Schiebel Nicola E E, Ebbert Jon O
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
BMC Emerg Med. 2007 Sep 14;7:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-7-15.
Tobacco use counseling interventions delivered in the primary care setting are efficacious, but limited evidence exists regarding their feasibility or efficacy in the Emergency Department (ED). ED randomized controlled trials evaluating referral for outpatient tobacco use counseling have not had a single subject in the intervention groups attend scheduled clinic appointments. Telephone counseling potentially affords the opportunity to provide this population with individual counseling more conveniently than traditional clinic counseling. The purpose of this preliminary study was to evaluate the intervention completion rate among cigarette smokers enrolled through the ED in a tobacco quitline (QL) and to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of this intervention.
We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, un-blinded pilot study enrolling cigarette smokers presenting to a tertiary-care ED. Patients indicating a desire to quit smoking were randomized to receive either proactive telephone counseling through a QL (intervention) or a self-help manual (control).
Of 212 smokers who indicated an interest in quitting, 20 subjects were randomized to the QL and 19 to control. Twenty-one did not meet inclusion criteria and 152 refused to participate. A total of 10 patients (50%) enrolled in the QL completed the full intervention. However, only a total of 20 patients (51%) were reached for follow-up at 3 or 6 months (10 in each arm). At 6-month follow-up a total of six subjects had either disconnected their phone, no longer lived at the provided phone number or had provided an incorrect number. Two declined to provide follow-up and the remainder could not be reached. Assuming all patients unavailable for follow-up were still smoking, the 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rate at 6 months was 20% (95% CI: 6 to 44%) for the QL group and 0% (95% CI: 0 to 15%) for the control group (p = 0.11).
Compliance with the QL intervention was encouraging and may hold promise for providing needed tobacco use counseling to ED patients. Future studies are required, and should focus on more effective mechanisms to obtain outcome measures and a larger sample size.
在初级保健机构提供的烟草使用咨询干预措施是有效的,但关于其在急诊科(ED)的可行性或有效性的证据有限。评估门诊烟草使用咨询转诊的急诊科随机对照试验中,干预组没有一名受试者参加预定的门诊预约。电话咨询可能为该人群提供比传统门诊咨询更便捷的个人咨询机会。这项初步研究的目的是评估通过急诊科纳入戒烟热线(QL)的吸烟者的干预完成率,并评估一项评估该干预措施有效性的随机对照试验的可行性。
我们进行了一项前瞻性、随机、对照、非盲的试点研究,纳入到三级护理急诊科就诊的吸烟者。表示有戒烟意愿的患者被随机分为通过戒烟热线接受主动电话咨询(干预组)或接受自助手册(对照组)。
在212名表示有戒烟意愿的吸烟者中,20名受试者被随机分配到戒烟热线组,19名被分配到对照组。21名不符合纳入标准,152名拒绝参与。共有10名参加戒烟热线的患者(50%)完成了全部干预。然而,在3个月或6个月时,总共只有20名患者(51%)接受了随访(每组1名)。在6个月的随访中,共有6名受试者要么电话已停机,不再居住在提供的电话号码所在地址,要么提供了错误的号码。2名拒绝接受随访,其余无法联系到。假设所有无法接受随访的患者仍在吸烟,戒烟热线组在6个月时的7天点患病率戒烟率为20%(95%CI:6%至44%),对照组为0%(95%CI:0%至15%)(p = 0.11)。
对戒烟热线干预措施的依从性令人鼓舞,可能有望为急诊科患者提供所需的烟草使用咨询。需要进一步开展研究,应侧重于采用更有效的机制来获取结局指标,并扩大样本量。