Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31351460›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Effectiveness of training general practitioners to improve the implementation of brief stop-smoking advice in German primary care: study protocol of a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (the ABCII trial).

Sabrina Kastaun, Verena Leve, Jaqueline Hildebrandt, Christian Funke, Stephanie Becker, Diana Lubisch, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Olaf Reddemann, Linn Hempel, Hayden McRobbie and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Sabrina KastaunInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany. Sabrina.Kastaun@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5590-1135
Verena LeveInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jaqueline HildebrandtInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Christian FunkeInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Stephanie BeckerInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Diana LubischInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Wolfgang ViechtbauerDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Olaf ReddemannInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Linn HempelClinical Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Hayden McRobbieWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Tobias RaupachDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Robert WestResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel KotzInstitute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Werdener Str. 4, 40227, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEMaastricht University · NLQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe German clinical guideline on tobacco addiction recommends that general practitioners (GPs) provide brief stop-smoking advice to their patients according to the "5A" or the much briefer "ABC" method, but its implementation is insufficient. A lack of training is one barrier for GPs to provide such advice. Moreover, the respective effectiveness of a 5A or ABC training regarding subsequent delivery of stop-smoking advice has not been investigated. We developed a training for GPs according to both methods, and conducted a pilot study with process evaluation to optimize the trainings according to the needs of GPs. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of both trainings.

methodsA pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post data collection will be conducted in 48 GP practices in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). GPs will be randomised to receive a 3.5-h-training in delivering either 5A or ABC, including peer coaching and intensive role plays with professional actors. The patient-reported primary outcome (receipt of GP advice to quit: yes/no) and secondary outcomes (recommendation rates of smoking cessation treatments, group comparison (5A versus ABC): receipt of GP advice to quit) will be collected in smoking patients routinely consulting their GP within 4 weeks prior, and 4 weeks following the training. Additional secondary outcomes will be collected at 4, 12 and 26 weeks following the consultation: use of cessation treatments during the last quit attempt (if so) since the GP consultation, and point-prevalence abstinence rates. The primary data analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with random effects for the cluster variable. DISCUSSION: If the training increases the rates of delivery of stop-smoking advice, it would offer a low-threshold strategy for the guideline implementation in German primary care. Should one method prove superior, a more specific guideline recommendation can be proposed.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsGeneral PractitionersGermanyHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSmoking CessationBrief smoking cessation adviceGeneral practitionerNational practice guidelinePrimary careTobacco addiction

Identifiers

PMID31351460
PMCPMC6660716
OpenAlexW2964942476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.