In this article we delineate a systematic approachfor incorporating qualitative methods in research on primary prevention. Using examples from our studies of both smoking and cessation processes, we describe our procedure in four consecutive stages: (]) interviews and fieldnotes, (2) case studies or life histories, (3) discourse and content analyses to identify emergent issues and themes which are subsequently standardized as codes, and (4) the interpretation of sociocultural patterns and idioms of bodily experience. The relevance of qualitative methods in primary preventive medicine is discussed with examples from our own research on smoking. We argue that this form of basic research is an essential precursor to culturally effective interventions in clinical as well as community settings.

Much attention has been placed on the need to develop and evaluate complex interventions targeting public health issues, such as reproductive health. However, and as has been the case in the recent past, even well-designed trials will be flawed unless meticulous attention is paid to ensuring the most appropriate intervention is designed and developed. This requires a well-resourced and carefully planned feasibility study, incorporating both formative and process evaluation, with particular attention being paid to the context of the proposed intervention. In this paper, we describe the way in which a feasibility study helped redesign and shape a complex intervention targeting adolescent sexual health in rural Zimbabwe. By using a mixture of in-depth interviews, focus groups and participant observation with pupils, parents, teachers and education officers, we were able to show that the intervention as originally conceived was unlikely to be deliverable. Process evaluation findings from the feasibility study led to substantial changes to both the content and delivery of the proposed intervention, which is now subject to testing for effectiveness in a large community randomized trial.

No abstract

No abstract

We assessed the impact of three conditions on one-year smoking cessation rates. Physicians in 70 community general practices were randomly allocated by practice to one of three groups: In the usual care group, smoking patients were to receive the care they normally would receive. In the gum only group, physicians were asked to speak to patients about smoking cessation and offer nicotine gum. In the gum plus group, physicians were trained in the experimental intervention. This intervention involved advice to stop smoking, the setting of a quit date, the offer of nicotine gum, and four follow-up visits. Smoking cessation was measured by self-report after one year and validated using saliva cotinine measures. Using a criterion of at least three months of abstinence, 8.8% of the patients of the trained physicians had stopped smoking at the one-year follow-up compared with 4.4% and 6.1% of the patients in the usual care and gum only groups, respectively.