3.8 Article

High quitrate among smokers with tuberculosis in a modified smoking cessation programme in Dhaka, Bangladesh

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 243-246

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/pha.13.0051

关键词

smoking cessation; tuberculosis; Bangladesh

资金

  1. Centre for Operational Research, The Union, France
  2. Union South-East Asia Regional Office
  3. Operational Research Unit (LUXOR) and Medecins Sans Frontieres, Brussels-Luxembourg
  4. Center for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
  5. Department for International Development, London, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Setting: BRAC, a non-governmental organisation, implemented a modified smoking cessation programme for tuberculosis (TB) patients based on International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) guidelines in 17 peri-urban centres of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Objective: To determine whether a modified version of The Union's smoking cessation intervention was effective in promoting cessation among TB patients and determinants associated with quitting smoking. Design: Cohort study of routinely collected data. Results: A total of 3134 TB patients were registered from May 2011 to April 2012. Of these, 615 (20%) were current smokers, with a mean age of 38 years (+/- 13.8). On treatment completion, 562 patients were analysed, with 53 (9%) lost to follow-up or dead, while 82% of smokers had quit. Patients with extra-pulmonary TB were less likely to quit than those with pulmonary TB. Patients with high-intensity dependence were less likely to quit than those with low-intensity dependence. Conclusion: This study suggests that a simplified smoking cessation intervention can be effective in promoting smoking cessation among TB patients in Bangladesh. This is encouraging for other low-resource settings; the Bangladesh National Tuberculosis Control Programme should consider nationwide scaling up and integration of this smoking cessation plan.

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

3.8
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