Biomedical subjects

L F Stead

Publications and source records attributed to L F Stead.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Opioid antagonists for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The reinforcing properties of nicotine may be mediated through release of various neurotransmitters both centrally and systemically. Smokers report positive effects such as pleasure, arousal, and relaxation as well as relief of negative affect, tension, and anxiety. Opioid (narcotic) antagonists are of particular interest to investigators as potential agents to attenuate the rewarding effects of cigarette smoking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of opioid antagonists in promoting long-term smoking cessation. The drugs include naloxone and the longer-acting opioid antagonist naltrexone. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register for trials of naloxone, naltrexone and other opioid antagonists and conducted an additional search of MEDLINE using 'Narcotic antagonists' and smoking terms in March 2006. We also contacted investigators, when possible, for information on unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials comparing opioid antagonists to placebo or an alternative therapeutic control for smoking cessation. We included in the meta-analysis only those trials which reported data on abstinence for a minimum of six months. We also reviewed, for descriptive purposes, results from short-term laboratory-based studies of opioid antagonists designed to evaluate psycho-biological mediating variables associated with nicotine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the drug therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was cotinine- or carbon monoxide-verified abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios). MAIN RESULTS: Four trials of naltrexone met inclusion criteria for meta-analyses for long-term cessation. All four trials failed to detect a significant difference in quit rates between naltrexone and placebo. In a pooled analysis there was no significant effect of naltrexone on long-term abstinence, and confidence intervals were wide (odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 2.01). No trials of naloxone or buprenorphine reported long-term follow up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited data from four trials it is not possible to confirm or refute whether naltrexone helps smokers quit. The confidence intervals are compatible with both clinically significant benefit and possible negative effects of naltrexone in promoting abstinence. Data from larger trials of naltrexone are needed to settle the question of efficacy for smoking cessation.

Buprenorphine↗

PubMed2006

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive telephone support to help smokers quit. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies using free text term 'telephone*' or the keywords 'telephone counselling' or 'Hotlines' or 'Telephone' . Date of the most recent search: January 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were identified and data extracted by one person (LS) and checked by a second (TL). The main outcome measure was the odds ratio for abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up. We selected the strictest measure of abstinence, using biochemically validated rates where available. We considered participants lost to follow-up to be continuing smokers. Where trials had more than one arm with a less intensive intervention we used only the most similar intervention without the telephone component as the control group in the primary analysis. We assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst sub groups of clinically comparable studies using the I(2) statistic. Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. A meta-regression was used to investigate the effect of differences in planned number of calls. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Among smokers who contacted helplines, quit rates were higher for groups randomised to receive multiple sessions of call-back counselling (eight studies, >18,000 participants, odds ratio (OR) for long term cessation 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.57). Two of these studies showed a significant benefit of more intensive compared to less intensive intervention. Telephone counselling not initiated by calls to helplines also increased quitting (29 studies, >17,000 participants, OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.47). A meta-regression detected a significant association between the maximum number of planned calls and the effect size. There was clearer evidence of benefit in the subgroup of trials recruiting smokers motivated to quit. Of two studies that provided access to a hotline one showed a significant benefit and one did not. Two studies comparing different counselling approaches during a single session did not detect significant differences. A further seven studies were too diverse to contribute to meta-analyses and are discussed separately. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Proactive telephone counselling helps smokers interested in quitting. There is evidence of a dose response; one or two brief calls are less likely to provide a measurable benefit. Three or more calls increases the odds of quitting compared to a minimal intervention such as providing standard self-help materials, brief advice, or compared to pharmacotherapy alone. Telephone quitlines provide an important route of access to support for smokers, and call-back counselling enhances their usefulness.

Counseling↗

PubMed2006

Nicobrevin for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicobrevin is a proprietary product marketed as an aid to smoking cessation. It contains quinine, menthyl valerate, camphor and eucalyptus oil. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of Nicobrevin on long term smoking cessation SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials comparing Nicobrevin to placebo or an alternative therapeutic control, which reported smoking cessation with at least six months follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were sought on the outcome, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no trials meeting the full inclusion criteria including long-term follow up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available from long-term trials that Nicobrevin can aid smoking cessation.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Self-help interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to self help, such as computer-generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register using the terms 'self-help', 'manual*' or 'booklet*'. Date of the most recent search April 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials of smoking cessation with follow up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a self-help intervention. We defined self help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face-to-face contact given to intervention and to control conditions, outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified sixty trials. Thirty-three compared self-help materials to no intervention or tested materials used in addition to advice. In 11 trials in which self help was compared to no intervention there was a pooled effect that just reached statistical significance (N = 13,733; odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 1.45). This analysis excluded two trials with strongly positive outcomes that introduced significant heterogeneity. Four further trials in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials. We failed to find evidence of benefit from adding self-help materials to face-to-face advice, or to nicotine replacement therapy. There were seventeen trials using materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, where meta-analysis supported a small benefit of tailored materials (N = 20,414; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.61). The evidence is strongest for tailored materials compared to no intervention, but also supports tailored materials as more helpful than standard materials. Part of this effect could be due to the additional contact or assessment required to obtain individual data. A small number of other trials failed to detect benefits from using additional materials or targeted materials, or to find differences between different self-help programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Standard self-help materials may increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We failed to find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a healthcare professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are effective, and are more effective than untailored materials, although the absolute size of effect is still small.

Behavior Therapy↗

PubMed2005

Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Group therapy offers individuals the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques for smoking cessation, and to provide each other with mutual support. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the effects of smoking cessation programmes delivered in a group format compared to self-help materials, or to no intervention; to compare the effectiveness of group therapy and individual counselling; and to determine the effect of adding group therapy to advice from a health professional or to nicotine replacement. We also aimed to determine whether specific components increased the effectiveness of group therapy. We aimed to determine the rate at which offers of group therapy are taken up. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE and PsycINFO, including the terms behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, psychotherapy or group therapy, in January 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized trials that compared group therapy with self help, individual counselling, another intervention or no intervention (including usual care or a waiting list control). We also considered trials that compared more than one group programme. We included those trials with a minimum of two group meetings, and follow up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. We excluded trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies, unless they had a factorial design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the interventions provided to the groups and the controls, including programme length, intensity and main components, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were analyzed as continuing smokers. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) model. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 55 trials met inclusion criteria for one or more of the comparisons in the review. Sixteen studies compared a group programme with a self-help programme. There was an increase in cessation with the use of a group programme (N = 4395, odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.60). Group programmes were more effective than no intervention controls (seven trials, N = 815, OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.45). There was no evidence that group therapy was more effective than a similar intensity of individual counselling. There was limited evidence that the addition of group therapy to other forms of treatment, such as advice from a health professional or nicotine replacement, produced extra benefit. There was variation in the extent to which those offered group therapy accepted the treatment. There was limited evidence that programmes which included components for increasing cognitive and behavioural skills and avoiding relapse were more effective than same length or shorter programmes without these components. This analysis was sensitive to the way in which one study with multiple conditions was included. We did not find an effect of manipulating the social interactions between participants in a group programme on outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Group therapy is better for helping people stop smoking than self help, and other less intensive interventions. There is not enough evidence to evaluate whether groups are more effective, or cost-effective, than intensive individual counselling. There is not enough evidence to support the use of particular psychological components in a programme beyond the support and skills training normally included.

Behavior Therapy↗

PubMed2005

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the review is to determine the effects of individual counselling. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field. Date of the most recent search: December 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow up at least six months after the start of counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors extracted data. The intervention and population, method of randomization and completeness of follow up were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 21 trials with over 7000 participants. Eighteen trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention, four compared different types or intensities of counselling. Individual counselling was more effective than control. The odds ratio for successful smoking cessation was 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.84). In a subgroup of three trials where all participants received nicotine replacement therapy the point estimate of effect was smaller and did not reach significance (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.83). We failed to detect a greater effect of intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit.

Behavior Therapy↗

PubMed2005

Interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors.

BACKGROUND: Laws restricting sales of tobacco products to minors exist in many countries, but young people may still purchase cigarettes easily. OBJECTIVES: The review assesses the effects of interventions to reduce underage access to tobacco by deterring shopkeepers from making illegal sales. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group trials register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of the most recent searches: September 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled trials and uncontrolled studies with pre- and post intervention assessment of interventions to change retailers' behaviour. The outcomes were changes in retailer compliance with legislation (assessed by test purchasing), changes in young people's smoking behaviour, and perceived ease of access to tobacco products. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer prescreened studies for relevance, and both reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted data from included studies and the second checked them. Study designs and types of intervention were heterogeneous so results were synthesized narratively, with greater weight given to controlled studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 34 studies of which 14 had data from a control group for at least one outcome. Giving retailers information was less effective in reducing illegal sales than active enforcement or multicomponent educational strategies, or both. No strategy achieved complete, sustained compliance. In three controlled trials, there was little effect of intervention on youth perceptions of access or prevalence of smoking. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions with retailers can lead to large decreases in the number of outlets selling tobacco to youths. However, few of the communities studied in this review achieved sustained levels of high compliance. This may explain why there is limited evidence for an effect of intervention on youth perception of ease of access to tobacco, and on smoking behaviour.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Several treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. There are interventions designed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group trials register in September 2004 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, or were undergoing enforced abstinence, or who were participating in treatment programmes. We included trials that compared relapse prevention interventions to a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components to a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened and data extracted by one author and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author. MAIN RESULTS: Forty studies met inclusion criteria, but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered studies that randomized abstainers separately from studies that randomized participants prior to their quit date. We detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention interventions for women who had quit smoking due to pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence. We also failed to detect significant effects in trials in other smokers who had quit on their own or with a formal programme. Amongst trials recruiting smokers and evaluating the effect of additional relapse prevention components we also found no evidence of benefit in any subgroup. We did not find that providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance reduced relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task, and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the moment there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific intervention for helping smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focusing on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. There is very little research available regarding other approaches. Until more evidence becomes available it may be more efficient to focus resources on supporting the initial cessation attempt rather than on additional relapse prevention efforts.

Behavior Therapy↗

PubMed2004

Clonidine for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Clonidine was originally used to lower blood pressure. It acts on the central nervous system and may reduce withdrawal symptoms in various addictive behaviours, including tobacco use. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to determine clonidine's effectiveness in helping smokers to quit. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for trials of clonidine. Date of the most recent search: May 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized trials of clonidine versus placebo with a smoking cessation endpoint assessed at least 12 weeks following the end of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the dose and duration of clonidine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least 12 weeks follow up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria. There were three trials of oral, and three of transdermal clonidine. Some form of behavioural counselling was offered to all participants in five of the six trials. There was a statistically significant effect of clonidine in one of these trials. The pooled odds ratio for success with clonidine versus placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.74). There was a high incidence of dose-dependent side-effects, particularly dry mouth and sedation. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on a small number of trials, in which there are potential sources of bias, clonidine is effective in promoting smoking cessation. Prominent side-effects limit the usefulness of clonidine for smoking cessation.

Clonidine↗

PubMed2004

Aversive smoking for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Aversion therapy pairs the pleasurable stimulus of smoking a cigarette with some unpleasant stimulus. The objective is to extinguish the urge to smoke. OBJECTIVES: This review has two aims: First, to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking and other aversive methods in helping smokers to stop smoking; Second, to determine whether there is a dose-response effect on smoking cessation at different levels of aversive stimulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies which evaluated any technique of aversive smoking. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials which compared aversion treatments with 'inactive' procedures or which compared aversion treatments of different intensity for smoking cessation. Trials must have reported follow up of least six months from beginning of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the study population, the type of aversion treatment, the outcome measure, method of randomization and completeness of follow up. The outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at maximum follow up, using the strictest measure reported by the authors. Subjects lost to follow up were regarded as smokers. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria. Twelve included rapid smoking and nine used other aversion methods. Ten trials included two or more conditions allowing assessment of a dose-response to aversive stimulation. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence following rapid smoking compared to control was 1.98 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.36 to 2.90). Several factors suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously. A funnel plot of included studies was asymmetric, due to the relative absence of small studies with negative results. Most trials had a number of serious methodological problems likely to lead to spurious positive results. The only trial using biochemical validation of all self reported cessation gave a non-significant result. Other aversion methods were not shown to be effective (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.82). There was a borderline dose-response to the level of aversive stimulation (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.78). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing studies provide insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking, or whether there is a dose-response to aversive stimulation. Milder versions of aversive smoking seem to lack specific efficacy. Rapid smoking is an unproven method with sufficient indications of promise to warrant evaluation using modern rigorous methodology.

Aversive Therapy↗

PubMed2004

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals, including nurses, frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register and CINAHL in June 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care found the intervention to significantly increase the odds of quitting (Peto Odds Ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.68). There was heterogeneity among the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of a statistically significant effect. There was limited evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized patients also showed evidence of benefit. Five studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Five studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found the nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses to patients, with reasonable evidence that interventions can be effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice, so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

Counseling↗

PubMed2004

Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation is a potentially appropriate role for community pharmacists because they are encouraged to advise on the correct use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products and to provide behavioural support to aid smoking cessation. OBJECTIVES: This review assessed the effectiveness of interventions by community pharmacy personnel to assist clients to stop smoking. SEARCH STRATEGY: A search was made of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group database for smoking cessation studies conducted in the community pharmacy setting, using the search terms pharmacist* or pharmacy or pharmacies. Date of the most recent search: March 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials which compared interventions by community pharmacy personnel to promote smoking cessation amongst their clients who were smokers compared to usual pharmacy support or any less intensive programme. The main outcome measure was smoking cessation rates at six months or more after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second, noting: the country of the trial, details of participant community pharmacies, method of subject recruitment, smoking behaviour and characteristics of participants on recruitment, method of randomization, description of the intervention and of any pharmacy personnel training, and the outcome measures. Methodological quality was assessed according to the extent to which the allocation to intervention or control was concealed. Because of the potentially important cluster effects, we also rated trials according to whether they checked for or adjusted for these but, in the absence of consensus on how to pool cluster level data, we adopted a narrative approach to synthesizing the data, rather than a formal meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two trials which met our selection criteria. They included a total of 976 smokers. Both trials were set in the UK and involved a training intervention which included the Stages of Change Model; they then compared a support programme involving counselling and record keeping against a control receiving usual pharmacy support. In both studies a high proportion of intervention and control participants began using NRT. Both studies reported smoking cessation outcomes at three time points. However, the follow-up points were not identical (three, six and 12 months in one, and one, four and nine months in the other), and the trend in abstinence over time was not linear in either study, so the data could not be combined. One study showed a significant difference in self-reported cessation rates at 12 months: 14.3% versus 2.7% (p < 0.001); the other study showed a positive trend at each follow-up with 12.0% versus 7.4% (p = 0.09) at nine months. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The limited number of studies to date suggests that trained community pharmacists, providing a counselling and record keeping support programme for their customers, may have a positive effect on smoking cessation rates. The strength of evidence is limited because only one of the trials showed a statistically significant effect.

Counseling↗

PubMed2004

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.

BACKGROUND: Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to nicotine addiction and health problems including periodontal disease and oral cancer OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions to treat ST use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register (February 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966-February 2004), EMBASE (1988-January 2004), CINAHL (1982-February 2004), PsycINFO (1984-February 2004), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit, with follow-up of at least six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One trial of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment after six months (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.23 to 4.37). Three trials of nicotine patch did not detect a benefit (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.54), nor did two trials of nicotine gum (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.63). There was statistical heterogeneity among the results of eight trials of behavioural interventions included in the meta-analysis. Three trials showed significant benefits of intervention. In a post-hoc analysis the trials of interventions which included an oral examination and feedback about ST-induced mucosal changes had homogeneous results and when pooled showed a significant benefit (OR 2.41 95% CI: 1.79 to 3.24). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions should be used to help ST users to quit. Pharmacotherapies have not been shown to affect long-term abstinence but larger trials are needed.

Bupropion↗

PubMed2003

Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours.

BACKGROUND: The tobacco industry denies that their marketing is targeted at young nonsmokers, but it seems more probable that tobacco advertising and promotion influences the attitudes of nonsmoking adolescents, and makes them more likely to try smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tobacco advertising and promotion on nonsmoking adolescents' future smoking behaviour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Group specialized register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstracts, PsycLIT, ERIC, WorldCat, Dissertation Abstracts, ABI Inform and Current Contents to August 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected longitudinal studies that assessed individuals' smoking behaviour and exposure to advertising, receptivity or attitudes to tobacco advertising, or brand awareness at baseline, and assessed smoking behaviour at follow-ups. Participants were adolescents aged 18 or younger who were not regular smokers at baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were prescreened for relevance by one reviewer. Two reviewers independently assessed relevant studies for inclusion. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. MAIN RESULTS: Nine longitudinal studies that followed up a total of over 12,000 baseline nonsmokers met inclusion criteria. The studies measured exposure or receptivity to advertising and promotion in a variety of ways, including having a favourite advertisement or an index of receptivity based on awareness of advertising and ownership of a promotional item. One study measured the number of tobacco advertisements in magazines read by participants. All studies assessed smoking behaviour change in participants who reported not smoking at baseline. In all studies the nonsmoking adolescents who were more aware of tobacco advertising or receptive to it, were more likely to have experimented with cigarettes or become smokers at follow-up. There was variation in the strength of association, and the degree to which potential confounders were controlled for. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal studies consistently suggest that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion is associated with the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke. Based on the strength of this association, the consistency of findings across numerous observational studies, temporality of exposure and smoking behaviours observed, as well as the theoretical plausibility regarding the impact of advertising, we conclude that tobacco advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2001

Updating a systematic review--what difference did it make? Case study of nicotine replacement therapy.

AIMS: To examine the effect of updating a systematic review of nicotine replacement therapy on its contents and conclusions. METHODS: We examined the effects of regular updating of a systematic review of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. We considered two outcomes. First, we assessed the effect of adding new data to meta-analyses, comparing results in 2000 with the results in 1994. Second, we assessed qualitatively the ways in which the nature of the questions addressed by the review had changed between the two dates. For the first outcome, we compared the number of trials, the pooled estimate of effect using the odds ratio, and the results of pre-specified subgroup analyses, for nicotine gum and patch separately. Using a test for interaction, we assessed whether differences between estimates were statistically significant. RESULTS: There were ten new trials of nicotine gum between 1994 and 2000, and the meta-analytic effect changed little. For the nicotine patch the number of trials increased from 9 to 30, and the meta-analytic effect fell from 2.07 (95% CI 1.64 - 2.62) to 1.73 (95% CI 1.56 - 1.93). Apparent differences in relative effect in sub-groups found in 1994 were not found in 2000. The updated systematic review addressed a number of questions not identified in the original version. CONCLUSIONS: Updating the meta-analyses lead to a more precise estimate of the likely effect of the nicotine patch, but the clinical message was unchanged. Further placebo controlled NRT trials are not likely to add to the evidence base. It is questionable whether updating the meta-analyses to include them is worthwhile. The content of the systematic review has, however, changed, with the addition of data addressing questions not considered in the original review. There is a tension between the principle of identifying the important questions prior to conducting a review, and keeping the review up to date as primary research identifies new avenues of enquiry.

Humans↗

PubMed2001

Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which recommendations in the national guidelines for the cessation of smoking are based on evidence from systematic reviews of controlled trials. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of recommendations for the national guidelines for the cessation of smoking. MATERIALS: National guidelines in clinical practice on smoking cessation published in English. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The type of evidence (systematic review of controlled trials, individual trials, other studies, expert opinion) used to support each recommendation. We also assessed whether a Cochrane systematic review was available and could have been used in formulating the recommendation. RESULTS: Four national smoking cessation guidelines (from Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) covering 105 recommendations were identified. An explicit evidence base for 100%, 89%, 68%, and 98% of recommendations, respectively, was detected, of which 60%, 56%, 59%, and 47% were based on systematic reviews of controlled studies. Cochrane systematic reviews could have been used to develop between 39% and 73% of recommendations but were actually used in 0% to 36% of recommendations. The UK guidelines had the highest proportion of recommendations based on Cochrane systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Use of systematic reviews in guidelines is a measure of the "payback" on investment in research synthesis. Systematic reviews commonly underpinned recommendations in guidelines on smoking cessation. The extent to which they were used varied by country and there was evidence of duplication of effort in some areas. Greater international collaboration in developing and maintaining an evidence base of systematic reviews can improve the efficiency of use of research resources.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2001

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain a quit attempt. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL and the Smoking and Health database for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow-up for at least one month) was associated with a significantly higher quit rate compared to control (Peto Odds Ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.49-2.22). There was insufficient evidence to judge the effect of interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy was used, the results for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: High intensity behavioural interventions that include at least one month of follow-up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. The findings of the review were compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT increases quit rates.

Hospitalization↗

PubMed2001

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive telephone support to help smokers quit. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies using free text term 'telephone*' or the keywords 'telephone counselling' or 'Hotlines' or 'Telephone'. Date of the most recent search: August 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were identified and data extracted by one person and checked by a second. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Participants lost to follow-up were considered to be continuing smokers. Where interventions were similar, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model to give an odds ratio. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty three trials met inclusion criteria. Ten trials compared proactive counselling to a minimal intervention control. There was statistical heterogeneity, with three trials showing a significant benefit, and seven showing non significant differences. Four trials adding telephone support to a face to face intervention control failed to detect a significant effect on long term quit rates. Four trials failed to detect an additional effect of telephone support in users of nicotine replacement therapy. Providing access to a hotline showed a significant benefit in one trial and no significant difference in two. Varying the type of counselling provided has not been shown to affect outcome. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Proactive telephone counselling can be effective compared to an intervention without personal contact. There was heterogeneity between trials so the size of effect is uncertain. The available evidence neither confirms nor rules out a benefit of telephone counselling as an adjunct to face to face counselling or pharmacotherapy. Further trials randomising access to helplines are unlikely to be done but indirect evidence suggests they can be a useful part of a smoking cessation service.

Counseling↗