Smoking Cessation Rates After a Nurse-Led Inpatient Smoking Cessation Intervention

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people 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 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 METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.

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 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 RESULTS

Fifty-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' CONCLUSIONS

There 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.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalized patients: a systematic review

AIM

This study aimed to clarify the role of nurses in planning and implementation of nursing interventions related to smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Nearly half of all smokers die from smoking-related illnesses. Quitting smoking can reduce these problems. Smoking cessation interventions include various types helping smokers successfully quit. Studies suggest that hospitalization can be a golden opportunity for nurses helping patients to quit smoking because of No Smoking regulations.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was carried through Web of Knowledge, ProQuest, Medscape, MedlinePlus, Ovid SID, Magiran, PubMed, and Science Direct databases between 1990-2015 on the subject of interest by keywords: role of nursing in smoking cessation, nursing intervention in smoking cessation, smoking cessation, smoking quitting and interventions planned by nurse.

RESULT

Nineteen papers were systematic examined, dealing with smoking cessation interventions by nurses. Totally, 17 studies used counselling for quitting smoking. Most studies involved other methods such as manuals, pamphlets, brochures training or printed educational materials, audio and video file. Some studies used nicotine replacement methods for patients such as nicotine skin tags, chewing nicotine or bupropion. Moreover, 17 studies were conducted by telephone at patients' follow-up after hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Nurses' interventions for smoking cessation play an important role in helping patients quit smoking successfully. There are a variety of interventions that nurses can employ according to the patient's condition and diagnosis of different diseases.

IMPLICATION FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY

Quitting smoking can reduce lung cancers and other health problems. Nurses play an important role in helping patients to quit smoking.

Smoking cessation in male prisoners: a literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to review the available literature relating to smoking cessation (SC) for the male prisoner population.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Databases PubMed, CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched for English language studies from 1990 to 2012. The authors identified 12 papers examining SC in male prisoners. Full-text articles were analysed for inclusion.

FINDINGS

A total of 12 studies were identified for inclusion. Four studies focused on forced abstinence (a smoking ban) while the remainder looked at various combinations of nicotine replacement, pharmacology and behavioural techniques. No robust studies were found that examined nursing approaches to SC for the prisoner population. The evidence shows a strong "pro-smoking" culture in prison and that many prisoners continue to smoke irrespective of an enforced ban. However, SC strategies can be successful if implemented systematically and supported by consistent policies.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Female-only prisoner studies were excluded as females comprise just 7 per cent of the Australian prisoner population. The analysis does not differentiate between maximum- or minimum-security prisons, or length of prison sentence. Results cannot be generalised to other forms of detention such as police custody or immigration detention centres. Studies were not appraised for quality, as exclusion on that basis would render further exploration untenable. The analysis was presented in a narrative rather than meta-analytical format and may be subject to interpretation.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This paper provides a foundation on which to build further research evidence into the smoking behaviour of prisoners. This information can be used to advocate for healthier public policy for a vulnerable and marginalised population.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first literature review into SC interventions in prisons. The authors apply the findings of this literature review to the five strategies for health promotion to propose a population approach to smoking cessation in male prisoners. Recommendations specific to the correctional environment are outlined for consideration by correctional health professionals.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people 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 METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized Register and CINAHL in June 2013.

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. 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 RESULTS

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooling 35 studies (over 17,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention to increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.39). In a subgroup analysis the estimated effect size was similar for the group of seven studies using a particularly low intensity intervention but the confidence interval was wider. There was limited indirect evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized adults also showed evidence of benefit. Eleven studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Six 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 nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence for an effect is weaker when interventions are brief and are provided by nurses whose main role is not health promotion or smoking cessation. 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.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.

Stage-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The transtheoretical model is the most widely known of several stage-based theories of behaviour. It proposes that smokers move through a discrete series of motivational stages before they quit successfully. These are precontemplation (no thoughts of quitting), contemplation (thinking about quitting), preparation (planning to quit in the next 30 days), action (quitting successfully for up to six months), and maintenance (no smoking for more than six months). According to this influential model, interventions which help people to stop smoking should be tailored to their stage of readiness to quit, and are designed to move them forward through subsequent stages to eventual success. People in the preparation and action stages of quitting would require different types of support from those in precontemplation or contemplation.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to test the effectiveness of stage-based interventions in helping smokers to quit.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('stage* of change', 'transtheoretical model*', 'trans-theoretical model*, 'precaution adoption model*', 'health action model', 'processes of change questionnaire*', 'readiness to change', 'tailor*') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The latest search was in August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, which compared stage-based interventions with non-stage-based controls, with 'usual care' or with assessment only. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment, and those which measured stage of change but did not modify their intervention in the light of it.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the dose and duration of intervention, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up.The main outcome was abstinence from smoking for at least six months. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to estimate a pooled risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 41 trials (>33,000 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Four trials, which directly compared the same intervention in stage-based and standard versions, found no clear advantage for the staging component. Stage-based versus standard self-help materials (two trials) gave a relative risk (RR) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.39). Stage-based versus standard counselling (two trials) gave a relative risk of 1.00 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.22). Six trials of stage-based self-help systems versus any standard self-help support demonstrated a benefit for the staged groups, with an RR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.59). Twelve trials comparing stage-based self help with 'usual care' or assessment-only gave an RR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.48). Thirteen trials of stage-based individual counselling versus any control condition gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.42). These findings are consistent with the proven effectiveness of these interventions in their non-stage-based versions. The evidence was unclear for telephone counselling, interactive computer programmes or training of doctors or lay supporters. This uncertainty may be due in part to smaller numbers of trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on four trials using direct comparisons, stage-based self-help interventions (expert systems and/or tailored materials) and individual counselling were neither more nor less effective than their non-stage-based equivalents. Thirty-one trials of stage-based self help or counselling interventions versus any control condition demonstrated levels of effectiveness which were comparable with their non-stage-based counterparts. Providing these forms of practical support to those trying to quit appears to be more productive than not intervening. However, the additional value of adapting the intervention to the smoker's stage of change is uncertain. The evidence is not clear for other types of staged intervention, including telephone counselling, interactive computer programmes and training of physicians or lay supporters. The evidence does not support the restriction of quitting advice and encouragement only to those smokers perceived to be in the preparation and action stages.