Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10908465›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Training health professionals in smoking cessation.

T Lancaster, C Silagy, G Fowler

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01277250 (Web-based Smoking Cessation Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01277250 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

Web-based Smoking Cessation Intervention: Transition From Inpatient to Outpatient

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamRan2011 to 2014Enrolled1,548ConditionsCigarette Smoking, Home Access to Internet and Email, Cognitively and Physically Able to Participate, English Speaking and ReadingArmsWeb-based smoking cessation program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Training health professionals in smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Activating lay health influencers to promote tobacco cessation.American journal of health behavior · 2014
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. A randomized trial of computer-delivered brief intervention and low-intensity contingency management for smoking during pregnancy.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2012
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T LancasterICRF General Practice Research Group, Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF. tim.lancaster@dphpc.ox.ac.uk.
C Silagy
G Fowler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase rates of smoking cessation. A number of trials have examined whether specific skills training for health professionals leads them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke.

objectivesThe aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of training health care professionals to deliver smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of prompts and reminders to the health professional to intervene. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies relating to training. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in which the intervention was training of health care professionals in smoking cessation. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking rates at least six months after the intervention. We reported on process outcomes, but we excluded trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of health professionals, the nature of and duration of the training, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measures were 1. Rates of abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. 2. Rates of performance of tasks of smoking cessation by health care professionals including offering counselling, setting quit dates, giving follow-up appointments, distributing self-help materials and recommending nicotine gum. MAIN

resultsHealthcare professionals who had received training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls. Of eight studies that compared patient smoking behaviour between trained professionals and controls, six found no effect of intervention. The effects of training on process outcomes increased if prompts and reminders were used. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsTraining health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions had a measurable effect on professional performance. There was no strong evidence that it changed smoking behaviour.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.