Dataset Information

The efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To summarize evidence for the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Setting

LMICs as defined by the World Bank.

Participants

Adult current cigarette smokers residing in LMICs.

Interventions

Behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy smoking cessation interventions.

Measurements

PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), PsycINFO (Ebsco), SciELO, WHO Global Index Medicus and Scopus were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Only studies with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. We used the most rigorous assessment of abstinence reported by each study. Effect sizes were computed from abstracted data. Where possible, a meta-analysis was performed using Mantel-Haenzel random-effect models reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Findings

Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were included. Six investigated the efficacy of pharmacological agents. Four trials that compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to placebo found NRT improved cessation rates (n : NRT 546, control 684, OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.30-2.77, P < 0.001, I² = 13%). Eight trials found that behavioral counseling was more effective than minimal interventions (e.g. brief advice); n : Counseling 2941, control 2794, OR = 6.87, 95% CI = 4.18-11.29, P < 0.001, I² = 67%). There was also evidence of the benefit of brief advice over usual care (n : Brief advice 373, control 355, OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.56-3.88, P < 0.001, I² = 0%).

Conclusion

Nicotine replacement therapy, behavioral counseling and brief advice appear to be effective in aiding smoking cessation in low- and middle-income countries. There is limited rigorous research on other smoking cessation interventions in these regions.

SUBMITTER: Akanbi MO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6411424 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Adjunctive psychological interventions for bipolar disorder have demonstrated better efficacy in preventing or delaying relapse and improving outcomes compared with pharmacotherapy alone. Aims:To evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions for bipolar disorder in low- and middle-income countries. Method:A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane database for systematic review, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Latin America and Caribbean Center on Health Science Literature and African Journals Online databases with no restriction of language or year of publication. Methodological heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Results:A total of 18 adjunctive studies were identified: psychoeducation (n = 14), family intervention (n = 1), group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (n = 2) and group mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) (n = 1). In total, 16 of the 18 studies were from upper-middle-income countries and none from low-income countries. All used mental health specialists or experienced therapists to deliver the intervention. Most of the studies have moderately high risk of bias. Psychoeducation improved treatment adherence, knowledge of and attitudes towards bipolar disorder and quality of life, and led to decreased relapse rates and hospital admissions. Family psychoeducation prevented relapse, decreased hospital admissions and improved medication adherence. CBT reduced both depressive and manic symptoms. MBCT reduced emotional dysregulation. Conclusions:Adjunctive psychological interventions alongside pharmacotherapy appear to improve the clinical outcome and quality of life of people with bipolar disorder in middle-income countries. Further studies are required to investigate contextual adaptation and the role of non-specialists in the provision of psychological interventions to ensure scalability and the efficacy of these interventions in low-income country settings. Declaration of interest:None.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the approaches and strategies used for ensuring cultural appropriateness, intervention functions and theoretical constructs of the effective and ineffective school-based smoking prevention interventions that were implemented in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).Data sourcesIncluded MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science and grey literature which were searched through August 2022 with no date limitations.Eligibility criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥6 months follow-up assessing the effect of school-based interventions on keeping pupils never-smokers in LMICs; published in English or Arabic.Data extraction and synthesisIntervention data were coded according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, intervention functions of Behaviour Change Wheel and cultural appropriateness features. Using narrative synthesis we identified which cultural-adaptation features, theoretical constructs and intervention functions were associated with effectiveness. Findings were mapped against the capability-motivation and opportunity model to formulate the conclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsWe identified 11 RCTs (n=7712 never-smokers aged 11-15); of which five arms were effective and eight (four of the effective) arms had a low risk of bias in all criteria. Methodological heterogeneity in defining, measuring, assessing and presenting outcomes prohibited quantitative data synthesis. We identified nine components that characterised interventions that were effective in preventing pupils from smoking uptake. These include deep cultural adaptation; raising awareness of various smoking consequences; improving refusal skills of smoking offers and using never-smokers as role models and peer educators.ConclusionInterventions that had used deep cultural adaptation which incorporated cultural, environmental, psychological and social factors, were more likely to be effective. Effective interventions considered improving pupils' psychological capability to remain never-smokers and reducing their social and physical opportunities and reflective and automatic motivations to smoke. Future trials should use standardised measurements of smoking to allow meta-analysis in future reviews.

Project description:BackgroundTask-sharing interventions using non-physician health-care workers might be a potential diabetes management strategy in health systems that are constrained by physician shortages, such as those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of task-sharing intervention strategies for managing type 2 diabetes in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from database inception to Sept 25, 2019, for studies that were randomised control trials or cluster randomised trials with task-shifted or task-shared interventions delivered to adults (≥18 years) by non-physician health workers versus usual care, done in LMICs with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood sugar (FBS) as outcome measures. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the population average pooled mean difference for HbA1c and FBS with 95% CIs. Our study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018081015).FindingsWe found 4213 studies from the literature search, of which 46 (1·1%) were eligible for the narrative synthesis, including a total of 16 973 participants. 16 of these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. 24 studies with a total of 5345 participants were included in the meta-analysis of HbA1c and 18 studies with a total of 3287 participants for FBS. Interventions led to an average reduction in HbA1c when tasks were delivered by nurses (averaged pooled mean difference -0·54% [95% CI -0·89 to -0·18]; I2=80%) and pharmacists (-0·91% [-1·15 to -0·68]; I2=58%), but not when they were delivered by dietitians (-0·50% [-1·10 to 0·09]; I2=54%) or community health workers (0·05% [0·03 to 0·07]; I2=0%). A reduction in average FBS was also observed when interventions were delivered by pharmacists (average pooled mean difference -36·26 mg/dL [-52·60 to -19·92]; I2=78%) but not nurses (-7·46 mg/dL [-18·44 to 3·52]; I2=79%) or community health workers (-5·41 [-12·74 to 1·92]; I2=71%). Only one study reported on FBS when tasks were delivered by dietitians, with a mean difference of -35·00 mg/dL (-65·96 to -4·04).InterpretationTask sharing interventions with non-physician healthcare workers show moderate effectiveness in diabetes management in LMIC settings. Although relatively high heterogeneity limits the interpretation of the overall findings, interventions led by pharmacists and nurses in LMICs with relatively high physician density are effective strategies in the management of diabetes.FundingWellcome Trust-Department of Biotechnology India Alliance.

Project description:The vast majority of patients with chronic respiratory disease live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Paradoxically, relevant interventions often fail to be effective particularly in these settings, as LMICs lack solid evidence on how to implement interventions successfully. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors critical to the implementation of lung health interventions in LMICs, and weigh their level of evidence.This systematic review followed Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting standards. We searched eight databases without date or language restrictions in July 2019, and included all relevant original, peer-reviewed articles. Two researchers independently selected articles, critically appraised them (using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)/Meta Quality Appraisal Tool (MetaQAT)), extracted data, coded factors (following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)), and assigned levels of confidence in the factors (via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual)). We meta-synthesised levels of evidence of the factors based on their frequency and the assigned level of confidence (PROSPERO:CRD42018088687).We included 37 articles out of 9111 screened. Studies were performed across the globe in a broad range of settings. Factors identified with a high level of evidence were: 1) "Understanding needs of local users"; 2) ensuring "Compatibility" of interventions with local contexts (cultures, infrastructures); 3) identifying influential stakeholders and applying "Engagement" strategies; 4) ensuring adequate "Access to knowledge and information"; and 5) addressing "Resource availability". All implementation factors and their level of evidence were synthesised in an implementation tool.To conclude, this study identified implementation factors for lung health interventions in LMICs, weighed their level of evidence, and integrated the results into an implementation tool for practice. Policymakers, non-governmental organisations, practitioners, and researchers may use this FRESH AIR (Free Respiratory Evaluation and Smoke-exposure reduction by primary Health cAre Integrated gRoups) Implementation tool to develop evidence-based implementation strategies for related interventions. This could increase interventions' implementation success, thereby optimising the use of already-scarce resources and improving health outcomes.

Project description:To assess the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).16 online international databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the impact of mHealth interventions on MNCH outcomes in LMIC, between January 1990 and May 2014. Comparable studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis.Of 8593 unique references screened after de-duplication, 15 research articles and two conference abstracts met inclusion criteria, including 12 intervention and three observational studies. Only two studies were graded at low risk of bias. Only one study demonstrated an improvement in morbidity or mortality, specifically decreased risk of perinatal death in children of mothers who received SMS support during pregnancy, compared with routine prenatal care. Meta-analysis of three studies on infant feeding showed that prenatal interventions using SMS/cell phone (vs routine care) improved rates of breastfeeding (BF) within one hour after birth (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-2.75, I(2) = 80.9%) and exclusive BF for three/four months (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.26-2.50, I(2)?= 52.8%) and for six months (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.46-3.68, I(2) = 0.0%). Included studies encompassed interventions designed for health information delivery (n = 6); reminders (n = 3); communication (n = 2); data collection (n = 2); test result turnaround (n = 2); peer group support (n = 2) and psychological intervention (n = 1).Most studies of mHealth for MNCH in LMIC are of poor methodological quality and few have evaluated impacts on patient outcomes. Improvements in intermediate outcomes have nevertheless been reported in many studies and there is modest evidence that interventions delivered via SMS messaging can improve infant feeding. Ambiguous descriptions of interventions and their mechanisms of impact present difficulties for interpretation and replication. Rigorous studies with potential to offer clearer evidence are underway.