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.

Project description:BackgroundActive smoking increases the risk of tuberculosis (TB) infection 2 to 2.5 times and is significantly associated with recurrent TB and TB mortality. Observational studies have shown associations between smoking and poor TB treatment outcomes such as increased loss to follow-up rate, severity of disease, drug resistance and slow smear conversion. Since most smoking-related immunologic abnormalities are reversible within six weeks of stopping smoking, smoking cessation may have substantial positive effects on TB treatment outcomes, TB relapse and future lung disease.ObjectivesTo analyse the effect of tobacco smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) on the treatment outcomes of people with adult pulmonary TB.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register using free-text and MeSH terms for TB and antitubercular treatment. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE using the same topic-related terms, combined with the search terms used to identify trials of tobacco cessation interventions from the Specialised Register. We also searched reference list of articles and reviews, the Conference Paper Index, clinicaltrials.gov and grey literature. The searches are current to 29th July 2015.Selection criteriaIndividual and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), regardless of date, language and publication status, studies of adults with pulmonary TB on first-line anti-tubercular drugs, with interventions at either an individual or a population level, delivered separately or as part of a larger tobacco control package. This included any type of behavioural or pharmaceutical intervention or both for smoking cessation.Data collection and analysisUsing the eligibility criteria, two authors independently checked the abstracts of retrieved studies for relevance, and acquired full trial reports of candidates for inclusion. The authors resolved any disagreements on eligibility by mutual consent, or by recourse to a third author. Two authors intended to independently extract study data from eligible studies into a data extraction form and compare the findings, synthesise data using risk ratios, and assess risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodologies. However, we found no eligible trials.Main resultsThere were no randomised controlled trials that met the eligibility criteria. A number of potentially eligible studies are underway, and we will assess them for inclusion in the next update of this review.Authors' conclusionsThere is a lack of high-quality evidence, i.e. RCTs, that tests the effectiveness of cessation interventions in improving TB treatment outcomes. There is a need for good-quality randomised controlled trials that assess the effect of SCIs on TB treatment outcomes in both the short and long term. Establishing such an evidence base would be an essential step towards the implementation of SCIs in TB control programmes worldwide.

Project description:Background and aimIt is useful, for theoretical and practical reasons, to be able to specify functions for continuous abstinence over time in smoking cessation attempts. This study aimed to find the best-fitting models of mean proportion abstinent with different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies up to 52 weeks from the quit date.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments to aid smoking cessation. For comparability, we selected trials that provided 12 weeks of treatment. Continuous abstinence rates for each treatment at each follow-up point in trials were extracted along with methodological details of the trial. Data points for each pharmacotherapy at each follow-up point were aggregated where the total across contributing studies included at least 1000 participants per data point. Continuous abstinence curves were modelled using a range of different functions from the quit date to 52-week follow-up. Models were compared for fit using R2 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC).ResultsStudies meeting our selection criteria covered three pharmacotherapies [varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion] and placebo. Power functions provided the best fit (R2 > 0.99, BIC < 17.0) to continuous abstinence curves from the target quit date in all cases except for varenicline, where a logarithmic function described the curve best (R2 = 0.99, BIC = 21.2). At 52 weeks, abstinence rates were 22.5% (23.0% modelled) for varenicline, 16.7% (16.0% modelled) for bupropion, 13.0% (12.4% modelled) for NRT and 8.3% (8.9% modelled) for placebo. For varenicline, bupropion, NRT and placebo, respectively, 55.9, 65.0, 62.3 and 56.5% of participants who were abstinent at the end of treatment were still abstinent at 52 weeks.ConclusionsMean continuous abstinence rates up to 52 weeks from initiation of smoking cessation attempts in clinical trials can be modelled using simple power functions for placebo, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion and a logarithmic function for varenicline. This allows accurate prediction of abstinence rates from any time point to any other time point up to 52 weeks.

Project description:ImportanceThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.Design, setting, and participantsA matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.ResultsDelivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).Conclusions and relevanceAssist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.

Dataset Information

[Smoking cessation interventions in clinical practice].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets