IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i9p4593-d543879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Increasing Levels of Provider-Patient Discussion on Quit Behavior: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of a National Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Bian Liu

    (Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA)

  • Serena Zhan

    (Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Institute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA)

  • Karen M. Wilson

    (Department of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA)

  • Madhu Mazumdar

    (Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Institute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA)

  • Lihua Li

    (Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
    Institute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA)

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to examine the influence of increasing levels of discussion (both asked and advised, either asked or advised but not both, and neither asked nor advised) on quit behavior. Methods: We included 4133 adult current smokers from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The primary outcomes were quit intent and quit attempt, and the secondary outcomes were methods used for quitting. We used an instrumental variable analysis, as well as propensity score weighted and multivariable logistic regressions. Results: Compared to no discussion, having both or only one discussion, respectively, increased quit intent (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.63–1.66 and OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.99–1.05), quit attempt (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.75–1.77 and OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.57–1.63). Among those who attempted to quit (n = 1536), having both or only one discussion increased the use of pharmacologic (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.97–2.02 and OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.49–1.63) or behavioral (OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.94–2.08 and OR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.74–3.08) quit methods. Conclusions: Increasing levels of provider–patient discussion encourages quit behavior, and should be an integral part of reducing the health and economic burden of smoking. Strategies that promote the adherence and compliance of providers to communicate with patients may help increase the success of smoking cessation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bian Liu & Serena Zhan & Karen M. Wilson & Madhu Mazumdar & Lihua Li, 2021. "The Influence of Increasing Levels of Provider-Patient Discussion on Quit Behavior: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of a National Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4593-:d:543879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4593/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4593/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lopez-Quintero, C. & Crum, R.M. & Neumark, Y.D., 2006. "Racial/ethnic disparities in report of physician-provided smoking cessation advice: Analysis of the 2000 National Health Interview Survey," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(12), pages 2235-2239.
    2. Terza, Joseph V. & Basu, Anirban & Rathouz, Paul J., 2008. "Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: Addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 531-543, May.
    3. Geraci Andrea & Fabbri Daniele & Monfardini Chiara, 2018. "Testing Exogeneity of Multinomial Regressors in Count Data Models: Does Two-stage Residual Inclusion Work?," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qing Wang & Huyang Zhang & John A. Rizzo & Hai Fang, 2018. "The Effect of Childhood Health Status on Adult Health in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. "Co-Authorship And Individual Research Productivity In Economics: Assessing The Assortative Matching Hypothesis," Working Papers halshs-01252373, HAL.
    3. Damien Besancenot & Kim Van Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. " Thou shalt not work alone ," Working Papers hal-01175758, HAL.
    4. Geraci Andrea & Fabbri Daniele & Monfardini Chiara, 2018. "Testing Exogeneity of Multinomial Regressors in Count Data Models: Does Two-stage Residual Inclusion Work?," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Canan GÜNEŞ & Mustafa ÜNLÜ & Yasin BÜYÜKKÖR & Şenay ÜÇDOĞRUK BİRECİKLİ, 2016. "Türkiye’de Sağlık Hizmetleri Talebinin Sayma Veri Modelleriyle İncelenmesi: İçsellik Sorunu," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 24(30).
    6. Besancenot, Damien & Huynh, Kim & Serranito, Francisco, 2017. "Co-authorship and research productivity in economics: Assessing the assortative matching hypothesis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 61-80.
    7. Sauveur Giannoni & Daniel Brunstein & Florian Guéniot & Johan Jouve, 2021. "Multichannel distribution strategy of Airbnb hosts," Post-Print hal-03216572, HAL.
    8. Guillermo Briseño Sanchez & Maike Hohberg & Andreas Groll & Thomas Kneib, 2020. "Flexible instrumental variable distributional regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1553-1574, October.
    9. Maike Hohberg & Peter Pütz & Thomas Kneib, 2020. "Treatment effects beyond the mean using distributional regression: Methods and guidance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-29, February.
    10. Damien Besancenot & Kim Van Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. " Thou shalt not work alone ," CEPN Working Papers hal-01175758, HAL.
    11. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. "Co-Authorship And Individual Research Productivity In Economics: Assessing The Assortative Matching Hypothesis," CEPN Working Papers halshs-01252373, HAL.
    12. Hakaru Iguchi & Hajime Katayama & Junichi Yamanoi, 2022. "CEOs’ religiosity and corporate green initiatives," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 497-522, January.
    13. Ji Yan & Sally Brocksen, 2013. "Adolescent risk perception, substance use, and educational attainment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 1037-1055, September.
    14. Andrew Boutton, 2019. "Of terrorism and revenue: Why foreign aid exacerbates terrorism in personalist regimes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(4), pages 359-384, July.
    15. Fernando Rios-Avila & Gustavo Canavire-Bacarreza, 2018. "Standard-error correction in two-stage optimization models: A quasi–maximum likelihood estimation approach," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(1), pages 206-222, March.
    16. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    17. Anjani Kumar & Ashok K. Mishra & Sunil Saroj & Vinay K. Sonkar & Ganesh Thapa & Pramod K. Joshi, 2020. "Food safety measures and food security of smallholder dairy farmers: Empirical evidence from Bihar, India," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 363-384, June.
    18. Meyer, Sophie-Charlotte, 2016. "Maternal employment and childhood overweight in Germany," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 84-102.
    19. Norma B. Coe & Jing Guo & R. Tamara Konetzka & Courtney Harold Van Houtven, 2019. "What is the marginal benefit of payment‐induced family care? Impact on Medicaid spending and health of care recipients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 678-692, May.
    20. Trottmann, Maria & Zweifel, Peter & Beck, Konstantin, 2012. "Supply-side and demand-side cost sharing in deregulated social health insurance: Which is more effective?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 231-242.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4593-:d:543879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.