Table 4.

Emergency clinicians’ attitudes toward smoking cessation counseling before and after the study intervention.^*

	Nurses (n=73)			Physicians (N=49)
Clinician variable	Pre- intervention	Post- Intervention	p-value†	Pre- intervention	Post- Intervention	p-value†
Decisional balance – “pros”  subscale, mean (SD)‡	31.6 (5.6)	32.1 (5.9)	0.45	32.4 (5.6)	33.3 (6.1)	0.29
Decisional balance – “cons”  subscale, mean (SD) ‡	27.4 (5.1)	27.4 (5.6)	0.93	28.8 (5.5)	27.5 (6.2)	0.15
Self-efficacy in counseling, %  moderately-very effective§	18	49	0.0001	24	3	0.15
Satisfaction with counseling  role, % satisfied^	28	47	0.01	39	41	0.94

^*Data were missing for those clinicians who were no longer employed at the study sites at the time of the pre- and post-intervention surveys, who did not attend project meetings, or who refused to complete either survey.

^†Comparisons are based on the signed rank test for ordinal variables (self-efficacy in counseling, satisfaction with counseling role) and the paired t-test for continuous variables (decisional balance subscales).

^‡One or more decisional balance items were missing for 4 and 7 ED nurses on the “pros” and “cons” subscales, respectively.

^§4-point scale: Very effective=3, Moderately effectively=2, Slightly effective=1, Ineffective=0

^{^}5-point scale: Very satisfied=2, Satisfied=1, Neutral=0, Somewhat dissatisfied= −1, Very dissatisfied= −2