The Dietary Risk Assessment (DRA) is a brief dietary assessment tool used to identify dietary behaviors associated with cardiovascular disease. Intended for use by physicians and other nondietitians, the DRA identifies healthful and problematic dietary behaviors and alerts the physician to patients who require further nutrition counseling. To determine the relative validity of this tool, we compared it to the 7-Day Dietary Recall (an instrument developed to assess intake of dietary fat) and to the average of 7 telephone-administered 24-hour dietary recalls. Forty-two free-living subjects were recruited into the study. The 7-Day Dietary Recall and DRA were administered to each subject twice, at the beginning and the end of the study period, and the 24-hour recalls were conducted during the intervening time period. Correlation coefficients were computed to compare the food scores derived from the 3 assessment methods. Correlations between the DRA and 7-Day Dietary Recall data were moderate (r = .47, on average, for postmeasures); correlations between the DRA and 24-hour recalls were lower. The ability of the DRA to assess dietary fat consumption and ease of administration make it a clinically useful screening instrument for the physician when counseling patients about dietary fat reduction.

In evaluating the efficacy of physician-delivered counseling interventions for health behavior changes such as smoking cessation, a major challenge is determining the degree to which interventions are implemented by physicians. The Patient Exit Interview (PEI; J. Ockene et al., 1991) is a brief measure of a patient's perception of the content and quantity of smoking cessation intervention received from his or her physician. One hundred eight current smokers seen in a primary care clinic completed a PEI following their physician visit. Participants were 45% male, 95% Caucasian, with a mean age of 42 years and an average of 22 years of smoking. The PEI correlated well with a criterion measure of an audiotape assessment of the physician-patient interaction (r = .67, p < .001). When discrepancy occurred, in general it was due to patients' over-reporting of intervention as compared with the criterion measure. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Using multiple 24-hr recalls (24HR) we tested the Seven Day Dietary Recall (7DDR) developed to assess nutrient exposures, especially lipids, in dietary interventions and other clinical trials requiring measurement of effect over moderate time periods. A total of 261 individuals in three studies completed a 7DDR at the end of a 3- to 5-week period during which 3 to 7 24HR were telephone-administered on randomly selected days. One of these studies and data from one additional study (total n = 678) allowed us to test the ability of the 7DDR to predict serum lipid changes in an intervention setting. In correlation and linear regression analyses, high levels of agreement between 7DDR and 24HR were obtained. For total energy: r = 0.67 and b = 0.69, and for total fat intake (g/day): r = 0.67 and b = 0.80. When 7 days of 24HR were available agreement tended to be higher. For total energy: r = 0.69 and b = 0.95, and for total fat (g/day): r = 0.71 and b = 1.04. Data derived from the 7DDR and fit to the Keys and Hegsted equations closely predicted actual changes in total serum cholesterol (within 15% and 10%, respectively). The 7DDR is a relatively easily administered, sensitive method to assess short-term changes in dietary fat consumption in individuals.

BACKGROUND: We examined the effect of a 3-hr training program on physicians' lipid intervention knowledge, attitudes, and skills. The program teaches physicians skills to conduct a brief dietary risk assessment and provide patient-centered counseling to enable patients with elevated lipids to change their dietary patterns. METHOD: The training is part of a randomized trial of lipid-lowering interventions, the Worcester Area Trial for Counseling in Hyperlipidemia. Primary care internists practicing in a health maintenance organization (HMO) were assessed, before and after training using questionnaires and audiotapes to document changes in knowledge about diet, attitudes about intervention, reported nutrition intervention practices, and counseling and assessment skills. Physicians also rated the value that they thought the training program had to them. RESULTS: After completion of the program the physicians' use of dietary counseling steps, as assessed by blinded evaluation of audiotaped physician-patient interactions, significantly increased (mean pre = 5.4, mean post = 9.2; t = 9.9; P < or = 0.001). In this regard, there were instances in the use of 7 of the 14 specific counseling steps. Physicians also demonstrated increases in self-perceived preparedness as measured by a 5-point scale (mean pre = 3.2, mean post = 4.0; t = 4.25; P < 0.001), confidence in having an effect (mean pre = 3.3, mean post = 3.9; t = 3.16; P < 0.01), perception that materials were available to aid intervention (mean pre = 2.7, mean post = 4.0; t = 5.29; P < 0.001), and perception that they have access to a nutritionist (mean pre = 3.5, mean post = 4.0; t = 2.63; P < 0.01). They rated the value of the program between very good and excellent. CONCLUSION: Results of this 3-hr educational program indicate that physicians in an HMO are responsive to the teaching of specialized skills deemed important for promoting health behavior change in their patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that affect how much physicians trained to use a patient-centered smoking intervention intervene with their smoking patients. DESIGN: Forty internal medicine residents and ten internal medicine attending physicians trained in a patient-centered counseling approach were randomized to an algorithm condition (provision of intervention algorithm at each patient visit) or a no-algorithm condition. Smoking intervention steps used by physicians with patients were assessed with Patient Exit Interviews (PEIs). SETTING: Ambulatory clinic; academic medical center. PATIENTS: Five hundred twenty-seven adult smokers seen in clinic between June 1990 and April 1992. MAIN RESULTS: There was no difference in overall PEI scores or in individual PEI steps taken between the algorithm and no-algorithm conditions. Two patient baseline factors (reporting thinking of stopping smoking within six months and higher Fagerstrom Tolerance Score) and one physician factor (older age) were significantly predictive of higher PEI score. CONCLUSION: Provision of an intervention algorithm at each patient visit does not increase the likelihood that trained physicians who are cued to intervene will perform more of the intervention steps taught. Trained physicians are more likely to intervene with smokers who are more nicotine-dependent and who expect and desire to stop smoking.

Patterns of smoking cessation using 6- and 12-month follow-up data are reported for 1,261 primary care patients randomized to 3 physician-delivered smoking interventions: advice only (AO), counseling (CI), and counseling plus availability of nicotine-containing gum (CI + NCG). One-week-point-prevalence cessation rates at 12 months did not differ among the interventions: AO (15.2%), CI (12.9%) and CI + NCG (16.7%). However, maintained cessation rates (abstinent at both 6 and 12 months) increased with intervention intensity: AO (6.0%), CI (7.8%) and CI + NCG (10.0%): Test of trend chi 2 = 5.06, p = .02. CI + NCG was significantly higher than AO (p = .02). The findings support the following conclusions: Brief physician-delivered intervention with availability of nicotine-containing gum can have a beneficial long-term effect on smoking cessation, and cohort data as well as point-prevalence rates are important when assessing the long-term impact of lifestyle interventions.

BACKGROUND. This paper investigates individual patient characteristics predicting differential response to each of three physician-delivered smoking interventions after 6 months. METHODS. Participants were 1,286 currently smoking patients seen by 196 medical and family practice residents in five primary care clinics affiliated with the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Of the participants, 57% were female, 92% were white, their average age was 35 years, and they smoked an average of 23 cigarettes per day. Physicians were trained to provide the following interventions: advice only (AO), a brief (< 10 min) patient-centered counseling intervention (CI), and counseling plus prescription of the nicotine-containing gum Nicorette (CI+NCG). The CI+NCG condition included NCG only when appropriate and if acceptable to the patient. Patients were randomized to one of these three physician-delivered intervention conditions. RESULTS. Overall, stratified univariate analyses revealed that AO produced consistently lower cessation rates across most subgroups (generally 9-13%) but was somewhat more effective for certain groups of lighter smokers. Relative to AO, CI was somewhat more effective (about 20-24%) for less addicted smokers, for those with more previous quit attempts, and for those with fewer close associates who smoke, but generally failed to produce higher quit rates for harder core smokers or for women. CI+NCG had an overall pattern of greater effectiveness for both more addicted and less addicted smokers, with the highest absolute levels of cessation (about 27-30%) among less dependent smokers. Women in this group had cessation rates (20.6%) comparable to those of men (23.6%). Condition-stratified logistic regression analyses, controlling for a wide range of covariates, revealed associations similar to those observed in the univariate analyses: An overall logistic model in which intervention conditions were fitted as dummy variables produced the following significant main effects: sex, years smoked, contact with other smokers, symptoms, and CI+NCG condition. Significant interactions were observed for both CI and CI+NCG and smoking when feeling too ill to continue normal activities and CI+NCG and amount smoked. CONCLUSIONS. We observed significant main effects on cessation of variables related to addiction, sex, social factors, and physician counseling interventions. Specific interactions were observed between reported smoking when feeling ill and each of the counseling interventions as well as by amount smoked in the CI+NCG condition.