AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, Issue 12 1760-1766, Copyright © 1996 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hovell, M F
Right arrow Articles by Noel, D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hovell, M F
Right arrow Articles by Noel, D
An adolescent tobacco-use prevention trial in orthodontic offices.

M F Hovell, D J Slymen, J A Jones, C R Hofstetter, S Burkham-Kreitner, T L Conway, B Rubin and D Noel

Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, CA 92182-0405, USA.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effect of an orthodontist-delivered tobacco-use prevention program for adolescents. METHODS: Southern California orthodontic offices were randomly assigned to experimental (n = 77) and control (n = 77) groups. Randomly selected adolescents were interviewed at baseline and 2 years later (n = 15,644). Experimental offices received tobacco prevention training, anti-tobacco materials, and 50 cents for each anti-tobacco "prescription" written. RESULTS: The 30-day tobacco use 2-year incidence rates for the control and experimental groups were 12.6% and 12.0%, respectively; incidence rates for using tobacco more than 100 times were 7.6% and 6.8%. Differences between the groups did not reach significance. Mean prescription compliance was 64.4%. A multivariate logistic model, showed a significant dose response: patients who received more prescriptions had lower incidence rates than those who received few or none (10% vs 14%). CONCLUSIONS: Training, payment, and support did not ensure clinician compliance with prevention services. The dose effect suggests that replication under conditions that would ensure clinician compliance and statistical power would more thoroughly test clinicians' ability to prevent tobacco use.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
K. R. Kast, R. Berg, A. Deas, D. Lezotte, and L. A. Crane
Colorado Dental Practitioners' Attitudes and Practices Regarding Tobacco-Use Prevention Activities for 8- Through 12-Year-Old Patients
J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2008; 139(4): 467 - 475.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav ModifHome page
L. A. Jason, S. B. Pokorny, M. Adams, Y. Hunt, P. Gadiraju, T. Morello, M. Schoeny, and C. Dinwiddie
Youth Caught in Violation of Tobacco Purchase, Use, and Possession Laws: Education Versus Fines
Behav Modif, November 1, 2007; 31(6): 713 - 731.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Pediatr PsycholHome page
V. L. Tyc
Strategies for Tobacco Control Among Youngsters with Cancer
J. Pediatr. Psychol., October 1, 2007; 32(9): 1067 - 1078.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
V. L. Tyc and L. Throckmorton-Belzer
Smoking Rates and the State of Smoking Interventions for Children and Adolescents With Chronic Illness
Pediatrics, August 1, 2006; 118(2): e471 - e487.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Public Health Association