Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Uso de historias clínicas electrónicas para apoyar el abandono del hábito de fumar

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008743.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 30 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Tabaquismo

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Raymond Boyle

    Correspondencia a: ClearWay MinnesotaSM, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    [email protected]

  • Leif Solberg

    HealthPartners Research Foundation, HealthPartners, Minneapolis, USA

  • Michael Fiore

    Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Contributions of authors

RB completed the search and screening.

RB, LS, and MF completed study selection.

RB extracted the data; checked by LS and MF.

RB, LS, and MF wrote the text of the review.

Declarations of interest

Dr Boyle has no competing financial interest. He is an investigator on an included study.

Dr Solberg has no competing interest.

Dr Fiore has no competing financial interest. He is an investigator on two included studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful search assistance from Wendy Theobald, University of Wisconsin, and Lindsay Stead.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Dec 30

Use of electronic health records to support smoking cessation

Review

Raymond Boyle, Leif Solberg, Michael Fiore

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008743.pub3

2011 Dec 07

Use of electronic health records to support smoking cessation

Review

Raymond Boyle, Leif Solberg, Michael Fiore

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008743.pub2

2010 Oct 06

Use of electronic health records to support smoking cessation

Protocol

Raymond Boyle, Leif Solberg, Michael Fiore

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008743

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram for update 2014
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram for update 2014

Study

Smoking cessation

Guideline recommended actions

Randomized controlled trials

Bentz 2007

Guideline actions increased within the intervention clinics for smoking status (94.5% vs 88.1% p<0.05), advised to quit (71.6% vs 52.7%, p<0.001), assessed interest in quitting 65.5% vs 40.1% p<0.001), and provided assistance (20.1% vs 10.5%, p < 0.001).

Quitline referral increased in the intervention clinics (adjusted OR 1.53)

Linder 2009

Significantly more smokers in the intervention clinics were subsequently documented as nonsmokers compared to smokers in the control clinics (5.3% vs 1.9%, p < 0.001)

Significantly more smokers were referred to cessation counselling in the intervention clinics (4.5% vs 0.4% in control clinics, p<0.001), and significantly more smokers from intervention clinics made contact with a cessation counsellor (3.9% vs 0.3% in control clinics, p<0.001). No difference in the proportion of documented smokers from control or intervention clinics prescribed any cessation medication (2.0% vs 2.0%).

Rindal 2013

Significantly more smoking patients from intervention clinics versus control clinic patients reported dental provider actions: discussed interest in quitting (87% vs 70%); discussed quitting (47% vs 26%); and referral to quitline (37% vs 17%).

Sherman 2008

The average number of smokers per month referred to telephone counselling increased from 1.0 to 15.6 (p< 0.001) among intervention clinic providers, and from 0.2 to 0.7 (p<0.04) among control clinic providers.

Vidrine 2013

Patients from intervention clinics were more likely to enroll in quitline treatment compared to control clinics (15% vs 0.5%).

Vidrine 2013a

Patients from intervention clinics were more likely to enroll in quitline treatment compared to control clinics (8% vs 0.6%).

Controlled trials

Bentz 2002

Documentation of tobacco use was unchanged in the paper chart clinic, but increased from 79% to 88% in the enhanced EHR clinic.

Frank 2004

Assessment of smoking status was unchanged between intervention and control patient visits (2.0% vs 1.8%, RR 1.12 , 95% CI 0.90 to 1.39).

Szpunar 2006

Asking about tobacco use increased in the intervention clinics from 88.4% to 92.8%.

Uncontrolled trials

Adsit 2014

The proportion of patients referred to the quitline increased from <1% to 14%. 5% enrolled in quitline treatment.

Koplan 2008

The proportion of smoking patients referred to cessation counselling increased from 0.8% to 2.1% (p < 0.001); medication ordered increased from 1.6% to 2.5% (p < 0.001).

Lindholm 2010

Tobacco use status in the EHR increased from 71.6% to 78.4% (p < 0.001).

Mathias 2012

The percentage of documented smokers with a change in smoking status from active to quit during the pre‐ or postintervention period increased from 17.1% in the preintervention cohort to 20.5% in the postintervention cohort (p = .06)

In the post enhancement period, cessation medication prescribing did not change (14.4% vs. 13.4%, p = .5), but quitline referral increased from 2% to 7% (p < 0.001).

McCullough 2009

Tobacco use status increased from 71% to 84% (p < 0.001). Assessement of plan to quit increased from 25.% to 51% (p < 0.005), and smokers assessed for a plan to quit were more likely to receive cessation counselling (46% vs 14% among smokers not assessed, p < 0.001).

Ragucci 2009

Of 90 smokers in the study, 29 were quit at 6 months (32%)

Spencer 1999

Recording of tobacco use status increased from 18.4% to 80.3%.

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Study results, Outcome 1 All outcomes.

Use of electronic health records to support smoking cessation

Patient or population: People who smoke

Settings: Healthcare clinics

Intervention: Any use of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) to improve smoking status documentation or cessation assistance for patients who use tobacco, either by direct action or by feedback of clinical performance measures.

Comparison: No EHR, or EHR without support for smoking cessation intervention

Outcomes

Effect

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Smoking cessation

More intervention clinic than control clinic smokers quit (5.3% vs 1.9%, p < 0.001)

1 cluster RCT, 26 clinics

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very low1

Indirect measurement based on EHR documentation of smoking status

Guideline recommended actions

Studies typically showed positive effects on outcomes including documenting smoking status, giving advice to quit, assessing interest in quitting, and providing assistance including referral.

6 cluster RCTs, 98 clinics

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderate2

Studies did not all assess the same outcomes. Non randomized and uncontrolled studies also showed positive effects

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Only one study reported the outcome, and did not use direct patient report of cessation

2 Heterogeneity in the interventions and targeted behaviours

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Study results

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All outcomes Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

1.1 Randomized controlled trials

Other data

No numeric data

1.2 Controlled trials

Other data

No numeric data

1.3 Uncontrolled trials

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Study results