Análisis crítico de un artículo: terapia de reemplazo de la nicotina, efectividad en un escenario real
Objective: To examine the population effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), either with or without professional counselling, and provide evidence needed to better inform healthcare coverage decisions. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in three waves on a probability...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Lenguaje: | Spanish / Castilian |
| Publicado: |
Sociedad Médica de Santiago
2013
|
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872013001000015 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Objective: To examine the population effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), either with or without professional counselling, and provide evidence needed to better inform healthcare coverage decisions. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in three waves on a probability sample of 787 Massachusetts adult smokers who had recently quit smoking. The baseline response rate was 46%; follow-up was completed by 56% of the designated cohort at wave 2 and 68% at wave 3. The relationship between relapse to smoking at follow-up interviews and assistance used, including NRT with or without professional help, was examined. Results: Almost one-third of recent quitters at each wave reported to have relapsed by the subsequent interview. Odds of relapse were unaffected by use of NRT for > 6 weeks either with (p = 0.117) or without (p = 0.159) professional counseling and were highest among prior heavily dependent persons who reported NRT use for any length of time without professional counselling (OR 2.68). Conclusions: This study finds that persons who have quit smoking relapsed at equivalent rates, whether or not they used NRT to help them in their quit attempts. Cessation medication policy should be made in the larger context of public health, and increasing individual treatment coverage should not be at the expense of population evidence-based programmes and policies. |
|---|