4.6 Article

Under-use of smoking-cessation treatments - Results from the National Health Interview Survey, 2000

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 119-122

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.09.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the rise of treatment for tobacco dependence in relation to insurance Status and advice from a healthcare provider in a population-based national sample interviewed in 2000. Methods: Analyses are based on 3996 adult smokers who participated in the National Health Interview Survey in 2000, and who provided information on tobacco-cessation treatments used at their most recent quit attempt occurring in the last year. Age-adjuSted and weighted categorical analysis was Used to compute prevalence estimates of self-reported treatments (pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling) for tobacco dependence. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with use of treatments. Results: Overall, 22.4% of smokers who tried to quit in the prexious year used one or more t%-peS of cessation aid compared to 15% in 1986. Treatment usually involved pharmacotherapy (21.7%) rather than behavioral counseling (1.3%). Smokers attempting to quit were more likely to use cessation aids if covered by private (25.4%) or military (25.0%) insurance dian by Medicare (17.8%), Medicaid (15.5%), or no insurance (13.2%). In a multivariate analysis of factors related to use of cessation aids, advice from a healthcare provider to quit smoking and the number of cigarettes smoked per day were significant predictors of treatment use, regardless of insurance status. Conclusions: Cessation aids are under-used across insurance categories. Advice by a healthcare provider to quit is associated with increased use of effective therapies for tobacco dependence. Systematic efforts are needed to eliminate barriers to appropriate treatment. (C) 2005 American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

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

4.6
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