Dataset Information

Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking cessation have led to development of interventions that are specifically tailored for smokers from disadvantaged groups. We aimed to assess whether the effectiveness of interventions for disadvantaged groups is moderated by tailoring for socioeconomic position. METHODS:For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Tobacco Addiction Register of Clinical Trials and the IC-SMOKE database from their inception until Aug 18, 2019, for randomised controlled trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored or non-socioeconomic-position-tailored individual-level behavioural interventions for smoking cessation at 6 months or longer of follow-up in disadvantaged groups. Studies measured socioeconomic position via income, eligibility for government financial assistance, occupation, and housing. Studies were excluded if they were delivered at the community or population level, did not report differential effects by socioeconomic position, did not report smoking cessation outcomes from 6 months or longer after the start of the intervention, were delivered at a group level, or provided pharmacotherapy with standard behavioural support compared with behavioural support alone. Individual patient-level data were extracted from published reports and from contacting study authors. Random-effects meta-analyses and mixed-effects meta-regression analyses were done to assess associations between tailoring of the intervention and effectiveness. Meta-analysis outcomes were summarised as risk ratios (RR). Certainty of evidence was assessed within each study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018103008. FINDINGS:Of 2376 studies identified by our literature search, 348 full-text articles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Of these, 42 studies (26?168 participants) were included in the systematic review. 30 (71%) of 42 studies were done in the USA, three (7%) were done in the UK, two (5%) each in the Netherlands and Australia, and one (2%) each in Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, India, and China. 26 (62%) of 42 studies were trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions and 16 (38%) were non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions. 17 (65%) of 26 socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions were in-person or telephone-delivered behavioural interventions, four (15%) were digital interventions, three (12%) involved financial incentives, and two (8%) were brief interventions. Individuals who participated in an intervention, irrespective of tailoring, were significantly more likely to quit smoking than were control participants (RR 1·56, 95% CI 1·39-1·75; I2=54·5%). Socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions did not yield better outcomes compared with non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions for disadvantaged groups (adjusted RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·81-1·27; ?=0·011, SE=0·11; p=0·93). We observed similar effect sizes in separate meta-analyses of non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions using trial data from participants with high socioeconomic position (RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·36-2·93; I2=82·7%) and participants with low socioeconomic position (1·94, 1·31-2·86; I2=76·6%), although certainty of evidence from these studies was graded as low. INTERPRETATION:We found evidence that individual-level interventions can assist disadvantaged smokers with quitting, but there were no large moderating effects of tailoring for disadvantaged smokers. Improvements in tailored intervention development might be necessary to achieve equity-positive smoking cessation outcomes. FUNDING:Cancer Research UK.

SUBMITTER: Kock L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7109520 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Kock Loren L Brown Jamie J Hiscock Rosemary R Tattan-Birch Harry H Smith Charlie C Shahab Lion L

The Lancet. Public health 20191201 12

<h4>Background</h4>Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking cessation have led to development of interventions that are specifically tailored for smokers from disadvantaged groups. We aimed to assess whether the effectiveness of interventions for disadvantaged groups is moderated by tailoring for socioeconomic position.<h4>Methods</h4>For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Tobacco Addiction Register of Clinical Trials an ...[more]

PMID: 31812239

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abundant evidence from family, adoption and twin studies points to large genetic contributions to individual differences in vulnerability to develop dependence on one or more addictive substances, including tobacco. Twin data suggests that much of this genetic vulnerability is shared by individuals who are dependent on a variety of addictive substances. Interestingly, some twin data also supports substantial differences in the apparent heritability of nicotine dependence in women as environmental conditions become more permissive for their smoking. In addition, twin studies also support the idea that ability to quit smoking displays substantial heritability, and that this heritable influence overlaps partially with genetic influences on nicotine dependence. Candidate gene molecular genetic studies and genome wide association studies of substance dependence and ability to quit smoking each document apparent polygenic influences that identify lists of genes that display partial overlap, as expected from classical genetic studies. More of these genes are expressed in the brain than would be anticipated by chance. These lists of genes overlap significantly with those identified in molecular genetic studies of individual differences in cognitive abilities, frontal lobe brain volumes as well as personality and psychiatric phenotypes. Though most available genome wide association data do not separate results by gender, it may be notable that few of these genes lie on sex chromosomes. These data provide a substrate to improve understanding of nicotine dependence, the ability to quit smoking, the potential for less permissive environments to restrict the expression of genetic influences on smoking and the possibility that brain features that underlie phenotypes such as individual differences in cognitive abilities might interact with environmental features that are especially prominent for disadvantaged women to provide special circumstances that should be considered in prevention and treatment efforts to reduce smoking.

Project description:Importance:Limited evidence supports mobile phone-delivered cessation interventions for socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Objective:To assess the efficacy of mobile phone-delivered cessation interventions targeted to smokers at neighborhood sites serving racial/ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants:This group-randomized clinical trial with neighborhood site serving as the sampling unit compared smoking cessation interventions that included (1) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), (2) NRT plus text messaging, and (3) NRT plus text messaging plus proactive counseling via mobile phone. Recruitment took place at churches, public housing complexes, and community centers located throughout the Houston, Texas, area. A total of 624 current cigarette smokers 18 years or older were enrolled at neighborhood sites from August 13, 2011, through December 12, 2014. Final follow-up was completed on June 12, 2015, and data were analyzed from August 17, 2017, through May 10, 2018, based on intention to treat. Interventions:Nicotine replacement therapy consisted of transdermal nicotine patches; NRT plus text messages, transdermal nicotine patches and individually tailored mobile phone text messages; and NRT plus text plus call, transdermal patches, individually tailored mobile phone text messages, and proactive counseling via mobile phone. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was smoking abstinence at 6 months, defined as (1) biochemically verified smoking abstinence (calculated among a subgroup of 377 participants) as determined by saliva cotinine level; and (2) self-reported 30-day abstinence (calculated among all 624 participants). Results:The study sample included 624 current cigarette smokers (50.6% female; mean [SD] age, 45.8 [12.8] years). Among the 377 participants eligible for biochemical verification, 127 self-reported 30-day abstinence and were asked to provide saliva samples. Of these, 98 samples were returned (participants who did not return samples were coded as smoking). Biochemically verified abstinence rates were 12.0% for NRT, 12.0% for NRT plus text, and 25.5% for NRT plus text plus call. Participants in the NRT plus text plus call group were 2.11 (95% CI, 1.00-4.48) times more likely to be biochemically verified as abstinent compared with the NRT group. No differences in biochemically verified abstinence between the NRT plus text group and the NRT group were observed. Similar associations were observed with the self-report cessation outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance:Findings indicate that assignment to an intervention consisting of text messaging alone may not increase cessation rates for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. However, text messaging plus proactive counseling may be an efficacious option. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00948129.

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

Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Publications

Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets