Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: A pre-post intervention comparison

  • J. Paul Seale
    ,
  • Sylvia Shellenberger
    ,
  • Mary M. Velasquez
    ,
  • John M. Boltri
    ,
  • Ike Okosun
    ,
  • Monique Guyinn
  • Mercer University
    ,
  • University of Texas at Austin
    ,
  • Georgia State University
    ,
  • University of Missouri
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Background. Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients for both alcohol and tobacco misuse. This pilot study's aims were: (1) To determine the feasibility of combined vital signs screening for tobacco and alcohol misuse, (2) To assess the impact of vital signs screening on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates, and (3) To assess the additional impact of tobacco assessment prompts on intervention rates. Methods. In five outpatient practices, nurses measuring vital signs were trained to routinely ask a single tobacco question, a prescreening question that identified current drinkers, and the single alcohol screening question for current drinkers. After 4-8 weeks, clinicians were trained in tobacco intervention and nurses were trained to give tobacco abusers a tobacco questionnaire which also served as a clinician intervention prompt. Screening and intervention rates were measured using patient exit interviews (n = 622) at baseline, during the "screening only" period, and during the tobacco prompting phase. Changes in screening and intervention rates were compared using chi square analyses and test of linear trends. Clinic staff were interviewed regarding patient and staff acceptability. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of nurse screening on clinician intervention, the impact of alcohol intervention on concurrent tobacco intervention, and the impact of tobacco intervention on concurrent alcohol intervention. Results. Alcohol and tobacco screening rates and alcohol intervention rates increased after implementing vital signs screening (p < .05). During the tobacco prompting phase, clinician intervention rates increased significantly for both alcohol (12.4%, p < .001) and tobacco (47.4%, p = .042). Screening by nurses was associated with clinician advice to reduce alcohol use (OR 13.1; 95% CI 6.2-27.6) and tobacco use (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-5.2). Acceptability was high with nurses and patients. Conclusions. Vital signs screening can be incorporated in primary care and increases alcohol screening and intervention rates. Tobacco assessment prompts increase both alcohol and tobacco interventions. These simple interventions show promise for dissemination in primary care settings.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Article number

18

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

BMC Family Practice (Volume 11)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 2010

Publication status

Published - 2010

ISSN

1471-2296

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 77949939439
  • PubMed: 20205740
  • ORCID: /0000-0002-3150-2199/work/67683834

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
citations
13
SciVal
FWCI
1.59
SciVal
Author count
9
SciVal
Paper percentile
68
Scopus
citations
Fractional count
2
Fractional count
0.22
Fractional count
7
Fractional count
0.78
Fractional count
2
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
40
Citation count
20

Funding Details

This study was supported by a grant from the Medcen Foundation, Macon, Georgia. The authors are grateful for the assistance of the following clinicians who participated in the study: Freddy Gaton, MD, W. Steven Wilson, MD, Michael Greene, MD, Richard Culp, MD, Cornell Peters, MD, Sharny Singh, PAC, and Layne B. Williamson, FNP.
FunderFunding numbers
Medcen Community Health Foundation
-