Brief mindfulness training for smoking cessation in Chinese women in workplaces: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in the workplace: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Workplaces are suitable areas for smoking cessation programs and incentives. This study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of interventions in the workplace for smoking cessation in working individuals.

METHODS

All studies published in English between 2013 and 2022 were searched in Pub Med, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Meta-analysis was based on PRISMA 2020. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO. A random effects model was applied to the meta-analysis processes, and Hedges' g was used to calculate the effect size.

RESULTS

Of the included studies, 11 were randomized controlled trials, and 8 were cluster randomized controlled trials. In different working sectors, various interventions such as motivational/individual interviews, group counseling, telephone coaching, web-based training, mindfulness meditation, and financial interventions were implemented. These interventions were carried out alone or in combination with one or more other interventions. The interventions generally have short-term effects, and financial incentives or supports were the factors that positively motivate the interventions. The joint effect size of attempts to quit smoking in the workplace (Hedges' g) was 1.171. Heterogeneity between studies was significant (Q = 199.762, p = 0.015, I2 = 80.477%). No publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined that smoking cessation interventions applied in the workplace have a large effect. We recommend that the long-term effects of increasing effectiveness of these interventions be considered and planned in line with the needs of working groups.

Effects of brief mindfulness training on smoking cue-reactivity in tobacco use disorder: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) represents a significant and pressing global public health concern, with far-reaching and deleterious consequences for individuals, communities, and healthcare systems. The craving caused by smoking cue is an important trigger for relapse, fundamentally hindering the cessation of cigarette smoking. Mindfulness interventions focusing on cue-reactivity was effective for the treatment of related dependence. Brief mindfulness training (BMT) meets the short-term needs for intervention but the effects still need to be examined. The objective of the present study is to investigate the impact of BMT intervention on smoking cue-reactivity among Chinese college students with TUD, to uncover the dynamic models of brain function involved in this process.

METHOD

A randomized control trial (RCT) based on electroencephalography (EEG) was designed. We aim to recruit 90 participants and randomly assign to the BMT and control group (CON) with 1:1 ratio. A brief mindfulness training will be administered to experimental group. After the intervention, data collection will be conducted in the follow-up stage with 5 timepoints of assessments. EEG data will be recorded during the smoking cue-reactivity task and 'STOP' brief mindfulness task. The primary outcomes include subjective reports of smoking craving, changes in EEG indicators, and mindfulness measures. The secondary outcomes will be daily smoking behaviours, affect and impulsivity, as well as indicators reflecting correlation between mindfulness and smoking cue-reactivity. To evaluate the impact of mindfulness training, a series of linear mixed-effects models will be employed. Specifically, within-group effects will be examined by analysing the longitudinal data. Additionally, the effect size for all statistical measurements will be reported, offering a comprehensive view of the observed effects.

DISCUSSION

The current study aims to assess the impact of brief mindfulness-based intervention on smoking cue-reactivity in TUD. It also expected to enhance our understanding of the underlying processes involved in brain function and explore potential EEG biomarkers at multiple time points.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300069363, registered on 14 March 2023. Protocol Version 1.0., 10 April 2023.

Meditation for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Interventions incorporating meditation to address stress, anxiety, and depression, and improve self-management, are becoming popular for many health conditions. Stress is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and clusters with other modifiable behavioural risk factors, such as smoking. Meditation may therefore be a useful CVD prevention strategy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of meditation, primarily mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and transcendental meditation (TM), for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 14 November 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 12 weeks or more in adults at high risk of CVD and those with established CVD. We explored four comparisons: MBIs versus active comparators (alternative interventions); MBIs versus non-active comparators (no intervention, wait list, usual care); TM versus active comparators; TM versus non-active comparators.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were CVD clinical events (e.g. cardiovascular mortality), blood pressure, measures of psychological distress and well-being, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included other CVD risk factors (e.g. blood lipid levels), quality of life, and coping abilities. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs (6971 participants), with most studies at unclear risk of bias. MBIs versus active comparators (29 RCTs, 2883 participants) Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were reported in six trials (388 participants) where heterogeneity was considerable (SBP: MD -6.08 mmHg, 95% CI -12.79 to 0.63, I2 = 88%; DBP: MD -5.18 mmHg, 95% CI -10.65 to 0.29, I2 = 91%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect of MBIs on anxiety (SMD -0.06 units, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.13; I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or depression (SMD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.24; I2 = 0%; 11 trials, 595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Perceived stress was reduced with MBIs (SMD -0.24 units, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.03; I2 = 0%; P = 0.03; 6 trials, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on well-being (SMD -0.18 units, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.32; 1 trial, 63 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.68; I2 = 79%; 6 trials, 1087 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events or adverse events. MBIs versus non-active comparators (38 RCTs, 2905 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (110 participants), providing very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.42). SBP and DBP were reduced in nine trials (379 participants) but heterogeneity was substantial (SBP: MD -6.62 mmHg, 95% CI -13.15 to -0.1, I2 = 87%; DBP: MD -3.35 mmHg, 95% CI -5.86 to -0.85, I2 = 61%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of reductions in anxiety (SMD -0.78 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.41; I2 = 61%; 9 trials, 533 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.66 units, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.41; I2 = 67%; 15 trials, 912 participants; low-certainty evidence) and perceived stress (SMD -0.59 units, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.29; I2 = 70%; 11 trials, 708 participants; low-certainty evidence) but heterogeneity was substantial. Well-being increased (SMD 0.5 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.91; I2 = 47%; 2 trials, 198 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.13; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence). One small study (18 participants) reported two adverse events in the MBI group, which were not regarded as serious by the study investigators (RR 5.0, 95% CI 0.27 to 91.52; low-certainty evidence). No subgroup effects were seen for SBP, DBP, anxiety, depression, or perceived stress by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus active comparators (8 RCTs, 830 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (201 participants) based on low-certainty evidence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49). SBP was reduced (MD -2.33 mmHg, 95% CI -3.99 to -0.68; I2 = 2%; 8 trials, 774 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with an uncertain effect on DBP (MD -1.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.55; I2 = 53%; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect on anxiety (SMD 0.06 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.33; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 200 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.12 units, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 421 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or perceived stress (SMD 0.04 units, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.57; I2 = 70%; 3 trials, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported adverse events or smoking rates. No subgroup effects were seen for SBP or DBP by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus non-active comparators (2 RCTs, 186 participants) Two trials (139 participants) reported blood pressure, where reductions were seen in SBP (MD -6.34 mmHg, 95% CI -9.86 to -2.81; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -5.13 mmHg, 95% CI -9.07 to -1.19; I2 = 18%; very low-certainty evidence). One trial (112 participants) reported anxiety and depression and found reductions in both (anxiety SMD -0.71 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.32; depression SMD -0.48 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.11; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events, adverse events, or smoking rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of studies included in the review, heterogeneity was substantial for many of the outcomes, which reduced the certainty of our findings. We attempted to address this by presenting four main comparisons of MBIs or TM versus active or inactive comparators, and by subgroup analyses according to primary or secondary prevention, where there were sufficient studies. The majority of studies were small and there was unclear risk of bias for most domains. Overall, we found very little information on the effects of meditation on CVD clinical endpoints, and limited information on blood pressure and psychological outcomes, for people at risk of or with established CVD. This is a very active area of research as shown by the large number of ongoing studies, with some having been completed at the time of writing this review. The status of all ongoing studies will be formally assessed and incorporated in further updates.

Effect of a workplace mobile phone-based instant messaging intervention on smoking cessation: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To test the effectiveness of intractive, instant messaging chat-based mobile phone support versus text-based mobile phone support integrated with brief interventions on self-reported smoking abstinence in workplaces.

DESIGN

A two-arm parallel cluster-randomized controlled trial with follow-up to 12 months.

SETTING

Seventy-five companies in Hong Kong, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Daily cigarette adult smokers (92.0% male, 90.9% not ready to quit within the next 30 days) from 75 companies (clusters).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were cluster-randomized to receive text-based support (TBS, n = 375; 38 clusters) or chat-based support (CBS, n = 304; 37 clusters). TBS participants received automated and fix-scheduled text messages on cessation advice and support. CBS participants received fix-scheduled text messages and additional real-time psychosocial and cessation support via instant messaging services (e.g. WhatsApp) by counsellors. Both groups received a 1-hour health talk at baseline and brief telephone counselling at 1 week and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months post-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 12 months, repeated 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction, quit attempts and intervention engagement, defined as having read text messages and/or engaged in conversation with counsellors.

FINDINGS

By intention-to-treat assuming that dropouts were smoking, self-reported abstinence was not significantly different between the CBS and TBS groups at 6 months [18.8 versus 21.6%, risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.61, 1.23, retention = 71.3%] and 12 months (21.4 versus 24.0%, RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.66, 1.21, retention = 70.8%). The repeated 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction and quit attempts were similar between the groups. The participants who were engaged in the text- and/or chat-based interventions had greater abstinence (adjusted RR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.87, 4.52) at 6 months compared with unengaged participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a text messaging mobile phone intervention, a chat-based instant messaging mobile phone intervention did not improve smoking abstinence over 12 months in workplaces. Engagement in text-based or chat-based interventions was associated with higher quit rates compared with non-engagement.

Mindfulness for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions may aid smoking cessation by teaching individuals to pay attention to, and work mindfully with, negative affective states, cravings, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Types of mindfulness-based interventions include mindfulness training, which involves training in meditation; acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT); distress tolerance training; and yoga.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation among people who smoke, and whether these interventions have an effect on mental health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries to 15 April 2021. We also employed an automated search strategy, developed as part of the Human Behaviour Change Project, using Microsoft Academic.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared a mindfulness-based intervention for smoking cessation with another smoking cessation programme or no treatment, and assessed smoking cessation at six months or longer. We excluded studies that solely recruited pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking cessation at the longest time point, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of intervention and type of comparator. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We summarised mental health outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies, with 8186 participants. Most recruited adults from the community, and the majority (15 studies) were conducted in the USA. We judged four of the studies to be at low risk of bias, nine at unclear risk, and eight at high risk. Mindfulness-based interventions varied considerably in design and content, as did comparators, therefore, we pooled small groups of relatively comparable studies. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of mindfulness training interventions on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence), less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.19; I² = 60%; 5 studies, 813 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or no treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.53; 1 study, 325 participants; low-certainty evidence). In each comparison, the 95% CI encompassed benefit (i.e. higher quit rates), harm (i.e. lower quit rates) and no difference. In one study of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, we did not detect a clear benefit or harm of the intervention over no treatment (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.67; 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of ACT on quit rates compared with less intensive behavioural treatments, including nicotine replacement therapy alone (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.02; 1 study, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence), brief advice (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.75; 1 study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or less intensive ACT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was a high level of heterogeneity (I² = 82%) across studies comparing ACT with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatments, meaning it was not appropriate to report a pooled result. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of distress tolerance training on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 1 study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of yoga on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.16; 1 study, 55 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially alter the results, nor did using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised. Nine studies reported on changes in mental health and well-being, including depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and negative and positive affect. Variation in measures and methodological differences between studies meant we could not meta-analyse these data. One study found a greater reduction in perceived stress in participants who received a face-to-face mindfulness training programme versus an intensity-matched programme. However, the remaining eight studies found no clinically meaningful differences in mental health and well-being between participants who received mindfulness-based treatments and participants who received another treatment or no treatment (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not detect a clear benefit of mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions for increasing smoking quit rates or changing mental health and well-being. This was the case when compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment, less intensive smoking cessation treatment, or no treatment. However, the evidence was of low and very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, meaning future evidence may very likely change our interpretation of the results. Further RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation compared with active comparators are needed. There is also a need for more consistent reporting of mental health and well-being outcomes in studies of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation.

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Brief-Mindful Self-Care Scale: A Translation and Validation Study

Objective: This study aimed to translate the Brief-Mindful Self-Care Scale (B-MSCS) into Chinese and validate its reliability and validity among hospice nurses. Methods: A total of 510 hospice nurses were recruited from three provinces in China. The reliability of the translated scale was measured by internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability. The validity of the translated scale was evaluated by expert consultation, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The Cronbach's α value of the Chinese version of B-MSCS was 0.920, and the Cronbach's α value of the dimensions ranged from 0.850 to 0.933. The split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were 0.770 and 0.723, respectively. Furthermore, the content validity index of the scale (S-CVI) was 0.946. The 6-factor structure, supported by the eigenvalues, total variance explained, and scree plot were obtained by using exploratory factor analysis. Moreover, as a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, the model fitting indexes were all in the acceptable range. Conclusion: The Chinese version of B-MSCS had suitable reliability and validity among hospice nurses. The developed scale will evaluate the level of mindful self-care of Chinese hospice nurses, providing an opportunity for development of targeted educational plans. Each item is a direct guide for hospice nurses to develop their mindful self-care practice.