Smoking Cessation Support in the Context of Other Social and Behavioral Needs in Community Health Centers.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2023.230239R1
Michael B Potter, Janice Y Tsoh, Kara Lugtu, Jose Parra, Vicky Bowyer, Danielle Hessler
{"title":"Smoking Cessation Support in the Context of Other Social and Behavioral Needs in Community Health Centers.","authors":"Michael B Potter, Janice Y Tsoh, Kara Lugtu, Jose Parra, Vicky Bowyer, Danielle Hessler","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230239R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cigarette smoking rates remain disproportionately high among low income populations with unmet social and behavioral health needs. To address this problem, we sought to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel smoking cessation program for community health centers that serve these populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We implemented a randomized pilot trial of two smoking cessation programs in three county operated community health center (CHC) sites: (1) a systematic assessment of smoking habits and standard tools to assist with smoking cessation counseling (\"Enhanced Standard Program\" or ESP), and (2) another that added a structured assessment of social and behavioral barriers to smoking cessation, (\"Connection to Health for Smokers\" or CTHS). Clinical outcomes were evaluated between 10 to 16 weeks, supplemented with interviews of patient participants and health care team members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>141 adults were randomized and 123 completed the intervention (61 in ESP, 62 in CTHS). At follow-up, over half of participants reported ≥1 quit attempts (59.7% ESP and 56.5% CTHS; adjusted <i>p</i> = .66) while more in ESP (24.6% vs. 12.9%) were documented as not smoking in the last 7 days (adjusted <i>p</i> = 0.03). In addition to being in ESP, predictors of smoking cessation included higher baseline confidence in ability to quit (<i>p</i> = 0.02) and more quit attempts during the study (<i>p</i> = 0.04). Health care teams, however, generally preferred the more comprehensive approach of CTHS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lessons learned from this pilot study may inform the development of effective smoking cessation programs for CHCs that combine elements of both interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"84-94"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230239R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cigarette smoking rates remain disproportionately high among low income populations with unmet social and behavioral health needs. To address this problem, we sought to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel smoking cessation program for community health centers that serve these populations.

Methods: We implemented a randomized pilot trial of two smoking cessation programs in three county operated community health center (CHC) sites: (1) a systematic assessment of smoking habits and standard tools to assist with smoking cessation counseling ("Enhanced Standard Program" or ESP), and (2) another that added a structured assessment of social and behavioral barriers to smoking cessation, ("Connection to Health for Smokers" or CTHS). Clinical outcomes were evaluated between 10 to 16 weeks, supplemented with interviews of patient participants and health care team members.

Results: 141 adults were randomized and 123 completed the intervention (61 in ESP, 62 in CTHS). At follow-up, over half of participants reported ≥1 quit attempts (59.7% ESP and 56.5% CTHS; adjusted p = .66) while more in ESP (24.6% vs. 12.9%) were documented as not smoking in the last 7 days (adjusted p = 0.03). In addition to being in ESP, predictors of smoking cessation included higher baseline confidence in ability to quit (p = 0.02) and more quit attempts during the study (p = 0.04). Health care teams, however, generally preferred the more comprehensive approach of CTHS.

Conclusion: Lessons learned from this pilot study may inform the development of effective smoking cessation programs for CHCs that combine elements of both interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区卫生中心在满足其他社会和行为需求的背景下提供戒烟支持。
背景:在社会和行为健康需求得不到满足的低收入人群中,吸烟率仍然过高。为了解决这一问题,我们试图为服务于这些人群的社区卫生中心开发和评估一种新型戒烟计划的可行性、可接受性和初步有效性:我们在三个县级社区卫生中心(CHC)实施了两项戒烟项目的随机试点试验:(1)系统评估吸烟习惯和标准工具,以协助戒烟咨询("强化标准项目 "或ESP);(2)另一项项目增加了对戒烟的社会和行为障碍的结构化评估("吸烟者健康连接 "或CTHS)。临床结果在 10 到 16 周之间进行评估,并辅以对患者参与者和医疗团队成员的访谈:结果:141 名成人接受了随机干预,其中 123 人完成了干预(ESP 61 人,CTHS 62 人)。在随访中,超过半数的参与者报告了≥1次戒烟尝试(ESP为59.7%,CTHS为56.5%;调整后p = .66),同时有更多的ESP参与者(24.6%对12.9%)在最近7天内没有吸烟记录(调整后p = 0.03)。除了处于ESP状态外,戒烟的预测因素还包括对戒烟能力的基线信心较高(p = 0.02)以及在研究期间尝试戒烟的次数较多(p = 0.04)。然而,医护团队普遍倾向于采用更全面的社区健康与生活服务(CTHS)方法:从这项试点研究中汲取的经验教训可为社区健康中心制定有效的戒烟计划提供参考,这些计划应结合两种干预措施的要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
期刊最新文献
Answering the "100 Most Important Family Medicine Research Questions" from the 1985 Hames Consortium. CERA: A Vehicle for Facilitating Research in Family Medicine. Current and Future Challenges to Publishing Family Medicine Research. Diversity in Family Medicine Research. Leveraging the All of Us Database for Primary Care Research with Large Datasets.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1