menu ☰
menu ˟

Estimating smoking prevalence in general practice using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF)

16 Jul 2014


To determine to what extent underlying data published as part of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) can be used to estimate smoking prevalence within practice populations and local areas and to explore the usefulness of these estimates.


Cross-sectional, observational study of QOF smoking data. Smoking prevalence in general practice populations and among patients with chronic conditions was estimated by simple manipulation of QOF indicator data. Agreement between estimates from the integrated household survey (IHS) and aggregated QOF-based estimates was calculated. The impact of including smoking estimates in negative binomial regression models of counts of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths was assessed.


Primary care in the East Midlands.


All general practices in the area of study were eligible for inclusion (230). 14 practices were excluded due to incomplete QOF data for the period of study (2006/2007–2012/2013). One practice was excluded as it served a restricted practice list.


Estimates of smoking prevalence in general practice populations and among patients with chronic conditions.


Median smoking prevalence in the practice populations for 2012/2013 was 19.2% (range 5.8–43.0%). There was good agreement (mean difference: 0.39%; 95% limits of agreement (–3.77, 4.55)) between IHS estimates for local authority districts and aggregated QOF register estimates. Smoking prevalence estimates in those with chronic conditions were lower than for the general population (mean difference –3.05%), but strongly correlated (Rp=0.74, p<0.0001). An important positive association between premature CHD mortality and smoking prevalence was shown when smoking prevalence was added to other population and service characteristics.


Published QOF data allow useful estimation of smoking prevalence within practice populations and in those with chronic conditions; the latter estimates may sometimes be useful in place of the former. It may also provide useful estimates of smoking prevalence in local areas by aggregating practice based data.

16 July 2014

Click here to view the full article which appeared in BMJ Open