Observational studyHealth services research2020
Trends in smoking documentation rates in safety net clinics.
Observational study in Health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation strategies to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies.BMC primary care · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Validation of a Deep Learning-Based Model to Predict Lung Cancer Risk Using Chest Radiographs and Electronic Medical Record Data.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among Primary Care Patients at an Urban Community Center.Journal of community health · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Using Chest Radiographs to Identify High-Risk Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening Computed Tomography: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model.Annals of internal medicine · 2020Article
- Trends in smoking documentation rates in safety net clinics.Health services research · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of provider incentive policy on smoking status documentation. DATA SOURCES: Primary data were extracted from structured electronic medical records (EMRs) from 15 community health centers (CHCs). STUDY
designThis was an observational study of data from 2006 to 2013, assessing changes in documentation of smoking status over time. DATA EXTRACTION
methodsWe extracted structured EMR data for patients age 18 and older with at least one primary care visit. PRINCIPAL
findingsRates of documented smoking status rose from 30 percent in 2006 to 90 percent in 2013; the largest increase occurred from 2011 to 2012 following policy changes (21.3% [95% CI, 8.2%, 34.4%] from the overall trend). Rates varied by clinic and across patient subgroups.
conclusionsDocumentation of smoking status improved markedly after introduction of new federal standards. Further improvement in documentation is still needed, especially for males, nonwhite patients, those using opioids, and HIV + patients. More research is needed to study whether changes in documentation lead to improvements in counseling, cessation, and patient outcomes.
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.