Original articlesComparing Participants and Nonparticipants in a Smoking Cessation Trial: Selection Factors Associated With General Practitioner Recruitment Activity
Introduction
Various reports 1, 2, 3, 4 suggested that smokers’ characteristics influence their likelihood of being offered smoking cessation advice in the context of routine clinical activity.
Physicians apparently focus on the smokers they perceive to be at increased risk of ill health effects of cigarettes. Previous diagnoses of smoking related diseases 1, 2, 3, 4 higher levels of tobacco consumption 1, 3, and age [3] emerged as important predictors of counseling. Smokers reporting several attempts to quit in the past [4] or a longer duration of smoking habit 1, 4, as well as those reporting a higher level of attendance at a doctor’s office 1, 2, 3, were more likely to have been told to stop.
It has been suggested [5] that this kind of selective counseling practice be maintained when recruiting smokers for intervention studies. The differential decline of the effectiveness rate, observed across physicians participating in a cessation trial [5], was ascribed to an increased selectivity in delivering counseling. Indeed, some physicians not only counseled patients less often but also adopted more restrictive criteria than indicated in the study protocol, recruiting subjects with symptoms of pulmonary disease, or heavy smokers. Although the low number (n = 4) of physicians involved in the study [5] limits the strength of this conclusion, the reported findings suggest that the generalizability of the results of smoking cessation trials in general practice might be hampered by the persistent tendency among general practitioners (GPs) to target high-risk smokers.
The introduction of unplanned selection criteria could affect the external validity of the observed results, thus impairing their application to clinical practice. Indeed, impact assessments of such interventions are based on the assumption that GPs can take the opportunity of office visits to offer their support for quit attempts to all smokers, regardless of their health status or level of addiction.
The role of selective criteria adopted by some GPs in offering antismoking advice was explored by analyzing the relationship of smokers’ sociodemographic characteristics, smoking habits, and health status to their probability of having been offered recruitment in a smoking cessation trial.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
We conducted a case-control study, comparing smokers who were offered participation in a smoking cessation trial performed in Turin [6] to a matched sample of smokers, potentially eligible for recruitment but not invited to participate, who were selected from the rosters of the GPs collaborating in the trial.
Results
Seven hundred ninety-nine (90.6%) of the 882 smokers recruited in the cessation trial who were considered eligible cases for this case-control study answered the phone interview administered at recruitment. Seven hundred sixty-five (86.7%) completed the 12-month follow-up questionnaire. Both questionnaires were available for 709 (80.4%) smokers. Of the 83 smokers refusing to participate in the trial who were considered as eligible cases for this study, 53 (63.9%) agreed to be contacted for the
Discussion
Comparability of subjects actually entered into a trial to those who were not randomized, with respect to their susceptibility to the outcome studied, is a crucial aspect influencing external validity of the trial results. A higher participation rate of married, employed, or better-educated subjects, among those who were eligible for recruitment, has been documented in large prevention trials 13, 14, 15. Our analysis showed that eligible, albeit not recruited, smokers differed from those
Acknowledgements
The present study was funded by the USL TORINO I (Turin Health District 1); C.S. was also supported by a fellowship of the Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori. The authors are grateful to Dr. S. Suissa for his input in the preliminary phase of the analysis, and to Drs. K.S. Joseph and M.J. Hodge for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the article. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of SIMG (Societa’ Italiana di Medicina Generale), as well as the advice of Drs. G.
References (21)
- et al.
Physicians advice to quit smokingwho gets it and who doesn’t
Am J Prev Med
(1987) - et al.
Effects of physician counselling on the smoking behavior of asbestos-exposed workers
Prev Med
(1984) - et al.
Predictors of smoking cessation in general practice
Prev Med
(1998) - et al.
A description of cigarette smoking cessation and resumption in the Framingham study
Prev Med
(1990) - et al.
Are physicians advising smokers to quit?
JAMA
(1987) - et al.
Predictors of physicians’ smoking cessation advice
JAMA
(1991) - et al.
The relationship of patient characteristics to physician delivery of advice to stop smoking
J Gen Intern Med
(1987) - et al.
A randomized trial of smoking cessation interventions in general practice in Italy
Cancer Causes Control
(1991) - et al.
Cost considerations and sample size requirements in cohort and case control studies
Am J Public Health
(1978) Theoretical Epidemiology
(1985)
Cited by (17)
The organization of the health care provider's practice influenced patient participation in research: A multilevel analysis
2013, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet specifically examined the effect of the type of organization of the health care provider's practice on patient participation. Nonetheless, this organization is an essential component of participation in studies in which the physicians themselves recruit the patients during their visits [19] as in our cluster study, the “Paris Prevention in General Practice” (PPGP) survey. In such a situation, the survey is not suggested by a stranger but is part of a preexisting therapeutic relationship [22].
Patient enrollment in medical trials: Selection bias in a randomized experiment
2008, Journal of EconometricsSelf-reported smoking cessation interventions were not associated with quitting in older women
2006, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :First, the use of interventions is at the discretion of the patient and/or the primary care team, making it likely that selection bias will be introduced. Such bias is likely to be conservative in evaluating treatment effects as practitioners tend to intervene in high-risk heavy smokers, and those who had failed to quit in the past [26]. Second, recall of interventions received may be biased by whether or not quitting has been achieved.
The diagnosis of a smoking-related disease is a prominent trigger for smoking cessation in a retrospective cohort study
2006, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :In the year of diagnosis of myocardial infarction or stroke, the rate of cessation increased 7- to 11-fold; however, the impact of these conditions, as well as of other severe smoking-related diseases (diabetes, cancer), appears to be limited to the time shortly after diagnosis. Our results are consistent with findings from other studies, which suggest that smokers with a poorer health status are more likely to attempt to quit [17], are in later stages of readiness to change [18], are more likely to take part in cessation programs [19], and are more often offered antismoking counseling by general practitioners [20]. Successful smoking cessation in the general population, which is affected by quit attempts and success in quitting among those trying to quit, has been shown to be associated with health status in some [9–11,21,22], but not all previous studies [8,12].
Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research
2005, Social Science and MedicineSmoking cessation interventions among hospitalized patients: What have we learned?
2001, Preventive Medicine