Can Brief Intervention through Community Dental Care Have an Effect on Adolescent Smoking?

Kentala, Jukka; Utriainen, Pauliina; Pahkala, Kimmo; Mattila, Kimmo

doi:10.1006/pmed.1999.0512

Cited by 43 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No primary care-relevant trials were identified that assessed health outcomes or examined subsequent rates of adult smoking. We identified 18 trials (reported in 22 publications) that examined the efficacy of primary carerelevant interventions in preventing tobacco use initiation or promoting cessation among young persons (Appendix Table 1, available at www.annals.org) (15)(16)(17)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36). We examined all 18 trials for harms related to the intervention and 1 additional trial (37) that reported the harms of bupropion.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intervention settings and components were very heterogeneous (Appendix Table 1). Four of the combined trials targeted intervention messages to the baseline smoking status of the young persons (15,29,31,33), whereas the remaining 3 trials implemented the same intervention regardless of baseline smoking status (23,35,36). These 3 trials also included intervention components for parents and addressed additional behaviors beyond tobacco use, including alcohol and other substance use (23, 36) and unsafe sexual behaviors (35).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Primary Care–Relevant Interventions for Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Patnode¹,

O’Connor²,

Whitlock³

et al. 2013

Ann Intern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Interventions to prevent smoking uptake or encourage cessation among young persons might help prevent tobaccorelated illness.Purpose: To review the evidence for the efficacy and harms of primary care-relevant interventions that aim to reduce tobacco use among children and adolescents.Data Sources: Three systematic reviews that collectively covered the relevant literature; MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects through 14 September 2012; and manual searches of reference lists and gray literature.Study Selection: Two investigators independently reviewed 2453 abstracts and 111 full-text articles. English-language trials of behavior-based or medication interventions that were relevant to primary care and reported tobacco use, health outcomes, or harms were included. Data Extraction:One investigator abstracted data from good-and fair-quality trials into an evidence table, and a second checked these data.Data Synthesis: 19 trials (4 good-quality and 15 fair-quality) that were designed to prevent tobacco use initiation or promote cessation (or both) and reported self-reported smoking status or harms were included. Pooled analyses from a random-effects metaanalysis suggested a 19% relative reduction (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93]; absolute risk difference, Ϫ0.02 [CI, Ϫ0.03 to 0.00]) in smoking initiation among participants in behavior-based prevention interventions compared with control participants. Neither behavior-based nor bupropion cessation interventions improved cessation rates. Findings about the harms related to bupropion use were mixed. Limitations:No studies reported health outcomes. Interventions and measures were heterogeneous. Most trials examined only cigarette smoking. The body of evidence was largely published 5 to 15 years ago. Conclusion:Primary care-relevant interventions may prevent smoking initiation over 12 months in children and adolescents. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:253-260. www.annals.org For author affiliations, see end of text. This article was published at www.annals.org on 11 December 2012. T obacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. An estimated 443 000 deaths occur annually that are attributable to smoking (1). Despite the fact that the legal age for purchasing tobacco products in the United States is 18 years (2), every day more than 3800 children and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years have their first cigarette, and an estimated 1000 young persons begin smoking on a daily basis (3). In 2011, 23.4% of high school students reported that they currently used a tobacco product (4,5).Reducing the prevalence of youth tobacco use can occur through 2 primary means: by decreasing the proportion of nonusing children who initiate tobacco use or by increasing the proportion of current users who quit. These strategies can occur within large community environments (mass media campaigns or state-level ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary Care–Relevant Interventions for Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Patnode¹,

O’Connor²,

Whitlock³

et al. 2013

Ann Intern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…F. Hovell et al, 1996;Kentala, Utriainen, Pahkala, & Mattila, 1999;Sims, Meurer, Sims, & Layde, 2004;Stevens et al, 2002). Of these six studies, only one (Fidler & Lambert, 2001) demonstrated a significant effect for the intervention group.…”

Section: Healthcare Provider-based Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fresh Look at Driver Education in America

Thomas¹,

Blomberg²,

Fisher³

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify and review current driver education and training programs in use nationally and internationally; (2) identify best teaching practices for teenagers; (3) examine the optimal sequencing for the presentation of safe driving skills in the classroom and behind-the-wheel training; and (4) assess whether a new approach to driver education would be beneficial. These objectives were accomplished using a survey of the driver education rules and practices in the 50 States performed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and Driver Education and Training Administrators (DETA); literature reviews of research on teen crashes, the best teaching methodologies for teenagers, and injury prevention strategies for teens; and an expert panel analysis that compared current teaching practices with identified best practices, combining driver training with graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems.Twenty-three States require driver education for all drivers under the age of 18; in 35 States a teen can obtain an unrestricted license before 18 whether or not he/she takes driver education. In 25 States, a teen who takes driver education can get an unrestricted license at a younger age. At least 18 States offer some benefit (waiving practice driving requirements, knowledge tests, road tests, or younger licensure) if a teen takes driver education. Twelve States said they developed specific curriculum guides for their driver education programs to use. Only 13 of 40 responding States were able to indicate how many teen drivers who received their first licenses in 2006 had taken driver education. Most of the States had both high school and commercial programs in operation; a few accept only one type. Six States accepted Internet driver education and 3 States accepted parent-taught driver education. The great majority of driver education programs include 30 hours of classroom instruction although the lowest number is 8 hours and the highest number is 56 hours. Oversight varies widely among States and often involves multiple agencies if more than one form of driver education is acceptable.The key findings were: (1) driver education appears to do a good job in preparing students to pass State licensing examinations; (2) the expectation that driver education by itself will lead to a decreased teen crash rate is unrealistic; (3) GDL has shown evidence of a significant safety benefit and may benefit from greater parental involvement; (4) expanding driver education training beyond the current classroom and behind-the-wheel training by integrating it with graduated driver licensing may have increased traffic safety benefits for young drivers; and (5) an expanded driver education system would start preparing future drivers at an earlier age and encompass more stringent testing than is characteristic of current driver licensing practices.

show abstract

“…2 Another randomised controlled trial in 75 Oregon dental practices demonstrated that a brief quit message from dental-hygienists was ineffective. 3 A prospective study (non-randomised) conducted in 54 primary care dental practices in the United Kingdom was hindered by sustained reluctance of dental practice staff to recruit smokers into a smoking cessation advice programme, despite training and educational materials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventive dentistry: what do Australian patients endorse and recall of smoking cessation advice by their dentists?

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate patients' views regarding dentists' smoking cessation advice. Design Survey questionnaire. Setting One hundred and thirty five dental practices in Sydney Australia. Subjects Two thousand, four hundred and fifty one dental patients. Results One thousand, one hundred and sixty pre-consultation questionnaires were obtained (RR=80%), 302 (26%) were self-reported smokers. From these, 623 post-consultation questionnaires were returned (RR = 54%). Most patients expected dentists to be interested in their smoking status (n = 847/1160, 73%, 95% CI: 70% to 76%) and to discuss smoking with them (n = 713/1160, 61%, 95% CI: 59% to 64%), however, smokers were significantly less likely to respond as such compared with non-smokers (P < 0.001). Smokers and non-smokers equally would not change dentist even if asked about their smoking status opportunistically (59% versus 62%) (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.22). Less than one third of all smokers would try to quit if their dentist suggested they do so (n = 90/302, 30%, 95% CI: 25% to 35%). Smokers' recall of quit advice from their recent consultation was low (n = 22/124, 18%). Conclusions Smoking cessation advice by dentists is not self-evidently effective. These findings behove interventional research to ascertain efficacy of smoking cessation advice delivered by dentists before admonishing changes in routine clinical practice.Results from studies examining whether dentists are effective in assisting their patients who smoke to quit are inconclusive. In one randomised controlled trial, advice by dentists in Indianapolis (n = 54) achieved sustained patient quit rates of 7.7% enhanced by their use of nicotine gum. 1 However, three other well-designed studies failed to demonstrate significant results. 2-4 Specifically, a randomised controlled trial in Finland of a comprehensive intervention comprising annual inquiries of adolescents about their smoking, photographs of the harmful

show abstract

Can Brief Intervention through Community Dental Care Have an Effect on Adolescent Smoking?

Cited by 43 publications

References 15 publications

Primary Care–Relevant Interventions for Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Primary Care–Relevant Interventions for Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

A Fresh Look at Driver Education in America

Preventive dentistry: what do Australian patients endorse and recall of smoking cessation advice by their dentists?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About