Evaluation of a dental office tobacco cessation program: effects on smokeless tobacco use. Making the most of a teachable moment: a smokeless-tobacco cessation intervention in the dental office. A randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention delivered by dental hygienists: a feasibility study. Using the hygiene visit to deliver a tobacco cessation program: results of a randomized clinical trial. Intensive smoking-cessation intervention in the dental setting. A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention among people with a psychotic disorder. Do faxed quitline referrals add value to dental office-based tobacco-use cessation interventions? Tobacco cessation via public dental clinics: results of a randomized trial. Integrated tobacco cessation counseling in a diabetes self-management training program: a randomized trial of diabetes and reduction of tobacco.
We describe a randomized trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a smokeless tobacco cessation intervention delivered by dental hygienists as part of a patient's regularly scheduled cleaning visit. Seventy-five practices were randomized to continue their usual care (n=25; 239 smokeless tobacco using patients enrolled) or to receive training to provide a tobacco cessation intervention (n=50; 394 smokeless tobacco using patients enrolled). Patient reports indicated that the training program was successful in getting hygienists to implement the intervention. The intervention produced a strong effect on sustained quitting for smokeless tobacco users but had no impact on secondary outcomes, including unsuccessful quit attempts, future intent to quit using smokeless tobacco, and change in readiness to quit using. Frequency of smokeless tobacco use and receipt of specific components of the intervention, including the video and written materials, predicted sustained cessation. Since this intervention was delivered by dental hygienists as part of a patient's regularly scheduled cleaning visit, it is easily disseminable. Primary care medical clinics are good settings for smoking interventions. This study extends this strategy with a smokeless tobacco intervention delivered by dentists and dental hygienists in the course of routine dental care.
                Male users of moist snuff and chewing tobacco (n = 518) were identified by questionnaire in clinic waiting rooms and then randomly assigned to either usual care or intervention. The intervention included a routine oral examination with special attention to the part of the mouth in which tobacco was kept and an explanation of the health risks of using smokeless tobacco. After receiving unequivocal advice to stop using tobacco, each patient viewed a 9-minute videotape, received a self-help manual, and was briefly counseled by the dental hygienist.
                Long-term success was defined as no smokeless tobacco use at both 3- and 12-month follow-ups, with those lost to follow-up counted as smokeless tobacco users. The intervention increased the proportion of patients who quit by about one half (12.5% vs 18.4%, P < .05).
                These results demonstrate the efficacy of a brief dental office intervention for the general population of smokeless tobacco users. Tobacco use continues to be a global public health problem. Helping patients to quit is part of the preventive role of all health professionals. There is now increasing interest in the role that the dental team can play in helping their patients to quit smoking. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled smoking cessation intervention, utilising dental hygienists to deliver tobacco cessation advice to a cohort of periodontal patients.
                One hundred and eighteen patients who attended consultant clinics in an outpatient dental hospital department (Periodontology) were recruited into a trial. Data were available for 116 participants, 59 intervention and 57 control, and were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The intervention group received smoking cessation advice based on the 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange follow-up) and were offered nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), whereas the control group received 'usual care'. Outcome measures included self-reported smoking cessation, verified by salivary cotinine measurement and CO measurements. Self-reported measures in those trial participants who did not quit included number and length of quit attempts and reduction in smoking.
                At 3 months, 9/59 (15%) of the intervention group had quit compared to 5/57 (9%) of the controls. At 6 months, 6/59 (10%) of the intervention group quit compared to 3/57 (5%) of the controls. At one year, there were 4/59 (7%) intervention quitters, compared to 2/59 (4%) control quitters. In participants who described themselves as smokers, at 3 and 6 months, a statistically higher percentage of intervention participants reported that they had had a quit attempt of at least one week in the preceding 3 months (37% and 47%, for the intervention group respectively, compared with 18% and 16% for the control group).
                This study has shown the potential that trained dental hygienists could have in delivering smoking cessation advice. While success may be modest, public health gain would indicate that the dental team should participate in this activity. However, to add to the knowledge-base, a multi-centred randomised controlled trial, utilising biochemical verification would be required to be undertaken. To examine the effectiveness of advising patients who use tobacco to quit, the authors conducted a randomized clinical trial to test a brief office-based intervention with all tobacco users in 75 fee-for-service dental practices in Oregon. The authors found that the dental hygienist-delivered intervention was effective in getting smokeless tobacco users to quit at three and 12 months and to sustain abstinence at both three and 12 months. They found that the program was not effective for cigarette smokers. The authors discuss the public health implications of program dissemination and widespread program adoption. Smoking exerts detrimental effects on dental treatment and oral health. Our goal was to evaluate effectiveness in terms of the abstinence rate in smoking-cessation intervention delivered by dental professionals. Individuals who were willing to quit smoking were randomly assigned to either an intervention or a non-intervention group. Intensive intervention was provided, consisting of 5 counseling sessions, including an additional nicotine replacement regimen. Reported abstinence was verified by the salivary cotinine level. Thirty-three persons in the intervention and 23 in the non-intervention group started the trial. On an intent-to-treat basis, 3-, 6- and 12-month continuous abstinence rates in the intervention group were 51.5%, 39.4%, and 36.4%, respectively, while the rates in the non-intervention group were consistent at 13.0%. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) by logistic stepwise regression analyses were 7.1 (1.8, 28.5), 8.9 (1.7, 47.2), and 6.4 (1.3, 30.7), respectively. Intensive smoking-cessation intervention in the dental setting was therefore effective. Despite extremely high rates of smoking among individuals with psychotic disorders and the associated financial and health costs, few studies have investigated the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among this group. The purpose of this study was to compare an integrated psychological and nicotine replacement therapy intervention for people with a psychotic disorder with routine care alone.
                The authors recruited 298 regular smokers with a psychotic disorder residing in the community and randomly assigned them to a routine care comparison condition (N=151) or an eight-session, individually administered smoking cessation intervention (N=147), which consisted of nicotine replacement therapy, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavior therapy. Outcome variables included continuous and point-prevalence abstinence rates, smoking reduction status, and changes in symptoms and functioning.
                While there were no overall differences between the treatment group and comparison group in abstinence rates, a significantly higher proportion of smokers who completed all treatment sessions stopped smoking at each of the follow-up occasions (point-prevalence rates: 3 months, 30.0% versus 6.0%; 6 months, 18.6% versus 4.0%; and 12 months, 18.6% versus 6.6%). Smokers who completed all treatment sessions were also more likely to have achieved continuous abstinence at 3 months (21.4% versus 4.0%). There was a strong dose-response relationship between treatment session attendance and smoking reduction status, with one-half of those who completed the intervention program achieving a 50% or greater reduction in daily cigarette consumption across the follow-ups, relative to less than one-fifth of the comparison subjects. There was no evidence of any associated deterioration in symptoms or functioning.
                These findings demonstrate the utility of a nicotine replacement therapy plus motivational interviewing/cognitive behavior therapy smoking cessation intervention among individuals with a psychotic disorder. Further development of more efficacious interventions is required for those who do not respond to existing interventions. The Ask, Advise, Refer (AAR) model of intervening with patients who use tobacco promotes a brief office-based intervention plus referral to a tobacco quitline. However, there is little evidence that this model is effective. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effects on patients' tobacco use of two levels of a dental office-based intervention compared with usual care.
                The authors randomly assigned 68 private dental clinics to one of three conditions: 5 As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange); 3 As (AAR model); or usual care, and they enrolled 2,160 participants.
                At the 12-month assessment, compared with those in usual care, participants in the two intervention conditions combined were more likely to report cessation of tobacco use, as measured by nine-month prolonged abstinence (3 percent versus 2 percent; F(1,66) = 3.97, P < .10) and 12-month point prevalence (12 percent versus 8 percent; F(1,66) = 7.32, P < .01). There were no significant differences between participants in the clinics using the 5 As and 3 As strategies.
                The results of this study are inconclusive as to whether referrals to a quitline add value to brief dental office-based interventions. Patients receiving telephone counseling quit tobacco use at higher rates, but only a small percentage of those proactively referred actually received counseling.
                The results confirm those of previous research: that training dental practitioners to provide brief tobacco-use cessation advice and assistance results in a change in their behavior, and that these practitioners are effective in helping their patients to quit using tobacco. We sought to compare the effectiveness of a dental practitioner advice and brief counseling intervention to quit tobacco use versus usual care for patients in community health centers on tobacco cessation, reduction in tobacco use, number of quit attempts, and change in readiness to quit.
                We randomized 14 federally funded community health center dental clinics that serve diverse racial/ethnic groups in 3 states (Mississippi, New York, and Oregon) to the intervention (brief advice and assistance, including nicotine replacement therapy) or usual care group.
                We enrolled 2549 smokers. Participants in the intervention group reported significantly higher abstinence rates at the 7.5-month follow-up, for both point prevalence (F(1,12) = 6.84; P < .05) and prolonged abstinence (F(1,12) = 14.62; P < .01) than did those in the usual care group.
                The results of our study suggest the viability and effectiveness of tobacco cessation services delivered to low-income smokers via their dental health care practitioner in community health centers. Tobacco cessation services delivered in public dental clinics have the potential to improve the health and well-being of millions of Americans. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a tobacco cessation intervention using motivational interviewing on smoking cessation rates during diabetes self-management training (DSMT).
                A randomized controlled trial was conducted with subjects recruited from an ongoing type 2 diabetes adult education program at a large diabetes center. A total of 114 subjects were randomized to intervention (n = 57; face-to-face motivational interviewing plus telephone counseling and offering of medication) or standard care (n = 57). Outcome measures included tobacco cessation rates, mean number of cigarettes smoked, A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids.
                Intensive intervention using motivational interviewing integrated into a standard DSMT program resulted in a trend toward greater abstinence at 3 months of follow-up in those receiving the intervention. However, this same trend was not observed at 6 months. The addition of this structured smoking cessation intervention did not negatively affect either diabetes education or other measures of diabetes management, including A1C values.
                Structured tobacco cessation efforts can be readily integrated into established diabetes education programs without a negative impact on diabetes care or delivery of diabetes education. However, an intervention of moderate intensity for smoking cessation was no more effective than usual care in assisting patients with tobacco cessation after 6-month follow-up. Whether a more intensive intervention, targeting patients expressing a readiness to discontinue tobacco use, and/or a longer duration or a more cumulative effect of treatment will be more effective must be evaluated.
Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in conjunction with an oral examination was a consistent intervention component that was also provided in some control groups.