Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25995158›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2016

Financial Incentives and Inequalities in Smoking Cessation Interventions in Primary Care: Before-and-After Study.

Fiona L Hamilton, Anthony A Laverty, Kit Huckvale, Josip Car, Azeem Majeed, Christopher Millett

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Smoking cessation and the cardiovascular patient.Current opinion in cardiology · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fiona L HamiltonDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anthony A LavertyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom a.laverty@imperial.ac.uk.
Kit HuckvaleDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Josip CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher MillettDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP_2014-04-032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a financial incentive scheme that rewards UK general practices for providing evidence-based care, including smoking cessation advice mainly as a secondary prevention intervention. We examined the effects on smoking outcomes and inequalities of a local version of QOF (QOF+), which ran from 2008 to 2011 and extended financial incentives to the provision of cessation advice as a primary prevention intervention.

methodsBefore-and-after study using data from 28 general practices in Hammersmith & Fulham, London, United Kingdom. We used logistic regression to examine changes in smoking outcomes associated with QOF+ within and between sociodemographic groups.

resultsRecording of smoking status increased from 55.5% to 64.3% for men (P < .001) and from 67.9% to 75.8% for women (P < .001). All groups benefitted from the increase, but younger patients remained less likely to be asked about smoking than older patients. White patients were less likely to be asked than those from other ethnic groups. Smoking cessation advice increased from 32.7% to 54.0% for men (P < .001) and from 35.4% to 54.1% for women (P < .01) and there was little variation between groups for this outcome. Recorded smoking prevalence reduced from 25.0% to 20.8% for men (P < .001) and from 16.1% to 12.5% for women (P < .001). White patients and those from more deprived areas remained more likely to be smokers than other groups.

conclusionThe introduction of QOF+ was associated with general improvements in recording of smoking outcomes, but inequalities in ascertainment and smoking prevalence with respect to age, ethnicity, and deprivation persisted.

Indexed as

MotivationAdolescentAdultAgedEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth PromotionHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRewardSmokingSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

PMID25995158
PMCPMC5942534
OpenAlexW1901452178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.