Influence of physician and patient gender on provision of smoking cessation advice in general practice

30Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective - To examine the association between physician and patient gender and physicians' self-reported likelihood of providing smoking cessation advice to smokers using hypothetical case scenarios in primary care. Design - Cross-sectional analysis of a self-administered questionnaire. Subjects - National random sample of Australian general practitioners (GPs). Main outcome measures - Self-reported likelihood of advising hypothetical male and female smokers to stop smoking during a consultation for ear-syringing ("opportunistic" approach) or a dedicated preventive health "check up". Results - 855 GPs returned questionnaires (67% response rate). Significantly more respondents indicated they would be "highly likely" to initiate an opportunistic discussion about smoking with a male smoker (47.8% (95% confidence intervals (CI) = 44.5 to 51.2)) than a female smoker (36.3% (95% CI = 33.1 to 39.5]). Older, male GPs were less likely to adopt an opportunistic approach to smoking cessation for patients of either sex. Respondents were more likely to recommend that a male patient return for a specific preventive health check up. Furthermore, in the context of a health check up, a greater proportion in total of respondents indicated they would be "highly likely" to discuss smoking with a man (86.9%, 95% CI = 84.5 to 89.0) than a female smoker (82.5%, 95% CI = 79.8 to 84.9). Conclusions - As measured by physician self-report, the likelihood of advising smokers to quit during primary care consultations in Australia appears to be influenced by gender bias. Gender-sensitive strategies to support cessation activities are recommended.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Young, J. M., & Ward, J. E. (1998). Influence of physician and patient gender on provision of smoking cessation advice in general practice. Tobacco Control, 7(4), 360–363. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.7.4.360

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free