Miller N H, Smith P M, DeBusk R F, Sobel D S, Taylor C B
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Feb 24;157(4):409-15.
Few research studies have evaluated the effectiveness of smoking interventions in hospitalized patients. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of 2 smoking cessation programs in patients hospitalized in 4 community hospitals in a large health maintenance organization within the San Francisco Bay Area in California.
Patients were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 990), nurse-mediated, behaviorally oriented inpatient counseling focused on relapse prevention with 1 postdischarge telephone contact (minimal intervention, n = 473), or the same inpatient counseling with 4 postdischarge telephone contacts (intensive intervention, n = 561). The main outcome measure, smoking cessation rate, was corroborated by plasma cotinine determination or family confirmation, 1 year after enrollment.
At 1 year smoking cessation rates were 27%, 22%, and 20% for intensive intervention, minimal intervention, and usual care groups, respectively (P = .009 for intensive vs usual care). Subgroup analyses by diagnosis revealed that the odds of cessation among patients with cardiovascular disease or other internal medical conditions were greater among those receiving the intensive intervention than among their counterparts receiving usual care (odds ratios, 1.6 and 2.0, respectively).
A multicomponent smoking cessation program consisting of physician advice; in-hospital, nurse-mediated counseling; and multiple postdischarge telephone contacts was effective in increasing smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers. Hospital-wide smoking cessation programs could substantially increase the effectiveness of hospital smoking bans.
很少有研究评估住院患者吸烟干预措施的有效性。这项随机对照试验比较了加利福尼亚州旧金山湾区一个大型健康维护组织内4家社区医院的住院患者中两种戒烟项目的疗效。
患者被随机分配至常规护理组(n = 990)、护士介导的以行为为导向的住院咨询组(重点是预防复吸,出院后有1次电话随访,即最小干预组,n = 473)或同样的住院咨询组但出院后有4次电话随访(强化干预组,n = 561)。主要结局指标为戒烟率,在入组1年后通过血浆可替宁测定或家属确认来证实。
1年后,强化干预组、最小干预组和常规护理组的戒烟率分别为27%、22%和20%(强化干预组与常规护理组相比,P = .009)。按诊断进行的亚组分析显示,患有心血管疾病或其他内科疾病的患者中,接受强化干预的患者戒烟几率高于接受常规护理的患者(优势比分别为1.6和2.0)。
由医生建议、院内护士介导的咨询以及多次出院后电话随访组成的多成分戒烟项目能有效提高住院吸烟者的戒烟率。全院范围的戒烟项目可大幅提高医院吸烟禁令的效果。