Dental staff and patient attitudes about nicotine replacement therapy samples in dental care: A National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network study.

Autor:	Japuntich, Sandra J., Dunbar, Michael S., Predmore, Zachary, Bloom, Erika Litvin, Fang, Pearl, Basile, Sarah, Rindal, D. Brad, Waiwaiole, Lisa A., Carpenter, Matthew J., Kopycka‐Kedzierawski, Dorota T., Dahne, Jennifer, Lischka, Tamara R., Richardson, Peggy
Předmět:	DENTAL care SMOKING cessation SMOKING cessation products NICOTINE replacement therapy QUALITATIVE research RESEARCH funding INTERVIEWING DESCRIPTIVE statistics THEMATIC analysis RESEARCH methodology DRUG interactions DRUG efficacy DRUGS DENTISTS' attitudes PATIENTS' attitudes ORAL health DRUG resistance
Zdroj:	Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology; Aug2024, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p440-451, 12p
Abstrakt:	Objectives: Cigarette smoking negatively affects oral health. Nicotine replacement therapies (NRT; e.g. nicotine patch or lozenge) and brief interventions (e.g. Ask‐Advise‐Refer; AAR) can improve cessation outcomes but are underutilized. NRT sampling (NRTS) increases NRT utilization by providing patients with samples of NRT as part of routine healthcare. Ask‐Advise‐Refer is a brief intervention where practitioners: ask patients about tobacco use, advise those using tobacco to quit and refer to the state quit line. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore dental care practitioners' and patients' attitudes and experiences regarding tobacco cessation treatment and perceptions of two brief intervention models, assessed separately: NRTS and AAR. Methods: Twenty‐four dental care practitioners and nine patients, recruited through the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network, participated in semi‐structured telephone interviews. Interviews assessed experiences with tobacco use intervention and attitudes towards NRTS and AAR. Thematic analysis identified emergent themes related to feasibility and acceptability of NRTS and AAR. Results: Practitioners varied on how they address tobacco use, from systematically to idiosyncratically. Some practitioners recommend NRT; few had prescribed it. Practitioners had favourable attitudes towards AAR and NRTS, with most believing that both interventions would be acceptable and feasible to implement. Concerns regarding AAR were time and patient resistance to discussing tobacco use. Concerns regarding NRTS were patient resistance to using NRT, side effects or medication interactions, and capacity to provide follow‐up. Patients reported that oral health practitioners generally ask about tobacco use but do not provide interventions. Patients were open to discussing their tobacco use with practitioners and had favourable attitudes about NRTS. Conclusions: This formative work suggests that NRTS and AAR may be feasible to implement in dental care settings. Future studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and implementation potential of NRTS in dental care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze:	Complementary Index
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text