4.2 Article

Supporting smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with behavioral intervention: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

BMC FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-14-91

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Smoker; Behavioral intervention; Smoking cessation; Risk factors

资金

  1. Science and Technology Projects of Xuzhou City [XM07C037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cigarette smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). But a fewer smoking cessation measures were conducted in communities for smokers with COPD in China. The aim of our study was to assess the preventive effects of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation and potential impact factors in smokers with COPD in China. Methods: In a randomised controlled smoking cessation trial 3562 patients with COPD who were current smoker were allocated to intervention group received behavioral intervention and control group received the usual care for two years. The primary efficacy endpoint was the complete and continuous abstinence from smoking from the beginning of month 24 to the end of month 30. Participants were followed up at month 48. Results: Continuous smoking abstinence rates from month 24 to 30 were significantly higher in participants receiving behavioral intervention than in those receiving usual care (46.4% vs 3.4%, p < 0.001). Continuous abstinence rates from months 24 to 36 (45.8% vs 4.0%) and months 24 to 48 (44.3% vs 5.1%) were also higher in participants receiving behavioral intervention than in those control group. Family members or family physicians/nurses smoking were first identified to influence smoking cessation. Conclusions: Behavioral intervention doubled the smoking cessation rate in patients with COPD and was complied well by the general practitioners. The family members and family physicians/nurses smoking were the main risk factors for smoking cessation.

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