Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Christopher C Butler Department of General Practice, University of
Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF3 7PN
Correspondence to:
Dr Butler butlercc{at}cf.ac.uk
Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and
acceptability of general practitioners'opportunistic antismoking
interventions by examining detailed accounts of smokers' experiences
of these.
Smoking remains the single most important remediable
cause of premature death in the Western world. For the first time in 25 years, its incidence is rising in British men aged 20-24 and women aged
25-34.
1 2
It is estimated that 2% of smokers will quit
if they are advised to do so by a doctor.3 Doctors are
often exhorted to advise all smokers to quit each time they attend for
health care on the assumption that repeated interventions will result
in additional quitters among the remaining smokers.4-6
However, some doctors believe that this routine repetition is
frustrating and ineffective.7 A previous qualitative study
of health promotion showed that patients resent doctors dictating to
them about lifestyle change.8 The stages of change model
of behaviour change shows that action oriented advice for those who are
not ready to change is at best unhelpful, and could even entrench
unhealthy behaviour.
9 10
To make the most of opportunities for smoking intervention that arise
in normal health care, it may be important to understand patients'
perceptions of the acceptability of interventions they have received.
Few studies have examined patients' experiences of opportunistic
antismoking interventions. Since judging acceptability involves
understanding patients' feelings, ideas, perceptions, and unique
experiences, we believed that qualitative research methods would be
best suited to this purpose.11 We therefore planned to
explore smokers' in-depth accounts of their interactions with the
health services about smoking for evidence of possible unintended
effects of antismoking counselling and for ideas about interventions
that patients might find acceptable. We believed that a typology of
smokers could be constructed from these accounts, and that this might
help doctors in providing effective opportunistic antismoking
interventions.
Subjects and setting
Interviews
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Design: Qualitative semistructured interview study.
Setting: South Wales.
Subjects: 42 participants in the Welsh smoking
intervention study were asked about initial smoking, attempts to quit,
thoughts about future smoking, past experiences with the health
services, and the most appropriate way for health services to help them
and other smokers.
Results: Main emerging themes were that subjects
already made their own evaluations about smoking, did not believe
doctors' words could influence their smoking, believed that quitting
was down to the individual, and felt that doctors who took the
opportunity to talk about smoking should focus on the individual
patient. Smokers anticipated that they would be given antismoking
advice by doctors when attending for health care; they reacted by
shrugging this off, feeling guilty, or becoming annoyed. These
reactions affected the help seeking behaviour of some respondents.
Smokers were categorised as "contrary," "matter of fact," and
"self blaming," depending on their reported reaction to antismoking
advice.
Conclusions: Doctor-patient relationships can be
damaged if doctors routinely advise all smokers to quit. Where doctors
intervene, a patient centred approach
one that considers how
individual patients view themselves as smokers and how they are likely
to react to different styles of intervention
is the most
acceptable.
Key messages
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Interviews with current smokers and smokers who had
recently quit were conducted as part of the evaluation of the Welsh
smoking intervention study, which took place in 21 general practices in
south Wales.12 Forty two of the 536 smokers who were
opportunistically recruited into the primary care, controlled trial
aspect of this research were interviewed. Sampling was purposeful, in
that we set out to obtain interviews from subjects with a broad range
of sociodemographic characteristics that were potentially relevant to
the study question. Of the 42 subjects interviewed, 24 were women; six
were aged 20-29, 13 were 30-39, 12 were 40-49, six were 59-59, and five
were over 60; 19 had no educational qualifications, eight had O levels
or GCSEs, two had A levels, six had a degree or diploma, and seven had
a vocational qualification. Twenty subjects were in social class I-IIIN
and 22 in class IIIM-IV; 10 subjects had recently stopped smoking, and
the remaining 32 were ongoing smokers.13 The study was
approved by relevant local research ethics committees.
We used a semistructured interview guide that had
been piloted previously. Topics included initial smoking, attempts to
quit, thoughts about future smoking, past experiences with the health
services, and the most appropriate way for health services to help the
subject and other smokers. The schedule was open ended, and
interviewers followed up other issues that were raised by subjects.
Subjects were encouraged to say what they really felt and not to worry
about whether or not this would be acceptable to the interviewer.
Interviews lasting 20-75 minutes were conducted in the subjects'
homes; they were audio taped and then transcribed. Twenty four
interviews were conducted by a social scientist and 18 by a general
practitioner, who was known by the subjects to be a doctor. We stopped
the interview phase of the study when no new themes were emerging.
Analysis
All three authors and the research assistant were involved
in the initial coding of 73 categories. Analysis progressed through
stages of data reduction, data display, and drawing
conclusions.17 Continuing discussions between the three
authors, rereading of interviews, and construction of data matrices for
each interview resulted in the identification 30 themes.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Because of the remarkable similarity in the accounts of those who had quit and those who continued to smoke, data from interviews with both these groups were pooled. Interviews conducted by the general practitioner and the social scientist contained a similar proportion of accounts that were critical of the health services. Thus, the suggestion that subjects would be less frank when interviewed by the general practitioner was not supported. The main themes relevant to subjects' interactions with the health services are given in the box.
|
Main themes
|
Smokers' evaluations
Subjects did not need to be told what to do about smoking
since they had already made their own evaluations about their habit. A
typical response was that of a 40 year old woman: "Well I'm telling
myself the ... same thing. I mean it's a waste of
money, you are ruining your health, it's obviously so many years off
your life, things like before you could walk for miles and miles
... and now you are out of breath.
... I'm telling myself all these things, the
problems like the smell of it, the expense and things like that.
... I know it all."
Doctors' powers of persuasion
Most subjects were sceptical about the power of
doctors to influence smoking behaviour, especially since smokers
already knew the risks they were taking with their health. Half stated
that quitting is "down to the individual." A 40 year old man stated
that: "Everyone knows the dangers of smoking now. It's not like
it's a top secret. ... If that smoker don't want to
stop smoking, the doctor could be three hours talking to him and he'll
walk out of the surgery and have a fag and thank God for that. I think
everyone has heard of the consequences of what smoking does to you
... so I can't see there is any good in going into
great detail about it, because a smoker already knows it causes heart,
cancer, whatever."
Centring on the patient
If doctors are to raise the topic of smoking
opportunistically, most subjects stated that good practice involves
using a respectful tone, sensitivity to the patient's receptivity,
understanding the patient as an individual, being supportive, and, most
frequently, not "preaching." Approaching the subject in any of
these ways was taken as support for the view that doctors should adopt
a patient centred approach to talking about smoking in the
consultation.
it's very
difficult because a lot of people, once you've asked the question, are
you a smoker, they go on the defensive. I find now that I do.
... If doctors are going to talk, don't patronise
and don't treat them like they are a different type of person. I think
if they try and understand what people are going through, and its not
always easy to give up. There are many reasons why people smoke.
... You're half way there if you find that people
understand how you are and what you feel."
A few subjects suggested that doctors should try to scare patients into
quitting, with visual images illustrating the health consequences of
smoking. Paradoxically, none of these subjects volunteered that they
themselves would quit if confronted by a major personal smoking health
shock.
Anticipating antismoking advice
Over half the subjects anticipated that they would receive
advice about smoking when attending for health care. Some shrugged this
off, while others experienced irritation and guilt and saw these
interventions as an inappropriate invasion of their privacy. Some
modified their help seeking behaviour as a consequence of anticipated
medical responses to their smoking, generally by changing their usual
doctor. Two subjects, however, gave accounts of repercussions that were
potentially dangerous.
Types of smokers
Three broad types of smoker were identified, primarily
according to how they reacted to advice from doctors to quit smoking. A
"contrary" group tended to be less convinced of the merits of
giving up, smoked more in response to being told to quit, and
anticipated "ritualistic" advice from health professionals. They
were sceptical about the power of doctors' words to influence them and
reported that they were already saturated with antismoking information.
They were more likely to recount negative experiences of interacting
with doctors about smoking, to change help seeking behaviour because of
these negative experiences, and were more likely to assert that
quitting smoking was down to the individual.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Many subjects were sceptical about the power of the doctor's words to influence smoking habits, and they made the point that the negative effects of smoking were already well known to established smokers. These findings are common in published reports.20-22 Most subjects felt that giving up was ultimately down to the individual, a finding that also emerged from the study of Stott and Pill on perceptions of health promotion in working class women.8
Many patients who were clearly not ready to quit anticipated that they would be advised to do this by doctors. When this happened, they responded by simply shrugging it off, feeling guilty, getting annoyed, or changing their help seeking behaviour. Two subjects gave accounts of putting their health in danger by not attending for needed medical help because they feared the doctor would talk to them about stopping smoking. While it is important to make the most of opportunities for effective health promotion during a consultation, doctors should not assume that repeating antismoking advice over and over again for all smokers will continue to be of benefit. The oft repeated exhortation that doctors should advise their patients to stop smoking whenever they see them deserves careful reconsideration.
Interventions that patients found acceptable took account of their
receptiveness; were conveyed in a respectful tone; avoided preaching;
showed support and caring; and attempted to understand them as a unique
individual. These findings agree with those of a similar study of
participants in an American randomised trial of antismoking
interventions: they most appreciated doctors who provided a caring,
individualised approach.23 The importance of a caring,
sustained relationship between doctor and patient to the acceptability
of lifestyle advice from doctors was also highlighted in the study of
Stott and Pill.8 However, a few participants in the
present study felt that "scaring" patients
especially those who
had not been smoking for long
might have some advantage.
Typologies of smokers have been constructed before, but these have been based on factor analysis of questionnaire data. 24 25 A review of qualitative reports on smoking shows that this is the first attempt to construct a typology of smokers based on their reported interactions with health services. The risks of damaging the doctor-patient relationship through antismoking advice seems greatest with those smokers who fit into the contrary and self blaming categories. Considering how the patient views himself or herself as a smoker and how he or she is likely to react to differing styles of intervention may be useful to doctors when talking to patients about smoking.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Contributors: CB is the principal investigator of the Welsh smoking intervention study and coordinated this qualitative aspect of the research programme. He was involved in formulating the study goals, data gathering, analysis, and writing the paper. RP was involved in formulating study goals, supervision of data gathering, analysis, and writing the paper. NS was involved in formulating study goals, supervision of data gathering, and writing the paper. Richard Self conducted interviews and participated in initial coding. Mrs Ann Cable transcribed the interviews and acted as administrator.
Funding: Welsh Office of Research and Development for Health and Social Care.
Conflict of interest: None.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(Accepted 23 March 1998)
Read all Rapid Responses