4.3 Article

Communication About Adolescent and Caregiver Smoking and Vaping During Pediatric Asthma Visits: Implications for Providers

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC HEALTH CARE
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 401-407

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.02.004

关键词

Smoking; asthma; adolescents; communication; vaping

资金

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program Award [1402-09777]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [1UL1TR001111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that while discussions about smoking were relatively common among adolescents with asthma in four pediatric clinics, vaping was never discussed. There is potential for improvement in how often providers in primary care settings discuss smoking and vaping, and future research could explore the use of smoking and vaping prompt lists for adolescents to increase tobacco-related discussions during visits.
Introduction: Although rates of cigarette smoking among U.S. adolescents have declined, rates of vaping (i.e., using e-cigarettes) have increased. We conducted a secondary analysis of 359 transcripts of medical visits of adolescents with asthma to examine communication about caregiver and adolescent smoking and vaping. Method: Adolescents aged 11-17 years with persistent asthma and their parents were enrolled from four pediatric clinics in 2015-2017. Youth were randomized to the intervention or usual care groups. Intervention group adolescents watched a video and then completed an asthma question prompt list before their visits. Results: Forty providers and 359 patients participated. Providers, adolescents, and caregivers discussed smoking during 38.2% of their visits. Vaping was never discussed. Discussion: There is room to improve how often providers in a primary care setting discuss smoking and vaping. Further investigation might focus on how a smoking and vaping prompt list for adolescents could increase tobacco discussions during visits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据