ArticleTobacco use insights2020
Changes in Addressing Patients' Smoking: Cross-Sectional Data from 2002 and 2014 among Physicians in Estonia.
Article in Tobacco use insights, 2020. 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.
- Evaluating the longitudinal effectiveness of a smoking cessation counselling course based on the 5A model for medical students in family medicine placement.GMS journal for medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor health professionals, personal and contextual factors influence addressing patients' smoking habits. The objective of the study was to describe frequency of addressing patients' smoking in 2002 and 2014 and to analyse factors related to addressing patients' smoking habits.
methodsData of physicians from 2 postal cross-sectional surveys were used (n = 4140 in 2002, n = 5666 in 2014). The number of respondents was 2747 in 2002 and 2903 in 2014. The corrected response rate was 67.8% and 53.1%, respectively. Age-standardized frequency of addressing patients' smoking during the last 7 days was determined. Distribution of other variables along with confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Logistic regression was used to analyse association of addressing patients' smoking with attitudes and perceived barriers regarding addressing patients' smoking and with background factors. Fully adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were calculated.
resultsThe age-standardized prevalence of addressing patients' smoking habits among men was 84.4% (95% CI 80.3-88.5) in 2002 and 88.3% (95% CI (84.5-92.2) in 2014, among women 82.1% (95% CI 80.2-83.9) and 89.0% (95% CI 87.2-90.8), respectively. According to logistic regression analysis, in 2014, significantly more physicians agreed that it is doctors' responsibility to convince people to stop smoking (among men, OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.19-4.54, among women OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.88), that smoking prevention should form part of health professionals' training, that physicians should have smoking related hand-out materials, and that lack of time was a barrier to addressing patients' smoking. Addressing patients' smoking was significantly associated with attitudes and perceived barriers regarding addressing patients' smoking, age, and other background factors (among women only).
conclusionsAddressing patients' smoking habits was more common in 2014 than in 2002, but the change was significant among women only. Compared to 2002, in 2014 physicians' attitudes regarding addressing patients' smoking were more approving. Results of this study are useful for policymakers and institutions involved in organization and development of smoking prevention training and cessation services.
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.