4.2 Article

Do professional perspectives on evidence-based smoking cessation methods align? A Delphi study among researchers and healthcare professionals

期刊

HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 434-445

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/her/cyab022

关键词

-

资金

  1. ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation of Health Research and Development [531001204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions can increase successful quitting attempts. Researchers found consensus within groups on important criteria for recommending interventions, but primary care professionals (PCPs) had varying opinions on effectiveness. Both groups saw value in tailored interventions for high-risk groups, but did not agree on the use of e-cigarettes.
The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) can significantly increase the number of successful smoking cessation attempts. To obtain an overview of the knowledge and viewpoints on the effectiveness and use of SCIs, a three-round online Delphi study was conducted among researchers and primary care professionals (PCPs). The four objectives of this study are to gain an overview of (i) the criteria important for recommending SCIs, (ii) the perceptions of both groups on the effectiveness of SCIs, (iii) the factors to consider when counseling different (high-risk) groups of smokers and (iv) the perceptions of both groups on the use of e-cigarettes as an SCI. We found a high level of agreement within groups on which smoker characteristics should be considered when recommending an SCI to smokers. We also found that PCPs display a lower degree of consensus on the effectiveness of SCIs. Both groups see a value in the use of special protocols for different (high-risk) groups of patients, but the two groups did not reach consensus on the use of e-cigarettes as a means to quit. Making an inventory of PCPs' needs regarding SCIs and their usage may provide insight into how to facilitate a better uptake in the primary care setting.

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

4.2
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