Dataset Information

Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Smoking is a major public health problem. Although physicians have a key role in the fight against smoking, some of them are still smoking. Thus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of smoking among physicians. PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. The prevalence of smoking among physicians was estimated and stratified, where possible, by specialties, continents, and periods of time. Then, meta-regressions were performed regarding putative influencing factors such as age and sex. Among 246 studies and 497,081 physicians, the smoking prevalence among physicians was 21% (95CI 20 to 23%). Prevalence of smoking was 25% in medical students, 24% in family practitioners, 18% in surgical specialties, 17% in psychiatrists, 16% in medical specialties, 11% in anesthesiologists, 9% in radiologists, and 8% in pediatricians. Physicians in Europe and Asia had a higher smoking prevalence than in Oceania. The smoking prevalence among physicians has decreased over time. Male physicians had a higher smoking prevalence. Age did not influence smoking prevalence. Prevalence of smoking among physicians is high, around 21%. Family practitioners and medical students have the highest percentage of smokers. All physicians should benefit from targeted preventive strategies.

SUBMITTER: Besson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8705497 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Besson Anaïs A Tarpin Alice A Flaudias Valentin V Brousse Georges G Laporte Catherine C Benson Amanda A Navel Valentin V Bouillon-Minois Jean-Baptiste JB Dutheil Frédéric F

International journal of environmental research and public health 20211217 24

<h4>Background</h4>Smoking is a major public health problem. Although physicians have a key role in the fight against smoking, some of them are still smoking. Thus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of smoking among physicians.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. The prevalence of smoking among physicians was estimated and stratified, where possible, by specialties, continents, and periods of time. Then, meta-regressions ...[more]

PMID: 34948936

Similar Datasets

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:ImportancePhysicians in training are at high risk for depression. However, the estimated prevalence of this disorder varies substantially between studies.ObjectiveTo provide a summary estimate of depression or depressive symptom prevalence among resident physicians.Data sources and study selectionSystematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO for studies with information on the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians published between January 1963 and September 2015. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in the peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess for depression or depressive symptoms.Data extraction and synthesisInformation on study characteristics and depression or depressive symptom prevalence was extracted independently by 2 trained investigators. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using meta-regression.Main outcomes and measuresPoint or period prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms as assessed by structured interview or validated questionnaire.ResultsData were extracted from 31 cross-sectional studies (9447 individuals) and 23 longitudinal studies (8113 individuals). Three studies used clinical interviews and 51 used self-report instruments. The overall pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4969/17,560 individuals, 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with high between-study heterogeneity (Q = 1247, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 95.8%, P < .001). Prevalence estimates ranged from 20.9% for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire with a cutoff of 10 or more (741/3577 individuals, 95% CI, 17.5%-24.7%, Q = 14.4, τ2 = 0.04, I2 = 79.2%) to 43.2% for the 2-item PRIME-MD (1349/2891 individuals, 95% CI, 37.6%-49.0%, Q = 45.6, τ2 = 0.09, I2 = 84.6%). There was an increased prevalence with increasing calendar year (slope = 0.5% increase per year, adjusted for assessment modality; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.9%, P = .04). In a secondary analysis of 7 longitudinal studies, the median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with the onset of residency training was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5). No statistically significant differences were observed between cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies, studies of only interns vs only upper-level residents, or studies of nonsurgical vs both nonsurgical and surgical residents.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, the summary estimate of the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians was 28.8%, ranging from 20.9% to 43.2% depending on the instrument used, and increased with calendar year. Further research is needed to identify effective strategies for preventing and treating depression among physicians in training.

Dataset Information

Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets