Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28693456›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Impact of large-scale distribution and subsequent use of free nicotine patches on primary care physician interaction.

Vladyslav Kushnir, Beth A Sproule, John A Cunningham

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT01429129 (Randomized Controlled Trial of Mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Canadian Smokers), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT01429129 phase4completednot on this map

Randomized Controlled Trial of Mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Canadian Smokers

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthRan2012 to 2015Enrolled1,000ConditionsSmokingArmsNicotine replacement therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vladyslav KushnirCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada. vlad.kushnir@camh.ca.
Beth A SprouleCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada.
John A CunninghamCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge-scale distribution efforts of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) have been documented to be cost-effective interventions for increasing smoking quit rates. However, despite nearly a dozen studies evaluating their effectiveness, none have examined whether free NRT provision promotes further primary care help-seeking and the impact that it may have on cessation efforts.

methodsIn the context of a randomized controlled trial, a secondary analysis was conducted on 1000 adult regular smokers randomized to be mailed a 5-week supply of nicotine patches or to a no intervention control group. Recipients and users of free nicotine patches at an 8 week follow-up were successfully case matched to controls based on age, gender, baseline level of nicotine dependence and intent to quit (n = 201 per group). Differences in physician interaction between the two groups were evaluated at both 8 week and 6 month follow-ups. The impact of physician interaction on self-reported smoking abstinence at each follow-up was also examined.

resultsAlthough no differences in physician interaction were noted between groups at the 8 week follow-up, at the 6 month follow-up, nicotine patch users reported greater frequency of discussing smoking with their physician (43.9%), as compared to the control group (30.3%) (p = 0.011). Across both groups, over 90% of those that discussed smoking with a physician were encouraged to quit and approximately 70% were provided with additional support. Separate ANOVAs revealed no significant impact of physician interaction on cessation (p > 0.05), regardless of group or follow-up period, however, at the 6 month follow-up, nicotine patch users who discussed cessation with a physician had made serious quit attempts at significantly greater rates (72.6%), compared to controls (49.1%) (p = 0.007).

conclusionsIrrespective of group, the majority of smokers in the present study did not discuss cessation with their physician. Recipients and users of nicotine patches however, were more likely to discuss smoking with their physician, suggesting that the provision of free NRT particularly to those who are likely to use it may facilitate opportunities for benefits beyond the direct pharmacological effects of the medication.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov , NCT01429129 . Registered: 2 September 2011.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CarePhysicians, Primary CareSmoking CessationTobacco Use Cessation DevicesAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedNicotinePostal ServicePractice Patterns, Physicians'SmokingTobacco Use DisorderNicotineHealth professionalsNicotine replacement therapyPrimary care physiciansSmoking cessationTobacco

Identifiers

PMID28693456
PMCPMC5504597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.