A randomized trial of a pay-for-performance program targeting clinician referral to a state tobacco quitline.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco quitlines offer clinicians a means to connect their patients with evidence-based treatments. Innovative methods are needed to increase clinician referral. METHODS: This is a clinic randomized trial that compared usual care (n = 25 clinics) vs a pay-for-performance program (intervention) offering $5000 for 50 quitline referrals (n = 24 clinics). Pay-for-performance clinics also received monthly updates on their referral numbers. Patients were eligible for referral if they visited a participating clinic, were 18 years or older, currently smoked cigarettes, and intended to quit within the next 30 days. The primary outcome was the clinic's rate of quitline referral (ie, number of referrals vs number of smokers seen in clinic). RESULTS: Pay-for-performance clinics referred 11.4% of smokers (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-14.9%; total referrals, 1483) compared with 4.2% (95% CI, 1.5%-6.9%; total referrals, 441) for usual care clinics (P = .001). Rates of referral were similar in intervention vs usual care clinics (n = 9) with a history of being very engaged with quality improvement activities (14.1% vs 15.1%, respectively; P = .85). Rates were substantially higher in intervention vs usual care clinics with a history of being engaged (n = 22 clinics; 10.1% vs 3.0%; P = .001) or less engaged (n = 18 clinics; 10.1% vs 1.1%; P = .02) with quality improvement. The rate of patient contact after referral was 60.2% (95% CI, 49.7%-70.7%). Among those contacted, 49.4% (95% CI, 42.8%-55.9%) enrolled, representing 27.0% (95% CI, 21.3%-32.8%) of all referrals. The marginal cost per additional quitline enrollee was $300. CONCLUSION: A pay-for-performance program increases referral to tobacco quitline services, particularly among clinics with a history of less engagement in quality improvement activities.

The impact of smoking-cessation intervention by multiple health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Smokers have contact with many different types of health professionals. The impact of tobacco intervention by multiple types of heath professionals is not known. METHODS AND MATERIALS: As part of the 2003 Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey, smokers (n=1723) reported on tobacco treatment by medical doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, or other health professionals. This analysis examined: (1) smokers' report of tobacco intervention by different types of healthcare providers, (2) the proportion of smokers who report intervention by multiple provider types, and (3) the relationship between smokers' report of intervention by multiple provider types and readiness to quit, quit attempts, and recent quitting. RESULTS: Among past-year smokers, 65% had visits with two or more types of health professionals. Among smokers who visited health professionals (n=1523), only 34% reported being asked about smoking by two or more types of professionals. Among current smokers (n=1324), advice or assistance from more than one type of professional was uncommon (26% and 7%, respectively). Being asked about smoking by two or more types of professionals substantially increased the odds of recent quitting (OR=2.37; 95% CI=1.15-4.88). Among current smokers, being advised to quit by two or more types of professionals increased the odds of having made a quit attempt in the past year (OR=2.92; 95% CI=1.56-5.45) or intending to quit in the next 6 months (OR=2.17; 95% CI=1.10-4.29). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking-cessation interventions by more than one type of health professional have the potential to substantially increase quitting and readiness to quit in the population.

Treatment of tobacco use as a chronic medical condition: primary care physicians' self-reported practice patterns.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to better understand factors related to physician treatment of tobacco as a chronic medical condition. METHODS: In the fall of 2000, we conducted a mail survey of primary care physicians in a large mid-western health plan. The response rate was 61% (750/1235). The survey assessed physician attitude, perceived clinic support, training, and self-reported tobacco treatment practices. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of physicians reported incomplete or minimal care. Thirty-nine percent reported providing assistance without follow-up, while 21% reported providing follow-up to tobacco users making quit attempts. Only 12% of physicians reported assistance and follow-up for all tobacco users. Controlling for differences in physician and clinic characteristics, more positive physician attitudes decreased incomplete or minimal care (OR = 4.62 most positive tertile vs. least positive, P < 0.001) but did not increase follow-up activities. Higher perceived clinic support increased follow-up care (OR = 2.69, highest tertile vs. lowest, P < 0.001). Physician training was associated with increased provision of ongoing care (OR = 1.88 per additional hour of training, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician attitudes, clinic support, and training are related to different steps in the adoption of more complete tobacco use treatment. These findings support the need for multifaceted approaches to improve tobacco treatment as a chronic medical condition.