ArticleWMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin2018
Identifying Differences in Rates of Invitation to Participate in Tobacco Treatment in Primary Care.
Article in WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nine years of smoking data from incarcerated men: A call to action for tobacco dependence interventions.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe progress achieved in reducing tobacco use has not been consistent across groups of smokers, and health systems are inconsistently implementing best practice guidelines. Guideline implementation could be associated with improved treatment invitation rates.
aimsTo evaluate differences in tobacco treatment invitation rates based on patient characteristics in primary care clinics implementing best practice guidelines.
methodsA secondary analysis of patients presenting to 11 primary care clinics from 2 Wisconsin health systems from June 2010 to February 2013. The main outcome was whether patients received an invitation to participate in tobacco treatment. Invitation rates were examined by sex, age group (≤ 24 years, 25-44, 45-64, ≥ 64), race (white, black, other), insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, none), and visit diagnosis ("high-risk" [cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, malignancy, pregnancy] vs "low-risk" [all other ICD-9 categories]). Moderation effects of health systems also were examined.
resultsOf the 95,471 patients seen, 84,668 (89%) were screened for smoking. Among the 15,193 smokers, 10,242 (67%) were invited to participate. Invited patients were older, white or black, and carried low-risk diagnoses. Invitation rates and patient-level differences varied between the health systems.
conclusionsVariable treatment invitation rates and health system differences remain evident in the primary care setting employing robust clinical practice guideline recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30193019PMC6132262What 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.