Abstract
This study assessed the effectiveness of a 3.5h-training for general practitioners (GPs) in providing brief stop-smoking advice and compared two methods of giving advice – ABC versus 5As – on the rates of delivery of such advice and of recommendations of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment during routine consultations.
Pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial including a pre-post-design for the analyses of the primary outcome in 52 GP practices (Germany). Practices were randomised (1:1) to receive a 3.5h-training (ABC or 5As). In total, 1937 tobacco smoking patients, who consulted trained GPs in these practices in the 6 weeks prior to or following the training were included. Primary outcome: patient-reported rates of GP-delivered stop-smoking advice prior and following the training, irrespective of the training method. Secondary outcomes: patient-reported receipt of recommendation/prescription of behavioural therapy, pharmacotherapy, or combination therapy for smoking cessation; and the effectiveness of ABC versus 5As regarding all outcomes.
GP-delivered stop-smoking advice increased from 13.1% (n=136/1039) to 33.1% (n=297/898) following the training (aOR=3.25, 95%CI=2.34 to 4.51). Recommendation/prescription rates of evidence-based treatments were low (<2%) pre-training, but had all increased after the training (e.g., behavioural support: aOR=7.15, 95%CI=4.02 to 12.74). Delivery of stop-smoking advice increased non-significantly (p=0.08) stronger in the ABC versus 5As group (aOR=1.71, 95%CI=0.94 to 3.12).
A single training session in stop-smoking advice was associated with a three-fold increase in rates of advice giving and a seven-fold increase in offer of support. The ABC method may lead to higher rates of GP-delivered advice during routine consultations.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Kastaun has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: V. Leve has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: J. Hildebrandt has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: C. Funke has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: S. Klosterhalfen has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: D. Lubisch has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: O. Reddemann has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: H. McRobbie reports honoraria for speaking at smoking cessation meetings and attending advisory board meetings from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Raupach reports personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Glaxo Smith Kline, Astra Zeneca and Roche as a speaker in activities related to continuing medical education, grants from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: Dr. West reports grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Johnsons & Johnson, and Glaxo Smith Kline, personal fees from Advisor to the UK's National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: S. Wilm has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: V. Leve has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: D. Kotz has nothing to disclose.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received August 28, 2020.
- Accepted October 10, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020
This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.