ArticleClinical cardiology2011
Cardiology Rx for Change: improving clinical attention to tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure in cardiology.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lessons Learned from a Shared Curriculum on Tobacco Cessation Using a Mixed-Methods Approach.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Shared Tobacco Cessation Curriculum Website for Health Professionals: Longitudinal Analysis of User and Utilization Data Over a Period of 15 Years.JMIR medical education · 2021Article
- The Past, Present, and Future of Nicotine Addiction Therapy.Annual review of medicine · 2016Review
- Secondhand smoke and atrial fibrillation: Data from the Health eHeart Study.Heart rhythm · 2016Article
- Enhancing team-based active learning through hands-on experience with nicotine replacement therapy.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart disease is the leading cause of tobacco-related death in smokers and of deaths due to secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in nonsmokers. This study centers on the development and evaluation of an evidence-based model curriculum for improving clinical attention to tobacco use and SHS exposure in cardiology. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the curriculum would be associated with improvements in clinician tobacco-related knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and counseling behaviors from pre-to post-training and at the 3-month follow-up.
methodsThe 1-hour Cardiology Rx for Change curriculum was evaluated with 22 cardiology fellows and 77 medical residents with consistent training effects observed between the 2 groups.
resultsTrainees' tobacco treatment knowledge increased significantly from pre- to post-training (t[81] = 6.51, P<0.001), and perceived barriers to providing cessation treatment decreased significantly (t[81] = -3.97, P<0.001). The changes, however, were not sustained at the 3-month follow-up, suggesting the need for booster training efforts. From pretraining to 3-month follow-up, the training was associated with significant sustained gains in clinician confidence for treating tobacco dependence (t[61] = 3.69, P = 0.001) and with improvements in clinicians assessing patients' readiness to quit smoking (from 61% to 79%, t[59] = 3.69,P<0.001) and providing assistance with quitting (from 47% to 59%, t[59] = 2.12, P = 0.038). Asking patients about tobacco use, advising cessation, and arranging follow-up also increased over time, but not significantly. All participants (100%) recommended the curriculum for dissemination to other training programs.
conclusionsAvailable online via http://rxforchange.ucsf.edu, Cardiology Rx for Change offers a packaged training tool for improving treatment of tobacco use and SHS exposure in cardiology care.
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.