Dataset Information

A systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health-what works?

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

People 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.

Design

Systematic 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 participants

Randomized 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.

Measurements

The 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.

Findings

We 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.

Conclusions

Face-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.

SUBMITTER: Spanakis P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9298065 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer.ObjectivesTo review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studiesSelection criteriaWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information.Data collection and analysisThe review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review.Main resultsWe did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible.Authors' conclusionsPeople with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

Project description:BackgroundSocioeconomic 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.MethodsFor 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.FindingsOf 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; β=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.InterpretationWe 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.FundingCancer Research UK.

Project description:IntroductionSmoking 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 and lower quit rates. Smoking cessation interventions for people in rural and remote areas have been conducted, however little is known about their effectiveness or their mechanisms of action as well as the quality of such research. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are mechanisms of action derived from behaviour change theory, such as goal setting and reward. Improved understanding of the contribution of BCTs for smoking cessation in the rural and remote population will support future intervention development. We aim to review the literature on smoking cessation interventions for people living in rural and remote areas to inform evidence about intervention effectiveness and mechanisms of action.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review using seven scientific databases (EMBASE, MedLine, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Informit Health and Scopus). We will include peer-reviewed journal articles published in English that examine a smoking cessation intervention delivered to people living in rural and remote areas in the USA, Canada and Australia. We will examine outcome data relating to intervention effectiveness (eg, point prevalence abstinence or continuous abstinence), as well as the BCTs used in included interventions and their relationship with intervention outcomes. We will also assess the feasibility, acceptability and quality of research interventions of included articles, and provide graded recommendations based on the review outcomes. Data will be synthesised using narrative approaches and interpreted using content analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics was not required for this systematic review. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at conferences by presentations.Prospero registration number177398.

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.