Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:36:14.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Disseminating evidence from health technology assessment: The case of tobacco prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2006

Susanna Axelsson
Affiliation:
The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Ásgeir R. Helgason
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institute
Karl E. Lund
Affiliation:
Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research
Jan Adolfsson
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of the present study were to investigate the awareness among dentists and dental hygienists of evidence-based reports and guidelines on tobacco cessation activities and the impact these publications had on clinical practice.

Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to dental hygienists and dentists in Stockholm County, Sweden, and the results were compared with a previous investigation.

Results: Among the respondents, awareness of a popular science version of a systematic review on smoking and its effect on oral health was reported by 90 percent of the hygienists and 66 percent of the dentists. The information was used in clinical work by 34 percent of the dentists and 54 percent of the hygienists. Reported changes in patterns of practice were more frequent recommendations to use nicotine replacement therapy and a more widespread use of setting quit dates. Approximately one quarter of the dental professionals reported that they had increased tobacco cessation consultation because of the results from the reports.

Conclusions: Changes in patterns of practice were observed after dissemination of evidence-based information on tobacco cessation. Methods that were proven to be effective in the evidence-based report such as discussing quit dates and recommending nicotine replacement therapy were more commonly used after the publication of the report. Short, popular versions of extensive systematic reviews seem to be useful for implementing evidence-based knowledge and changing clinical practice.

Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)