The Experts below are selected from a list of 327 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Godfrey Fowler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Training health professionals in smoking cessation.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000
    Co-Authors: Tim Lancaster, Godfrey Fowler
    Abstract:

    There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase rates of smoking cessation. A number of trials have examined whether specific skills Training for health professionals leads them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke. Objectives The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of Training health care professionals to deliver smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of prompts and reminders to the health professional to intervene. Randomised trials in which the intervention was Training of health care professionals in smoking cessation were included. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking rates at least six months after the intervention. We reported on process outcomes, but we excluded trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour. The main outcome measures were 1. Rates of abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. 2. Rates of performance of tasks of smoking cessation by health care professionals including offering counselling, setting quit dates, giving follow-up appointments, distributing self-help materials and recommending nicotine gum. Healthcare professionals who had received Training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls. Of eight studies that compared patient smoking behaviour between trained professionals and controls, six found no effect of intervention. The effects of Training on process outcomes increased if prompts and reminders were used.

Brian J. Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Training health professionals in smoking cessation
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012
    Co-Authors: Kristen V. Carson, Marjolein Verbiest, Mathilde R. Crone, Malcolm P. Brinn, Adrian Esterman, Willem J. J. Assendelft, Brian J. Smith
    Abstract:

    Background Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death world wide. There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase smoking cessation attempts. A number of trials have examined whether skills Training for health professionals can lead them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of Training health care professionals in the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of Training characteristics such as intervention content, delivery method and intensity. Search methods The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group’s Specialised Register, electronic databases and the bibliographies of identified studies were searched and raw data was requested from study authors where needed. Searches were updated in March 2012. Selection criteria Randomized trials in which the intervention was Training of health care professionals in smoking cessation. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking at least six months after the intervention. Process outcomes needed to be reported, however trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour were excluded. Data collection and analysis Information relating to the characteristics of each included study for interventions, participants, outcomes and methods were extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were combined in a meta-analysis where possible and reported in narrative synthesis in text and table. Main results Of seventeen included studies, thirteen found no evidence of an effect for continuous smoking abstinence following the intervention. Meta-analysis of 14 studies for point prevalence of smoking produced a statistically and clinically significant effect in favour of the intervention (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55, p= 0.004). Meta-analysis of eight studies that reported continuous abstinence was also statistically significant (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.03, p= 0.03). Healthcare professionals who had received Training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls, including: asking patients to set a quit date (p< 0.0001), make follow-up appointments (p< 0.00001), counselling of smokers (p< 0.00001), provision of self-help material (p< 0.0001) and prescription of a quit date (p< 0.00001). No evidence of an effect was observed for the provision of nicotine gum/replacement therapy. Authors' conclusions Training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions had a measurable effect on the point prevalence of smoking, continuous abstinence and professional performance. The one exception was the provision of nicotine gum or replacement therapy, which did not differ between groups.

Rosemary Kuhn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Tim Lancaster - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Training health professionals in smoking cessation.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000
    Co-Authors: Tim Lancaster, Godfrey Fowler
    Abstract:

    There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase rates of smoking cessation. A number of trials have examined whether specific skills Training for health professionals leads them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke. Objectives The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of Training health care professionals to deliver smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of prompts and reminders to the health professional to intervene. Randomised trials in which the intervention was Training of health care professionals in smoking cessation were included. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking rates at least six months after the intervention. We reported on process outcomes, but we excluded trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour. The main outcome measures were 1. Rates of abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. 2. Rates of performance of tasks of smoking cessation by health care professionals including offering counselling, setting quit dates, giving follow-up appointments, distributing self-help materials and recommending nicotine gum. Healthcare professionals who had received Training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls. Of eight studies that compared patient smoking behaviour between trained professionals and controls, six found no effect of intervention. The effects of Training on process outcomes increased if prompts and reminders were used.

Kristen V. Carson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Training health professionals in smoking cessation
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012
    Co-Authors: Kristen V. Carson, Marjolein Verbiest, Mathilde R. Crone, Malcolm P. Brinn, Adrian Esterman, Willem J. J. Assendelft, Brian J. Smith
    Abstract:

    Background Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death world wide. There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase smoking cessation attempts. A number of trials have examined whether skills Training for health professionals can lead them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of Training health care professionals in the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the additional effects of Training characteristics such as intervention content, delivery method and intensity. Search methods The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group’s Specialised Register, electronic databases and the bibliographies of identified studies were searched and raw data was requested from study authors where needed. Searches were updated in March 2012. Selection criteria Randomized trials in which the intervention was Training of health care professionals in smoking cessation. Trials were considered if they reported outcomes for patient smoking at least six months after the intervention. Process outcomes needed to be reported, however trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour were excluded. Data collection and analysis Information relating to the characteristics of each included study for interventions, participants, outcomes and methods were extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were combined in a meta-analysis where possible and reported in narrative synthesis in text and table. Main results Of seventeen included studies, thirteen found no evidence of an effect for continuous smoking abstinence following the intervention. Meta-analysis of 14 studies for point prevalence of smoking produced a statistically and clinically significant effect in favour of the intervention (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55, p= 0.004). Meta-analysis of eight studies that reported continuous abstinence was also statistically significant (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.03, p= 0.03). Healthcare professionals who had received Training were more likely to perform tasks of smoking cessation than untrained controls, including: asking patients to set a quit date (p< 0.0001), make follow-up appointments (p< 0.00001), counselling of smokers (p< 0.00001), provision of self-help material (p< 0.0001) and prescription of a quit date (p< 0.00001). No evidence of an effect was observed for the provision of nicotine gum/replacement therapy. Authors' conclusions Training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions had a measurable effect on the point prevalence of smoking, continuous abstinence and professional performance. The one exception was the provision of nicotine gum or replacement therapy, which did not differ between groups.