Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38196686›Full record

ReviewATS scholar2023

Education for Tobacco Use Disorder Treatment: Current State, Evidence, and Unmet Needs.

Anne C Melzer, Zachary A Reese, Lorraine Mascarhenas, Caitlin B Clancy, Janaki Deepak, Hyma Gogineni, Yaron Gesthalter, Joanna L Hart

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ATS scholar, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Anne C MelzerCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6966-7848
Zachary A ReeseDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine.
Lorraine MascarhenasDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Caitlin B ClancyDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine.
Janaki DeepakDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Hyma GogineniDepartment of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California.
Yaron GesthalterDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and.
Joanna L HartDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5617-741X

Funding

HSRD VA IK2 HX003067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Tobacco use is undertreated in the medical setting. One driver may be inadequate tobacco use disorder treatment (TUDT) training for clinicians in specialties treating tobacco-dependent patients. Objective: We sought to evaluate the current state of TUDT training for diverse professionals and how these skills are assessed in credentialing exams. Methods: We performed a focused review of current educational practices, evidence-based strategies, and accreditation exam contents focused on TUDT. Results: Among medical students, participants in reviewed studies reported anywhere from 45 minutes to 3 hours of TUDT training throughout their 4-year programs, most often in the form of didactic sessions. Similarly, little TUDT training was reported at the post-graduate (residency, fellowship, continuing medical education) levels, and reported training was typically delivered as time-based (expected hours of instruction) rather than competency-based (demonstration of mastery) learning. Multiple studies evaluated effective TUDT curricula at varied stages of training. More effective curricula incorporated longitudinal sessions and active learning, such as standardized patient encounters or proctored patient visits. Knowledge of TUDT is minimally evaluated on certification exams. For example, the American Board of Internal Medicine blueprint lists TUDT as <2% of one subtopic on both the internal medicine and pulmonary exams. Conclusion: TUDT training for most clinicians is minimal, does not assess competency, and is minimally evaluated on certification exams. Effective, evidence-based TUDT training incorporating active learning should be integrated into medical education at all levels, with attention paid to inclusion on subsequent certifying exams.

Indexed as

competency-based educationhealth educationinternship and residencytobacco use cessation

Identifiers

PMID38196686
PMCPMC10773493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.