Assessing efficacy of a web-based smoking cessation tool - QuitAdvisorMD: Protocol for a practice-based, clustered, randomized control trial.

Background: Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death, yet physicians inconsistently provide best-practices cessation advice to smokers. Point-of-care digital health tools can prompt and assist physicians to provide improved smoking cessation counseling. QuitAdvisorMD is a comprehensive web-based counseling and management digital health tool designed to guide smoking cessation counseling at the point-of-care. The tool enables clinicians to assess patient readiness to change and then deliver stage-appropriate interventions, while also incorporating Motivational Interviewing techniques. We present the research protocol to assess the efficacy of QuitAdvisorMD to change frequency and quality of smoking cessation counseling and its effect on patient quit rates. Methods: A practice-based, clustered, randomized controlled trial will be used to evaluate QuitAdvisorMD. Cluster design will be used where patients are clustered within primary care practices and practices will be randomized to either the intervention (QuitAdvisorMD) or control group. The primary outcome is frequency and quality of clinician initiated smoking cessation counseling. Secondary outcomes include, 1) changes in physician knowledge, skills and perceived self-efficacy in providing appropriate stage-based smoking cessation counseling and 2) patient quit attempts. Analyses will be conducted to determine pre- and post-test individual clinician outcomes and between intervention and control group practices for patient outcomes. Conclusion: Results from this study will provide important insights regarding the ability of an integrated, web-based counseling and management tool (QuitAdvisorMD) to impact both the quality and efficacy of smoking cessation counseling in primary care settings.

Motivational Interviewing Education in North American Family Medicine Clerkships: A CERA Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many health conditions are preventable or modifiable through behavioral changes. Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based communication technique that explores a patient's reasons for behavioral changes. This study assesses the current landscape of MI training in North American Family Medicine (FM) clerkships. METHODS: We analyzed data gathered as part of the 2022 Council of Academic Family Medicine's Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey of FM clerkship directors (CDs). The survey was distributed via email invitation to 159 US and Canadian FM CDs in June 2022. RESULTS: Of the 94 responses received, 61% indicated that MI training is provided in their FM clerkship. Medical school type, class size, and location were associated with MI training priority, offerings, and duration in the clerkship, respectively. CD experience correlated with MI training duration; student MI skill training level was associated with MI training duration and priority; the rigor of student MI skills evaluation was correlated with MI teaching methods and training duration; self-reported student MI competency was associated with the length of time students spent with FM community preceptors as well as MI training priority and teaching methods; and several items emerged as predictors of student, CD, and FM faculty MI training expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to enhance the volume, content, and rigor of MI training in North American FM clerkships as well as to improve self-reported student MI competency within those clerkships.

Feasibility of a primary care patient decision aid for smoking cessation with information about e-cigarettes.

Decision aids can promote shared decision making and behavior change and may be effective in helping patients quit smoking. Patients are increasingly using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation; however, little is known about the impact of including e-cigarette information in smoking cessation decision aids. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a smoking cessation decision aid including e-cigarette information. This study was conducted at one family medicine clinic in the United States. We used a pre-post design. In Phase I, the decision aid presented information about approved cessation methods. In Phase II, current e-cigarette users and patients with no intention of quitting received additional information on switching to e-cigarettes. We assessed the impact of the decision aids on quit attempts and abstinence, confidence and readiness to quit, confidence and readiness to switch to e-cigarettes, and patient satisfaction. We enrolled 60 patients in each phase (N = 120). Patients reported higher confidence and readiness to quit after viewing the decision aids and consulting with their physician (p < 0.01). Patients reported the decision aid helped prepare them to make a decision about quitting smoking and expressed satisfaction with the decision aid and clinician consultation. We did not observe an impact of including e-cigarette information. Smoking cessation decision aids are acceptable to patients and may promote behavior change. Future studies should explore the impact of providing patients e-cigarette information using larger sample sizes and rigorous designs. Further research is needed to identify strategies to promote shared decision-making regarding e-cigarettes.

Evaluation of a Smoking Cessation Patient Decision Aid That Integrates Information About E-Cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: Smokers increasingly use e-cigarettes to try to quit smoking, even more than recommended cessation methods. However, few smokers discuss the range of cessation options with their physicians. Decision aids can inform smokers about smoking cessation options, including evidence about e-cigarettes, and encourage smokers to engage in shared decision making with their physician. AIMS AND METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate a smoking cessation decision aid that included e-cigarette risks and benefits. Adult smokers were recruited from primary care clinics for two research phases: (1) usability and acceptability testing of the decision aid (n = 37); and (2) pre-post study that compared usual care (n = 90) with implementation of the decision aid in clinics (n = 90). For the latter, outcome measures included frequency of clinical discussions of readiness to quit, methods to quit in general, and of specific cessation methods, in addition to decisional conflict, communication satisfaction, and overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Smokers indicated high usability and acceptability of the decision aid. In the pre-post evaluation, decision aid implementation was associated with higher rates of smokers: being asked if they were ready to quit smoking (89% vs. 67%, respectively; p < .001); discussing methods for smoking cessation in general (81% vs. 48%; p < .001); and discussing specific cessation methods (NRT 55% vs. 26%, p < .001; prescription medications 26% vs. 12%, p = .022). Decision aid use was also associated with higher overall patient satisfaction with the physician visit. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation decision aids that incorporate information about e-cigarettes are acceptable among smokers and can lead to evidence-based clinical discussions about smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: Smokers use e-cigarettes more than recommended cessation methods when they are trying to quit smoking, yet few physicians discuss the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes with their patients who smoke. This study presents preliminary findings about the feasibility and usability of a clinically based iPad-delivered smoking cessation decision aid that integrates information about e-cigarettes. Although promising, further research with randomized designs, larger samples, and longer-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this type of intervention can effectively promote cessation of all tobacco products and, for those not ready to quit smoking, the use of e-cigarettes for harm reduction.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Recommending E-cigarettes to Smokers: a Best-Worst Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials suggest that e-cigarettes may be more effective for smoking cessation than traditional cessation aids, yet primary care physician (PCP) practices regarding e-cigarette recommendations for smokers have not been studied in-depth. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing PCP recommendation of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment and survey. PARTICIPANTS: Florida PCPs. MEASURES: The survey included a discrete choice experiment in which PCPs indicated whether they would recommend e-cigarettes for each of 8 hypothetical patient profiles with the following contrasting characteristics: e-cigarette use, interest in approved cessation methods, smoking intensity, prior experience with approved cessation medications, quit intention, age, and comorbidity. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and standardized scores (SS). KEY RESULTS: The sample (n = 216) was predominately male (76%), white (66%), and non-Hispanic (78%), and most respondents had held their medical degree for 20+ years (77%). The response rate was 28.7%. Most PCPs thought e-cigarettes were at least somewhat effective for smoking cessation (66%) and lowering disease risk (65%); 31% perceived e-cigarettes to be equally/more effective than traditional cessation aids. PCPs were split regarding whether e-cigarettes were less (50%) or equally harmful (38%) as cigarettes. Yet, few were very confident in their ability to counsel patients on e-cigarettes risks (27%) or benefits (15%). PCPs recommended e-cigarettes in 27% of patient profiles they evaluated. The most important factors influencing the decision to recommend or not recommend e-cigarette were patients' prior use of nicotine replacement therapy with (SS = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.17-0.27) and without use of other medications for cessation (SS = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13-0.23), and being middle age (50 years old) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SS = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.10-0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increased patient use of e-cigarettes and increasing use for cessation, this study highlights the need for guidelines and education to aid PCPs' counseling of patients about e-cigarette use.

E-cigarettes and the clinical encounter: Physician perspectives on e-cigarette safety, effectiveness, and patient educational needs.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: There is limited research on how health care providers approach the topic of e-cigarettes in clinical encounters, especially in conjunction with other best-practice recommendations for smoking cessation. This qualitative study explored physician perceptions and recommendations involving e-cigarettes in the context of smoking cessation counselling, including their opinions about the implementation and content of patient educational materials that focus on e-cigarettes. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 physicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and obstetrics/gynaecology (OB/GYN). RESULTS: Physicians did not routinely assess e-cigarette use among patients and reported that discussions were often initiated by patients. Only a minority of participants discussed e-cigarettes in conjunction with other best-practice recommendations for smoking cessation. Most others were more ambivalent about e-cigarette safety and effectiveness for cessation and did not address the topic, unless patients were already using e-cigarettes. Almost all, however, agreed that more research on e-cigarettes was needed. Physicians expressed an interest in having enhanced discussions about e-cigarettes with their patients and in using patient educational materials to accomplish this. Physicians recommended that these materials not actively promote e-cigarettes and be tailored to patients based on their demographics and motivation to quit. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians were open to improving their smoking cessation counselling and to integrating new patient educational materials that addressed e-cigarettes. Patient educational materials that provide tailored information about e-cigarettes could potentially be used initiate e-cigarette discussions and inform smokers about what is known vs unknown about e-cigarettes.

Should Measures of Health Care Availability Be Based on the Providers or the Procedures? A Case Study with Implications for Rural Colorectal Cancer Disparities.

PURPOSE: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) living in rural areas have lower survival rates than those in urban areas, potentially because of lack of access to quality CRC screening and treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional physician density (ie, colonoscopy provider availability per capita) against a new physician density measure using an example case of colonoscopy volume and quality. The latter is particularly relevant for rural providers, who may have fewer patients and are more frequently nongastroenterologists. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of the 2014 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database and the National Cancer Institute State Cancer Profile Database. Volume-weighted physician density scores at the state and county levels were created, accounting for (1) the physician's annual colonoscopy volume and (2) whether the physician performs ≥100 procedures per year. We compared volume-weighted versus traditional density, overall and by rurality, and examined their correlation with CRC screening, incidence, and mortality rates. FINDINGS: The difference between volume-weighted and traditional density scores was particularly large in rural parts of the West and Midwest, and it was most similar in the Northeast. Although weak, correlations with CRC outcomes were stronger for volume-weighted density, and they did not differ by rurality. CONCLUSIONS: Our new method is an improvement over traditional methods because it considers the variation of physician procedure volume, and it has a stronger correlation with population health outcomes. Weighted density scores portray a more realistic picture of physician supply, particularly in rural areas.

Preventing colorectal cancer or early diagnosis: Which is best? A re-analysis of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Report.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) is the only cancer screening test to lower the risk of death compared to usual care in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We hypothesize that this unique death reduction is more attributable to prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) than to early diagnosis. The systematic review of the 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Report for CRC Screening was used for selection of RCT studies. A random-effects meta-analysis of five FS trials (N = 458,002) and four fecal occult blood test (FOBT) trials (N = 328,767) was performed using intention-to-screen outcomes for death, CRC incidence, and death attributed to CRC; correlation and linear regression analyses explored the relationships between these outcomes. At 10.5-11.9 years of follow-up FS reduces death (relative risk [RR], 0.975; 95% CI, 0.958-0.992 and reduces CRC incidence (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84). Within the FS trials death reduction shows a strong linear correlation with CRC incidence reduction (r, 0.95; 95% CI 0.42-0.99). At 15.6-30.0 years of follow-up FOBT does not reduce death (RR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.992-1.010) or CRC incidence (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.02) but does reduce deaths attributed to CRC (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91). Clinical trials of screening FS display a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of CRC prevention and the magnitude of death reduction. Prevention of CRC appears to be the major (or sole) mechanism of action for death reduction by FS in clinical trials. Conversely, early diagnosis of CRC does not appear to reduce death.

A national survey of primary care physicians: Perceptions and practices of low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

Soon after the National Lung Screening Trial, organizations began to endorse low-dose computed tomography (LCDT) screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients. Concerns about the risks versus benefits of screening, as well as the logistics of identifying and referring eligible patients, remained among physicians. This study aimed to examine primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, referral practices, and associated barriers regarding LDCT screening. We administered a national survey of primary care physicians in the United States between September 2016 and April 2017. Physicians received up to 3 mailings, 1 follow-up email, and received varying incentives to complete the survey. Overall, 293 physicians participated, for a response rate of 13%. We used weighted descriptive statistics to characterize participants and their responses. Over half of the respondents correctly reported that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends LDCT screening for high-risk patients. Screening recommendations for patients not meeting high-risk criteria varied. Although 75% agreed that the benefits of LDCT screening outweigh the risks, fewer agreed that there is substantial evidence that screening reduces mortality (50%). The most commonly reported barriers to ordering screening included prior authorization requirements (57%), lack of insurance coverage (53%), and coverage denials (31%). The most frequently cited barrier to conducting LDCT screening shared decision making was patients' competing health priorities (42%). Given the impact of physician recommendations on cancer screening utilization, further understanding of physicians' LDCT screening attitudes and shared decision-making practices is needed. Clinical practice and policy changes are also needed to engage more patients in screening discussions.

Developing and testing a brief clinic-based lung cancer screening decision aid for primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening-related decisions require patients to evaluate complex medical information in short time frames, often with primary care providers (PCPs) they do not know. PCPs play an essential role in facilitating comprehensive shared decision making (SDM). OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a decision aid (DA) and SDM strategy for PCPs and high-risk patients. DESIGN: The DA was tested with 20 dyads. Each dyad consisted of one PCP and one patient eligible for screening. A prospective, one-group, mixed-method study design measured fidelity, patient values, screening intention, acceptability and satisfaction. RESULTS: Four PCPs and 20 patients were recruited from an urban academic medical centre. Most patients were female (n = 14, 70%), most had completed high school (n = 15, 75%), and their average age was 65 years old. Half were African American. Patients and PCPs rated the DA as helpful, easy to read and use and acceptable in terms of time frame (observed t = 11.6 minutes, SD 2.7). Most patients (n = 16, 80%) indicated their intent to be screened. PCPs recommended screening for most patients (n = 17, 85%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the value of lung cancer screening with LDCT for select high-risk patients. Guidelines endorse engaging patients and their PCPs in SDM discussions. Our findings suggest that using a brief, interactive, plain-language, culturally sensitive, theory-based DA and SDM strategy is feasible, acceptable and may be essential to effectively translate and sustain the adoption of LDCT screening recommendations into the clinic setting.

A Good Idea May Not Be Good Enough: Stakeholder Buy In to QuitConnect, a National Smokers' Registry.

PURPOSE: To examine interest and concerns among those who fund and operate state-run smoking cessation helplines (quitlines) about the concept of creating a centralized smokers' registry that could be used to reengage smokers after they receive initial quitline support services. DESIGN: We conducted 3, hour-long focus groups with stakeholders, covering the perceived benefits and barriers to creating a smokers' registry. SETTING: The focus groups were conducted via telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Three groups participated: quitline service providers (n = 14), quitline funders (n = 9), and national quitline partners (n = 8). METHOD: Data collection: Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and coded for major relevant themes. Analysis Strategies: We used a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Stakeholders were generally positive about the concept of a centralized smokers' registry (ie, QuitConnect), especially with its potential to link relapsed smokers to ongoing research studies designed to help smokers achieve abstinence from tobacco. However, stakeholders expressed concern about QuitConnect duplicating services already offered by state quitlines. CONCLUSION: Despite a common goal, many state quitline stakeholders had strong reservations about the creation of a centralized smokers' registry unless they could see clear evidence that the registry added value and was not duplicative of their existing services.

Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening among family physicians.

BACKGROUND: The results of the National Lung Screening Trial showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all-cause mortality when high-risk patients were screened with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x-ray (CXR). The US Preventive Services Task Force has issued a grade B recommendation for LDCT screening, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private insurers now cover the screening cost under certain conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of LDCT screening for lung cancer among family physicians. METHODS: A 32-item questionnaire was distributed to members of the South Carolina Academy of Family Physicians in 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: There were 101 respondents, and most had incorrect knowledge about which organizations recommended screening. Many physicians continued to recommend CXR for lung cancer screening. Most felt that LDCT screening increased the odds of detecting disease at earlier stages (98%) and that the benefits outweighed the harms (75%). Concerns included unnecessary procedures (88%), stress/anxiety (52%), and radiation exposure (50%). Most physicians discussed the risks/benefits of screening with their patients in some capacity (76%); however, more than 50% reported making 1 or no screening recommendations in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Most family physicians report discussing LDCT with patients at high risk for lung cancer; however, referrals remain low. There are gaps in physician knowledge about screening guidelines and reimbursement, and this indicates a need for further educational outreach. The development of decision aids may facilitate shared decision-making discussions about screening, and targeted interventions may improve knowledge gaps. Cancer 2016;122:2324-2331. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Smoking cessation: What should you recommend?

Fifty years after a landmark report on its perils, smoking remains a major public health problem. Here's the latest on how best to help patients quit.

Physician Advice for e-Cigarette Use.

PURPOSE: To determine characteristics of smokers discussing e-cigarette use with their physician and receiving recommendations from their physician to use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. METHODS: US adult smokers who had visited a physician in the previous 12 months (n = 2671) were surveyed. Logistic generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the characteristics of smokers who (1) talked to a physician about e-cigarettes, and (2) received physician advice to use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. RESULTS: 15% (n = 406) of smokers who visited a physician talked with their physician about e-cigarettes. Among those asked whether their physician recommend e-cigarettes for smoking cessation (n = 257), 61% responded affirmatively. Current e-cigarette users were more likely to talk to their physicians about e-cigarettes (nondaily users vs never users: OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.79-4.05; daily users vs never users: OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 2.34-7.84) and have their physician recommend e-cigarettes for smoking cessation (daily users vs never users: OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.54-34.71). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of smokers who talk to their physician about e-cigarettes report that they received advice to use e-cigarettes to quit smoking, despite limited evidence for their efficacy. More studies are needed to better understand e-cigarette recommendations in clinical settings.

Common questions about the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Common questions that arise regarding treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include which medications are most effective, when surgery may be indicated, which patients should be screened for Barrett esophagus and Helicobacter pylori infection, and which adverse effects occur with these medications. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most effective medical therapy, and all PPIs provide similar relief of GERD symptoms. There is insufficient evidence to recommend testing for H. pylori in patients with GERD. In the absence of alarm symptoms, endoscopy is not necessary to make an initial diagnosis of GERD. Patients with alarm symptoms require endoscopy. Screening for Barrett esophagus is not routinely recommended, but may be considered in white men 50 years or older who have had GERD symptoms for at least five years. Symptom remission rates in patients with chronic GERD are similar in those who undergo surgery vs. medical management. PPI therapy has been associated with an increased risk of hip fracture, hypomagnesemia, community-acquired pneumonia, vitamin B12 deficiency, and Clostridium difficile infection.

Azithromycin and levofloxacin use and increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia and death.

PURPOSE: Azithromycin use has been associated with increased risk of death among patients at high baseline risk, but not for younger and middle-aged adults. The Food and Drug Administration issued a public warning on azithromycin, including a statement that the risks were similar for levofloxacin. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among US veterans to test the hypothesis that taking azithromycin or levofloxacin would increase the risk of cardiovascular death and cardiac arrhythmia compared with persons taking amoxicillin. METHODS: We studied a cohort of US veterans (mean age, 56.8 years) who received an exclusive outpatient dispensation of either amoxicillin (n = 979,380), azithromycin (n = 594,792), or levofloxacin (n = 201,798) at the Department of Veterans Affairs between September 1999 and April 2012. Azithromycin was dispensed mostly for 5 days, whereas amoxicillin and levofloxacin were dispensed mostly for at least 10 days. RESULTS: During treatment days 1 to 5, patients receiving azithromycin had significantly increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.09) and serious arrhythmia (HR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.20-2.62) compared with patients receiving amoxicillin. On treatment days 6 to 10, risks were not statistically different. Compared with patients receiving amoxicillin, patients receiving levofloxacin for days 1 to 5 had a greater risk of death (HR = 2.49, 95% CI, 1.7-3.64) and serious cardiac arrhythmia (HR = 2.43, 95% CI, 1.56-3.79); this risk remained significantly different for days 6 to 10 for both death (HR = 1.95, 95% CI, 1.32-2.88) and arrhythmia (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.09-2.82). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with amoxicillin, azithromycin resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality and arrhythmia risks on days 1 to 5, but not 6 to 10. Levofloxacin, which was predominantly dispensed for a minimum of 10 days, resulted in an increased risk throughout the 10-day period.

Evaluation of nausea and vomiting: a case-based approach.

In the absence of acute abdominal pain, significant headache, or recent initiation of certain medications, acute nausea and vomiting is usually the result of self-limited gastrointestinal infections. Nausea and vomiting is also a common adverse effect of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgical anesthesia. Other potential diagnoses include endocrine conditions (including pregnancy), central nervous system disorders, psychiatric causes, toxin exposure, metabolic abnormalities, and obstructive or functional gastrointestinal causes. The likely cause of acute nausea and vomiting can usually be determined by history and physical examination. Alarm signs such as dehydration, acidosis caused by an underlying metabolic disorder, or an acute abdomen warrant additional evaluation. Based on the suspected diagnosis, basic laboratory testing may include urinalysis, urine pregnancy testing, complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, amylase and lipase levels, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, and stool studies with cultures. Imaging studies include abdominal radiography, ultrasonography, and computed tomography. Computed tomography of the head should be performed if an acute intracranial process is suspected. Chronic nausea and vomiting is defined by symptoms that persist for at least one month. Patients with risk factors for gastric malignancies or alarm symptoms should be evaluated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy. If gastroparesis is suspected, a gastric emptying study is recommended. In addition to functional causes, it is also important to consider psychiatric causes when evaluating patients with chronic nausea and vomiting.

Improving smoking cessation counseling using a point-of-care health intervention tool (IT): from the Virginia Practice Support and Research Network (VaPSRN).

PURPOSE: Primary care practices are an ideal setting for reducing national smoking rates because >70% of smokers visit their physician annually, yet smoking cessation counseling is inconsistently delivered to patients. We designed and created a novel software program for handheld computers and hypothesized that it would improve clinicians' ability to provide patient-tailored smoking cessation counseling at the point of care. METHODS: A handheld computer software program was created based on smoking cessation guidelines and an adaptation of widely accepted behavioral change theories. The tool was evaluated using a validated before/after survey to measure physician smoking cessation counseling behaviors, knowledge, and comfort/self-efficacy. RESULTS: Participants included 17 physicians (mean age, 41 years; 71% male; 5 resident physicians) from a practice-based research network. After 4 months of use in direct patient care, physicians were more likely to advise patients to stop smoking (P = .049) and reported an increase in use of the "5 As" (P = .03). Improved self-efficacy in counseling patients regarding smoking cessation (P = .006) was seen, as was increased comfort in providing follow-up to patients (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a handheld computer software tool improved smoking cessation counseling among physicians and shows promise for translating evidence about smoking cessation counseling into practice and educational settings.