Trial reportAtencion primaria2006
[Effectiveness of a programme of intensive tobacco counselling by nursing professionals].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Nursing interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Physician advice for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- The role of general practice nurses in supporting people to quit smoking: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a systematic intensive tobacco counselling programme conducted by nursing professionals.
designRandomised clinical trial with control.
settingPrimary care nursing and medical consultations.
participantsSmokers requesting help in our centre's medical clinics during the recruitment period, up to the sample size required (125). Inclusion criteria were: aged between 18 and 70, people who smoked during the preceding month any number of cigarettes a day, and a score over 7 on the Richmond test.
interventionsThe patients recruited were randomised, according to the clinic from which they came, to the group that received brief counselling from the doctor (control group) or to the group that received brief counselling plus nursing follow-up (intervention group). Follow-up visits were programmed in this latter group for up to 3 months after giving up smoking. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Abstinence at 12 and 24 months.
resultsThe effectiveness of the intervention considered as the rate of abstinence at 12 months was 13.8% (95% CI, 6.5-24.7) in the control group and 6.7% (95% CI, 1.8-16.2) in the intervention group, with no significant differences between the two.
conclusionsIn smokers seen in primary care, the effectiveness of a programme of intensive tobacco counselling by nursing staff is no more effective than the doctor's brief, one-off counselling. Brief counselling has a better cost-effectiveness relationship than intensive counselling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.