• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Public Health  • Tobacco  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Lawrence C. An, MD; James H. Bluhm, MPH; Steven S. Foldes, PhD; Nina L. Alesci, PhD; Colleen M. Klatt, PhD; Bruce A. Center, PhD; William S. Nersesian, MD, MPH; Mark E. Larson, MBA; Jasjit S. Ahluwalia, MD, MPH; Marc W. Manley, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1993-1999.

Background  Tobacco quitlines offer clinicians a means to connect their patients with evidence-based treatments. Innovative methods are needed to increase clinician referral.

Methods  This is a clinic randomized trial that compared usual care (n = 25 clinics) vs a pay-for-performance program (intervention) offering $5000 for 50 quitline referrals (n = 24 clinics). Pay-for-performance clinics also received monthly updates on their referral numbers. Patients were eligible for referral if they visited a participating clinic, were 18 years or older, currently smoked cigarettes, and intended to quit within the next 30 days. The primary outcome was the clinic's rate of quitline referral (ie, number of referrals vs number of smokers seen in clinic).

Results  Pay-for-performance clinics referred 11.4% of smokers (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-14.9%; total referrals, 1483) compared with 4.2% (95% CI, 1.5%-6.9%; total referrals, 441) for usual care clinics (P = .001). Rates of referral were similar in intervention vs usual care clinics (n = 9) with a history of being very engaged with quality improvement activities (14.1% vs 15.1%, respectively; P = .85). Rates were substantially higher in intervention vs usual care clinics with a history of being engaged (n = 22 clinics; 10.1% vs 3.0%; P = .001) or less engaged (n = 18 clinics; 10.1% vs 1.1%; P = .02) with quality improvement. The rate of patient contact after referral was 60.2% (95% CI, 49.7%-70.7%). Among those contacted, 49.4% (95% CI, 42.8%-55.9%) enrolled, representing 27.0% (95% CI, 21.3%-32.8%) of all referrals. The marginal cost per additional quitline enrollee was $300.

Conclusion  A pay-for-performance program increases referral to tobacco quitline services, particularly among clinics with a history of less engagement in quality improvement activities.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Internal Medicine (Drs An, Klatt, and Ahluwalia) and Family Medicine (Dr Center), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Center for Prevention, Eagan (Mr Bluhm and Drs Foldes, Alesci, and Manley); and Fairview Physicians Associates, Edina, Minnesota (Dr Nersesian and Mr Larson).

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

In This Issue of Archives of Internal Medicine
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1944.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Effectiveness of providing financial incentives to healthcare professionals for smoking cessation activities: systematic review
Hamilton et al.
Tobacco Control 2011;0:tobaccocontrol-2011-05004-tobaccocontrol-2011-05004.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Long-Term Smoking Relapse: A Study Using the British Household Panel Survey
Hawkins et al.
Nicotine Tob Res 2010;12:1228-1235.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT