Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 6;17(5):1728. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051728

Table 6.

Results of generalized estimating equations analyses predicting smoking prevalence and treatment engagement among patients in cancer clinics that used the module and cancer clinics that did not use the module adjusting for the clustering of patients within clinics.

Outcome Predictor % Odds Ratio 95%CI p
Total Patients (N = 41,214)
Assessment
No module 90.0 Reference -- --
Module 84.9 0.63 0.58, 0.67 <0.0001
Smoking *
No module 10.4 Reference -- --
Module 13.1 1.3 1.2, 1.4 <0.0001
Total Smokers (N = 4397)
Any Treatment **
No module 17.5 Reference -- --
Module 31.2 2.1 1.8, 2.6 <0.0001
Brief Advice
No module 14.6 Reference -- --
Module 24.5 1.9 1.6, 2.3 <0.0001
Medication
No module 3.6 Reference -- --
Module 6.8 2.0 1.4, 2.8 0.0003
Additional Counseling Offer
No module 0.95 Reference -- --
Module 24.6 34.2 17.6, 66.1 <0.0001
Additional Counseling Referral ***
No module 0.0 Reference -- --
Module 2.9 -- -- --

* For patients without smoking status assessment, if they received any smoking cessation treatment, they would be identified as smokers. Therefore, smoking prevalence in cancer clinics that used the module and cancer clinics that did not use the module were calculated for patients who were assessed and documented as smokers or received any type of smoking cessation treatment (n = 35,548). **Any treatment is defined as patients receiving medication, brief advice given, or additional counseling was referred. *** Since there were no patients referred for additional counseling in cancer clinics that use the module, we could not get an estimate for this indicator of treatment engagement.