Dataset Information

Adherence to Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Correlates and Barriers.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Efficacious pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are available, but poor adherence to these treatments may limit these interventions overall impact. To improve adherence to smoking cessation interventions, it is first necessary to identify and understand smoker-level characteristics that drive nonadherence (ie, nonconformance with a provider's recommendation of timing, dosage, or frequency of medication-taking during the prescribed length of time). Methods:We present a literature review of studies examining correlates of, or self-reported reasons for, nonadherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Studies were identified through PubMed-using MeSH terms, Embase-using Emtree terms, and ISI Web of Science. Results and Conclusions:This literature review included 50 studies that examined nonpreventable (eg, sociodemographics) and preventable (eg, forgetfulness) factors associated with adherence to smoking cessation medication and suggestions for overcoming some of the identified barriers. Systematic study of this topic would be facilitated by consistent reporting of adherence and correlates thereof in the literature, development of consistent definitions of medication adherence across studies, utilization of more objective measures of adherence (eg, blood plasma levels vs. self-report) in addition to reliance on self-reported adherence. Implications:This article provides the most comprehensive review to date on correlates of adherence to pharmacological smoking cessation interventions. Challenges and specific gaps in the literature that should be a priority for future research are discussed. Future priorities include additional research, particularly among vulnerable populations of smokers, developing standardized definitions of adherence and methods for measuring adherence, regular assessment of cessation pharmacotherapy adherence in the context of research and clinical practice, and development of novel treatments aimed at preventable barriers to medication adherence.

SUBMITTER: Pacek LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6121917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify barriers that are common and unique to six selected vulnerable groups: low socioeconomic status; Indigenous; mental illness and substance abuse; homeless; prisoners; and at-risk youth.DesignA systematic review was carried out to identify the perceived barriers to smoking cessation within six vulnerable groups.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched using keywords and MeSH terms from each database's inception published prior to March 2014.Study selectionStudies that provided either qualitative or quantitative (ie, longitudinal, cross-sectional or cohort surveys) descriptions of self-reported perceived barriers to quitting smoking in one of the six aforementioned vulnerable groups were included.Data extractionTwo authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.Results65 eligible papers were identified: 24 with low socioeconomic groups, 16 with Indigenous groups, 18 involving people with a mental illness, 3 with homeless groups, 2 involving prisoners and 1 involving at-risk youth. One study identified was carried out with participants who were homeless and addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. Barriers common to all vulnerable groups included: smoking for stress management, lack of support from health and other service providers, and the high prevalence and acceptability of smoking in vulnerable communities. Unique barriers were identified for people with a mental illness (eg, maintenance of mental health), Indigenous groups (eg, cultural and historical norms), prisoners (eg, living conditions), people who are homeless (eg, competing priorities) and at-risk youth (eg, high accessibility of tobacco).ConclusionsVulnerable groups experience common barriers to smoking cessation, in addition to barriers that are unique to specific vulnerable groups. Individual-level, community-level and social network-level interventions are priority areas for future smoking cessation interventions within vulnerable groups.Trial registration numberA protocol for this review has been registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Identifier: CRD42013005761).

Project description:BackgroundAlthough non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.MethodsA comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.ResultsA total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.ConclusionsThe abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Main resultsFifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Dataset Information

Adherence to Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Correlates and Barriers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets