TABLE 2.

Patient reports on secondary study outcomes (attempt to quit smoking, point prevalence abstinence) at follow-up week 4, 12 and 26, stratified by pre/post data collection period and by training method of the GP they had consulted at baseline; and associations of these outcomes with training (post versus pre) and its interaction with the training method (ABC versus 5As by post versus pre); imputed data

Outcome (patient-reported)	Pre-training %			Post-training %			aORimputed post versus pre (95% CI)#	aRORimputed ABC versus 5As# by post versus pre (95%CI)
	PreABC	Pre5As	Pretotal	PostABC	Post5As	Posttotal
Quit attempt at week 4	19.4	18.7	19.0	21.4	15.5	18.7	0.95 (0.67–1.35)	1.17 (0.64–2.13)
Quit attempt at week 12	25.8	28.1	26.9	30.6	21.6	26.5	1.02 (0.72–1.45)	1.12 (0.65–1.93)
Quit attempt at week 26	29.1	29.5	29.3	28.8	20.5	24.9	0.88 (0.57–1.38)	1.07 (0.63–1.83)
Point prevalence abstinence at week 4	6.3	5.6	6.0	8.8	2.6	5.9	0.99 (0.50–1.97)	1.64 (0.53–5.10)
Point prevalence abstinence at week 12	9.9	11.8	10.9	12.6	0.8	7.1	0.70 (0.38–1.26)	1.71 (0.75–3.91)
Point prevalence abstinence at week 26	10.0	14.1	12.0	13.8	5.1	9.7	1.00 (0.51–1.95)	1.51 (0.62–3.67)

Data are presented as imputed percentages, adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and adjusted ratios of the odds ratios (aROR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) around aOR and aROR. Since multiple imputation was used, no absolute numbers are reported within this table.

^#Logistic regression models with a fixed effect for time (post- versus pre-training) and random intercepts and slopes (for the time effect) for the practices; for the ABC versus 5As comparison: the group variable (ABC versus 5As training) and its interaction with time were added to the models as fixed effects; both models were adjusted for patients’ sex, age, level of education, time spent with urges to smoke and strength of urges to smoke (Strength of Urges to Smoke Scale [25]).