Lou 2013.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Design: Cluster‐randomized controlled trial Setting: 14 healthcare units in rural area of Xuzhou city, China Recruitment: Physicians recruited their patients |
|
| Participants | 136 providers, 14 practices 3562 participants diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aged 35 or older, smoked 1 cpd or no quit attempts longer than 3m, , av. age not reported, av. cpd not reported |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: • Healthcare professionals received a 6‐hour training in behavioral interventions for quitting smoking • Participants received a brief smoking cessation advice after the baseline interview, were provided with a plan to quit smoking (e.g. setting a quit date). Other measures to encourage smoking cessation included home visit by the providers at least once a week). They were followed up by the providers once a week in the first month and thereafter once a month until the end of study. Participants in healthcare centres were visited by 'the professional group' (e.g. respiratory, rehabilitation, nutrition, sports and psychology specialists) every 2 months and were provided with smoking‐related and obesity‐related psychological support Control: usual care. QUOTE: "The content and number of usual care services were not standardized. Participants were followed up every two months and asked whether the symptoms aggravated, what medication they used, etc." No further details reported |
|
| Outcomes | Continuous abstinence at 6m Validation: Expired CO ≤ 10 ppm |
|
| Funding Source | Science and Technology Projects of Xuzhou City | |
| Author's declarations of interest | The authors declared that they had no competing interests | |
| Notes | Strategy: Adjunctive counseling & provider training Level: Patient & Provider Comparison type: Multicomponent vs. standard care |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Sequence Generation | Unclear risk | QUOTE: "The healthcare centres were classified in two classes: with high or low task delegation from general practitioners to nurses. The healthcare centres in the classes were then randomly allocated to the groups". No further information. |
| Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | No details reported |
| Blinding of outcome assessors All outcomes | Low risk | Smoking status biochemically validated |
| Incomplete outcome data All outcomes | Low risk | The overall loss to follow‐up was 24.5% (n = 873/3562); 21.5% (n = 390/1814) in the intervention group and 27.6% (n = 483/1748) in the control group were lost to follow‐up at 48 months |
| Recruitment bias (cluster RCTs only) | Low risk | Participants were affiliated with their family physicians before randomization |
| Balanced baseline characteristics? (cluster RCTs only) | Low risk | No statistically significant differences were found between groups |
| Adjustment for clustering in analysis? (cluster RCTs only) | High risk | None apparent |