Smoking cessation interventions for people living in rural and remote areas: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lum A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7677358 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Smoking cessation interventions for people living in rural and remote areas: a systematic review protocol.
Lum Alistair A Skelton Eliza E McCarter Kristen Louise KL Handley Tonelle T Judd Lucy L Bonevski Billie B
BMJ open 20201118 11
<h4>Introduction</h4>Smoking rates among people living in rural and remote areas are higher and quit rates are lower over the past 10 years compared with people living in suburban and urban areas. Higher smoking rates contribute to greater tobacco-related disease and morbidity in rural and remote areas. Physical and social isolation, greater exposure to pro-tobacco marketing, pro-tobacco social norms, and lower socioeconomic and educational levels are contributing to these higher smoking rates a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAttracting and retaining sufficient health workers to provide adequate services for residents of rural and remote areas has global significance. High income countries (HICs) face challenges in staffing rural areas, which are often perceived by health workers as less attractive workplaces. The objective of this review was to examine the quantifiable associations between interventions to retain health workers in rural and remote areas of HICs, and workforce retention.MethodsThe review considers studies of rural or remote health workers in HICs where participants have experienced interventions, support measures or incentive programs intended to increase retention. Experimental, quasi-experimental and observational study designs including cohort, case-control, cross-sectional and case series studies published since 2010 were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for reviews of risk and aetiology was used. Databases searched included MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science and Informit.ResultsOf 2649 identified articles, 34 were included, with a total of 58,188 participants. All study designs were observational, limiting certainty of findings. Evidence relating to the retention of non-medical health professionals was scant. There is growing evidence that preferential selection of students who grew up in a rural area is associated with increased rural retention. Undertaking substantial lengths of rural training during basic university training or during post-graduate training were each associated with higher rural retention, as was supporting existing rural health professionals to extend their skills or upgrade their qualifications. Regulatory interventions requiring return-of-service (ROS) in a rural area in exchange for visa waivers, access to professional licenses or provider numbers were associated with comparatively low rural retention, especially once the ROS period was complete. Rural retention was higher if ROS was in exchange for loan repayments.ConclusionEducational interventions such as preferential selection of rural students and distributed training in rural areas are associated with increased rural retention of health professionals. Strongly coercive interventions are associated with comparatively lower rural retention than interventions that involve less coercion. Policy makers seeking rural retention in the medium and longer term would be prudent to strengthen rural training pathways and limit the use of strongly coercive interventions.
| S-EPMC8393462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase up to 22 December 2018. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 30 December 2018. We applied no restriction on language of publication.Selection criteriaWe planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria.Main resultsWe identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1817 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 19 studies for further investigation. We excluded 15 trials: ten trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed four ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available.Authors' conclusionsThere were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.
| S-EPMC6554694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rural and remote residents are more likely to smoke than those who live in major cities; however, recruitment of research participants from rural and remote areas can be challenging. The cost per participant recruited from rural and remote areas via online (eg, social media) and traditional strategies (eg, print) has implications for researchers on how to allocate resources to maximize the number of participants recruited. Participant characteristics such as demographics, financial stress, mental health, and smoking-related factors may be associated with recruitment method (ie, online vs traditional), and so it is important to understand whether certain subgroups are more likely to be recruited via a particular strategy. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the cost per participant recruited and examine whether characteristics such as demographics, financial stress, mental health, and smoking-related factors may be associated with the recruitment method (ie, online vs traditional). METHODS:Participants were recruited into a randomized trial that provided smoking cessation support. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; used tobacco daily; had access to video communication software, internet, and telephone; had an email address; and lived in a rural or remote area of New South Wales, Australia. This study describes the natural (observed) experience of recruiting participants via online and traditional methods into a smoking cessation trial. RESULTS:Over 17 months, 655 participants were recruited into the smoking cessation trial. A total of 88.7% (581/655) of the participants were recruited via online methods. Moreover, 1.8% (12/655) of the participants were recruited from remote locations and none from very remote areas. The cost per participant recruited by the various online strategies ranged from Aus $7.29 (US $4.96, £4.09, and €4.43) for Gumtree, a local online classified website, to Aus $128.67 (US $87.63, £72.20, and €78.28) for email. The cost per participant recruited using traditional strategies ranged from Aus $0 (US $0, £0, and €0) for word of mouth to Aus $3990.84 (US $2757.67, £2227.85, and €2477.11) for telephone. Women had greater odds of being recruited via online methods than men (odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.42-4.40). No other characteristics were associated with the recruitment method. CONCLUSIONS:The cost per participant recruited via online and traditional strategies varied, with the range being smaller for online than traditional recruitment strategies. Women have greater odds of being recruited via online strategies into rural smoking cessation trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000514303; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372584&isReview=true.
| S-EPMC6880230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV (PLHIV) is higher than that reported in the general population, and it is a significant risk factor for noncommunicable diseases in this group. Mobile phone interventions to promote healthier behaviors (mobile health, mHealth) have the potential to reach a large number of people at a low cost. It has been hypothesized that mHealth interventions may not be as effective as face-to-face strategies in achieving smoking cessation, but there is no systematic evidence to support this, especially among PLHIV.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare two modes of intervention delivery (mHealth vs face-to-face) for smoking cessation among PLHIV.MethodsLiterature on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating effects of mHealth or face-to-face intervention strategies on short-term (4 weeks to <6 months) and long-term (?6 months) smoking abstinence among PLHIV was sought. We systematically reviewed relevant RCTs and conducted pairwise meta-analyses to estimate relative treatment effects of mHealth and face-to-face interventions using standard care as comparison. Given the absence of head-to-head trials comparing mHealth with face-to-face interventions, we performed adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare these interventions.ResultsA total of 10 studies involving 1772 PLHIV met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the study population was 45 years, and women comprised about 37%. In the short term, mHealth-delivered interventions were significantly more efficacious in increasing smoking cessation than no intervention control (risk ratio, RR, 2.81, 95% CI 1.44-5.49; n=726) and face-to-face interventions (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13-4.72; n=726). In the short term, face-to-face interventions were no more effective than no intervention in increasing smoking cessation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.58; n=1144). In terms of achieving long-term results among PLHIV, there was no significant difference in the rates of smoking cessation between those who received mHealth-delivered interventions, face-to-face interventions, or no intervention. Trial sequential analysis showed that only 15.16% (726/1304) and 5.56% (632/11,364) of the required information sizes were accrued to accept or reject a 25% relative risk reduction for short- and long-term smoking cessation treatment effects. In addition, sequential monitoring boundaries were not crossed, indicating that the cumulative evidence may be unreliable and inconclusive.ConclusionsCompared with face-to-face interventions, mHealth-delivered interventions can better increase smoking cessation rate in the short term. The evidence that mHealth increases smoking cessation rate in the short term is encouraging but not sufficient to allow a definitive conclusion presently. Future research should focus on strategies for sustaining smoking cessation treatment effects among PLHIV in the long term.
| S-EPMC6329415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsPeople with severe mental ill health smoke more and suffer greater smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation in this group. This review evaluated randomized controlled trial evidence to measure the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions (both digital and non-digital) in people with severe mental ill health.DesignSystematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. We searched between inception and January 2020 in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and CENTRAL databases.Setting and participantsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of behavioural smoking cessation and reduction interventions in adults with severe mental ill health, conducted in any country, in either in-patient or community settings and published in English.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was biochemically verified smoking cessation. Smoking reduction and changes in mental health symptoms and body mass index (BMI) were included as secondary outcomes. Narrative data synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted and the quality of included studies was appraised using the risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool.FindingsWe included 12 individual studies (16 articles) involving 1861 participants. The first meta-analysis (three studies, 921 participants) demonstrated effectiveness of bespoke face-to-face interventions compared with usual care across all time-points [medium-term: relative risk (RR) = 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38-3.81; long-term: RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.09-2.30]. The second (three studies, 275 participants) did not demonstrate any difference in effectiveness of bespoke digital on-line interventions compared with standard digital on-line interventions (medium-term: RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.17-4.46). A narrative overview revealed mixed results when comparing bespoke face-to-face interventions with other active interventions. The methodological quality of studies was mixed, with the majority having some concerns mainly around risk of selective reporting.ConclusionsFace-to-face bespoke smoking cessation interventions for adults with severe mental ill health appear to be effective when compared with treatment as usual, but evidence is equivocal when compared with other active interventions. There is limited evidence comparing bespoke digital interventions with generic interventions, and we found no studies comparing them with usual treatment.
| S-EPMC9298065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextRecent data suggest that the onset of cigarette smoking is now more likely during young adulthood than adolescence. Additionally, the landscape of delivering smoking-cessation interventions has changed in the past decade, with the emergence of mobile phone and web-based approaches. The objective of this study is to update a 2010 systematic review of smoking-cessation interventions for U.S. young adults (aged 18-24 years).Evidence acquisitionElectronic searches were conducted in CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts to identify eligible interventions from August 31, 2009 through July 17, 2019. Two independent coders critically evaluated the methodology and findings of all retrieved articles. Data analysis was conducted in 2019.Evidence synthesisA total of 17 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study were added to the original 14 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review; these studies varied with respect to sample size, intervention, assessed outcomes, and smoking measures. Of the new studies, 3 increased cessation in the short term, 2 at 6 months, and 1 had short-term effects on cigarette reduction. Pooled analyses supported the use of interventions employing social cognitive theory, quitline counseling, and text message programs for short-term cessation in young adults.ConclusionsOf 32 included studies, 9 demonstrated efficacy of smoking cessation or reduction in U.S. young adults. There were no eligible pharmacologic interventions included in this review. Findings support the promise of 3 approaches for young adult cessation not included in the prior review: text message interventions, sustained quit-and-win contests, and multiple behavior interventions.
| S-EPMC7453837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUnfortunately, like many other health risks, smoking rate has been on the rise in developing countries. Half of current smokers in the world reside in only three countries of Asia that include India. Many smoking cessation interventions that were developed and successfully implemented in the context of developed countries have not been equally successful in South Asia. Hence, there is a dire need of culturally relevant smoking cessation interventions. We propose a scoping review with objectives to explore the extent and nature of interventions for smoking cessation and its associated factors in South Asian Region by systematically reviewing the available published and unpublished literature.Methods and analysisThe review has been registered in Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic reviews register and details are given in the Methodology section. The updated framework of JBI for scoping review methodology will be used as guide for conduct of this scoping review. Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, Proquest Theses and Dissertations, EBSCO Dentistry and Oral Sciences, and Wiley Cochrane Library), reference lists of selected studies and grey literature will be considered for inclusion in this review. The literature search is anticipated to be carried out in December-January 2020. Initially, two reviewers in consultation with a librarian will develop search syntax followed by search from the selected sources. Consequently, the reviewers will screen all the titles, abstracts and full articles to establish relevance of each study for inclusion. Factors associated with smoking cessation will be coded and categorised applying qualitative content analysis, while interventions extracted from the literature will be described with the stated level of effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7875297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in Ireland with almost 6,000 smokers dying each year from smoking-related diseases. Amongst younger Irish women, smoking rates are considerably higher in those from socially disadvantaged areas compared to women from affluent areas. Women from poorer areas also experience higher rates of lung cancer. To our knowledge, there are no peer reviewed published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions tailored to reduce smoking rates in women from disadvantaged areas. This systematic review protocol will aim to examine the effectiveness of such interventions and to describe trial processes such as recruitment, follow-up and dropout prevention strategies, as well as barriers and enablers of successful implementation. A systematic review will be conducted of peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials and associated process evaluations of smoking cessation interventions designed for women living in socially disadvantaged areas. If the search returns, less than five studies are review criteria will expand to include quasi-experimental studies. A number of databases of scholarly literature will be searched from inception using a detailed search strategy. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles to identify relevant studies using a pre-defined checklist based on PICOS. In the case of disagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) criteria. Quantitative data will be extracted and, if comparable, will be assessed using meta-analysis. A narrative meta-synthesis of qualitative data will be conducted. This review aims to synthesise information from relevant studies on smoking cessation interventions tailored for women from socially disadvantaged areas. The evidence obtained from studies and presented in this review will help guide future research in this area. Registration: This review will be registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).
| S-EPMC7017191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTobacco use is highly prevalent amongst people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and has a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions to motivate and assist tobacco use cessation for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and to evaluate the risks of any harms associated with those interventions.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in June 2015. We also searched EThOS, ProQuest, four clinical trial registries, reference lists of articles, and searched for conference abstracts using Web of Science and handsearched speciality conference databases.Selection criteriaControlled trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions for tobacco cessation for PLWHA.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised electronic data collection form. They extracted data on the nature of the intervention, participants, and proportion achieving abstinence and they contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We collected data on long-term (greater than or equal to six months) and short-term (less than six months) outcomes. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis and estimated the pooled effects using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. Two authors independently assessed and reported the risk of bias according to prespecified criteria.Main resultsWe identified 14 studies relevant to this review, of which we included 12 in a meta-analysis (n = 2087). All studies provided an intervention combining behavioural support and pharmacotherapy, and in most studies this was compared to a less intensive control, typically comprising a brief behavioural intervention plus pharmacotherapy.There was moderate quality evidence from six studies for the long-term abstinence outcome, which showed no evidence of effect for more intense cessation interventions: (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.39) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). The pooled long-term abstinence was 8% in both intervention and control conditions. There was very low quality evidence from 11 studies that more intense tobacco cessation interventions were effective in achieving short-term abstinence (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00); there was moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 42%). Abstinence in the control group at short-term follow-up was 8% (n = 67/848) and in the intervention group was 13% (n = 118/937). The effect of tailoring the intervention for PLWHA was unclear. We further investigated the effect of intensity of behavioural intervention via number of sessions and total duration of contact. We failed to detect evidence of a difference in effect according to either measure of intensity, although there were few studies in each subgroup. It was not possible to perform the planned analysis of adverse events or HIV outcomes since these were not reported in more than one study.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions provide similar outcomes to controls in PLWHA in the long-term. There is very low quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions were effective in helping PLWHA achieve short-term abstinence. Despite this, tobacco cessation interventions should be offered to PLWHA, since even non-sustained periods of abstinence have proven benefits. Further large, well designed studies of cessation interventions for PLWHA are needed.
| S-EPMC8604206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe short-term economic benefit of embedding best practice tobacco dependence treatment (TDT) into healthcare services prior to surgery across different populations and jurisdictions is largely unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications compared with usual care. The results will provide hospital managers, clinicians, healthcare professionals and policymakers with a critical summary of the economic evidence on providing TDT routinely before surgery, aiding the development and dissemination of unified, best practice guidelines, that is, implementation of article 14 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature will be conducted from database inception until 23 June 2021 (Cochrane, Econlit, Embase, Health Technology Assessment, Medline Complete, Scopus). Published, English-language articles describing economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and two researchers will independently screen results for eligible studies. Any disagreement will be resolved by the third researcher. A narrative summary of included studies will be provided. Study characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results will be extracted by one reviewer and descriptive analyses will be undertaken. A second reviewer will review data extracted for accuracy from 10% of the included studies. Reporting and methodological quality of the included studies will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument checklist, respectively.Ethics and disseminationThis research does not require ethics approval because the study is a planned systematic review of published literature. Findings will be presented at health economic, public health and tobacco control conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via social media.Trial registration numberCRD42021257740.
| S-EPMC8596037 | biostudies-literature