Dataset Information

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials. METHODS:Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop-smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ? 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensive descriptions of their comparator interventions. Meta-regression analyses examined the relationships of smoking cessation rates with stop-smoking medication and behavior change techniques. RESULTS:One hundred and four of 142 eligible comparator groups (n = 23?706) had complete data and were included in analyses. There was considerable variability in the number of behavior change techniques delivered [mean = 15.97, standard deviation (SD) = 13.54, range = 0-45] and the provision of smoking cessation medication (43% of groups received medication) throughout and within categories of comparator groups (e.g. usual care, brief advice). Higher smoking cessation rates were predicted by provision of medication [B = 0.334, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.030-0.638, P = 0.031] and number of behavior change techniques included (B = 0.020, 95% CI = 0.008-0.032, P < 0.001). Modelled cessation rates in comparator groups that received the most intensive support were 15 percentage points higher than those that received the least (23 versus 8%). CONCLUSIONS:Interventions delivered to comparator groups in smoking cessation randomized controlled trials vary considerably in content, and cessation rates are strongly predicted by stop-smoking medication and number of behavior change techniques delivered.

SUBMITTER: Black N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7496125 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Black Nicola N Eisma Maarten C MC Viechtbauer Wolfgang W Johnston Marie M West Robert R Hartmann-Boyce Jamie J Michie Susan S de Bruin Marijn M

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20200211 9

<h4>Aims</h4>To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop-smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ≥ 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensi ...[more]

PMID: 32043675

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. The evolving nature of cessation interventions emphasizes a strong need for knowledge synthesis.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize recent evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based smoking cessation interventions in promoting abstinence and assess nonabstinence outcome indicators, such as cigarette consumption and user satisfaction, via narrative synthesis.MethodsWe searched for studies published in English between 2017 and June 30, 2022, in 4 databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We pooled comparable studies based on the population, follow-up time, intervention, and control characteristics. Two researchers performed an independent meta-analysis on smoking abstinence using the Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model and log risk ratio (RR) as the effect measurement. For studies not included in the meta-analysis, the outcomes were narratively synthesized.ResultsA total of 464 studies were identified through an initial database search after removing duplicates. Following screening and full-text assessments, we deemed 39 studies (n=37,341 participants) eligible for this review. Of these, 28 studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, SMS or app text messaging can significantly increase both short-term (3 months) abstinence (log RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75; I2=0.72%) and long-term (6 months) abstinence (log RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.04; I2=8.65%), relative to minimal cessation support. The frequency of texting did not significantly influence treatment outcomes. mHealth apps may significantly increase abstinence in the short term (log RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.09-1.42; I2=88.02%) but not in the long term (log RR=0.15, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.48; I2=80.06%), in contrast to less intensive cessation support. In addition, personalized or interactive interventions showed a moderate increase in cessation for both the short term (log RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.94; I2=66.50%) and long term (log RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53; I2=73.42%). In contrast, studies without any personalized or interactive features had no significant impact. Finally, the treatment effect was similar between trials that used biochemically verified or self-reported abstinence. Among studies reporting outcomes besides abstinence (n=20), a total of 11 studies reported significantly improved nonabstinence outcomes in cigarette consumption (3/14, 21%) or user satisfaction (8/19, 42%).ConclusionsOur review of 39 randomized controlled trials found that recent eHealth interventions might promote smoking cessation, with mHealth being the dominant approach. Despite their success, the effectiveness of such interventions may diminish with time. The design of more personalized interventions could potentially benefit future studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022347104; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=347104.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Project description:To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management.Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014.randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series.any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language.19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 'strong', 4 'moderate' and 9 'weak'. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacy-based weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions.Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services.

Project description:Objective:The authors carried out a systematic review and a meta-analysis on smoking cessation interventions on health -care workers to clarify the state of the art interventions and to identify the best one. Materials and Methods:This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019130117. The databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched until December 2018. Quality of all studies included in the systematic review was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on cohort or cross-sectional studies and to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were also carried out for cohort studies (quasi-experimental or a before-after studies design) and clinical trials. Results:Twenty-four studies have been included in the analysis: four before-after, 13 cross-sectional, three quasi-experimental studies and four clinical trials. Articles were heterogeneous (P for homogeneity <0.01), but they have all shown positive results since they reached the goal of smoking cessation among health-care workers, even if with different proportions. Meta-analysis was performed on 10 studies (six cohort studies and four clinical trials), showing a 21% of success rate from the application of smoking cessation interventions, either pharmacological or behavioral ones. The resulted pooled RR (Risk Ratio) was 1.21 (95% CI [1.06-1.38]), being 24% of success rate from clinical trials (pooled RR 1.244; 95% CI [1.099-1.407]) and 19% of success rate from cohort studies (pooled RR 1.192; 0.996-1.426). However, two studies have confidence intervals which include unity and one study has a wide confidence interval; as a consequence, the meta-analysis for its results depends heavily on one single study. Meta-regression analysis revealed that results were influenced by the number of participants. Conclusion:Both policy and pharmaceutical interventions can obtain positive results in quitting smoking among health-care workers. However, as shown by our review, combination approaches can produce better results in terms of cessation percentages and smoking abstinence.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.ObjectiveTo estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.ExposuresIntensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).Main outcomes and measuresTotal costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).ResultsThe per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Dataset Information

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets