Bundesministerium für Gesundheit” (German Federal Ministry of Health)
- CONSORT
- Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
- cRCT
- Cluster randomised controlled trial
- GPs
- General Practitioner
- HHU
- Heinrich-Heine University
- MTSS
- Motivation to Stop Scale
- NRT
- Nicotine replacement therapy
- SD
- Standard deviation
- SP
- Standardised patient
- SUTS
- Strength of Urges to Smoke Scale