[The effect of smoking cessation counseling at health checkup]

Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention at the Workplace

The concept of workplace safety and health has focused largely on preventing accidents and on minimizing hazardous exposures. However, because workers spend a substantial part of their waking hours at the workplace, the potential to influence the health of a large proportion of the world's population through the workplace is enormous. The opportunities to carry out health promotion and chronic disease prevention activities at the workplace are countless, including (a) health screening; (b) tobacco cessation activities; (c) the promotion of healthy food choices and weight loss; (d) active breaks with physical exercise in terms of microexercise, enhancement of infrastructure to stimulate physical activity, and organization of work tasks to facilitate incidental physical activity; and (e) routine vaccinations. This review discusses the key factors necessary to implement health promotion and chronic disease prevention programs at the workplace (SWOLE model) and discusses the different foci and possibilities with respect to the differing nature of work for the blue- versus white-collar workforce.

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 telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I² = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I² = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I² = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I² = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

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.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking.2. To collect and evaluate data on costs and cost effectiveness associated with workplace interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (July 2013), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2013), EMBASE (1985 - June 2013), and PsycINFO (to June 2013), amongst others. We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces, or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author extracted information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the studies, and a second author checked them. For this update we have conducted meta-analyses of the main interventions, using the generic inverse variance method to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 57 studies (61 comparisons) in this updated review. We found 31 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and social support, and 30 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole, i.e. environmental cues, incentives, and comprehensive programmes. The trials were generally of moderate to high quality, with results that were consistent with those found in other settings. Group therapy programmes (odds ratio (OR) for cessation 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants), individual counselling (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants), pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.11; five trials, 1092 participants), and multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.82; six trials, 1906 participants), and two relapse prevention programmes (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term abstinence. Incentives did not appear to improve the odds of quitting, apart from one study which found a sustained positive benefit. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors reduced the prevalence of smoking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that some interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling, pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction, and multiple interventions targeting smoking cessation as the primary or only outcome. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors in reducing the prevalence of smoking, although this finding was not based on meta-analysed data. 3. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer, although one trial demonstrated a sustained effect of financial rewards for attending a smoking cessation course and for long-term quitting. Further research is needed to establish which components of this trial contributed to the improvement in success rates.4. Further research would be valuable in low-income and developing countries, where high rates of smoking prevail and smoke-free legislation is not widely accepted or enforced.

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 via helplines and in other settings to help smokers quit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

randomized 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

One author identified and data extracted trials, and a second author checked them. The main outcome measure was the risk 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 subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. We considered trials recruiting callers to quitlines separately from studies recruiting in other settings. Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. We used a meta-regression to investigate the effect of differences in planned number of calls, selection for motivation, and the nature of the control condition (self help only, minimal intervention, pharmacotherapy) in the group of studies recruiting in non-quitline settings.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials met the inclusion criteria. Some trials were judged to be at risk of bias in some domains but overall we did not judge the results to be at high risk of bias. Among smokers who contacted helplines, quit rates were higher for groups randomized to receive multiple sessions of proactive counselling (nine studies, > 24,000 participants, risk ratio (RR) for cessation at longest follow-up 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 1.50). There was mixed evidence about whether increasing the number of calls altered quit rates but most trials used more than two calls. Three studies comparing different counselling approaches during a single quitline contact did not detect significant differences. Of three studies that tested the provision of access to a hotline two detected a significant benefit and one did not.Telephone counselling not initiated by calls to helplines also increased quitting (51 studies, > 30,000 participants, RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.36). In a meta-regression controlling for other factors the effect was estimated to be slightly larger if more calls were offered, and in trials that specifically recruited smokers motivated to try to quit. The relative extra benefit of counselling was smaller when it was provided in addition to pharmacotherapy (usually nicotine replacement therapy) than when the control group only received self-help material or a brief intervention.A further eight studies were too diverse to contribute to meta-analyses and are discussed separately. Two compared different intensities of counselling, both of which detected a dose response; one of these detected a benefit of multiple counselling sessions over a single call for people prescribed bupropion. The others tested a variety of interventions largely involving offering telephone counselling as part of a referral or systems change and none detected evidence of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines. Telephone quitlines provide an important route of access to support for smokers, and call-back counselling enhances their usefulness. There is limited evidence about the optimal number of calls. Proactive telephone counselling also helps people who receive it in other settings. There is some evidence of a dose response; one or two brief calls are less likely to provide a measurable benefit. Three or more calls increase the chances of quitting compared to a minimal intervention such as providing standard self-help materials, or brief advice, or compared to pharmacotherapy alone.

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.

Nicotine dependence and cost-effectiveness of individualized support for smoking cessation: evidence from practice at a worksite in Japan

Given the lack of economic studies evaluating the outcomes of smoking cessation programs from the viewpoint of program sponsors, we conducted a case study to provide relevant information for worksites. The present study was carried out between 2006 and 2008 at a manufacturing factory in the Toyama Prefecture of Japan and included subjects who voluntarily entered a smoking cessation program. The program included face-to-face counselling followed by weekly contact to provide encouragement over six months using e-mail or inter-office mail. Nicotine patches were available if required. All 151 participants stopped smoking immediately. Over the 24-month study period, self-report showed 49.7% abstained continuously from smoking. The rate of 24-month consecutive abstinence was higher in participants with lower Fagerström Test scores for Nicotine Dependence at baseline than in those with higher scores (63.6% for 0–2 points vs. 46.5% for 3–6 points vs. 43.8% for 7–10 points; chi-square test p = 0.19). A logistic regression model showed a significant linear trend for the association between the score and abstinence status after adjustment for possible confounding factors (p = 0.03). The crude incremental cost for one individual to successfully quit smoking due to the support program was ¥46,379 (i.e., ¥100 = $1.28, £0.83, or €1.03 at foreign exchange rates). The corresponding costs for the three categories of the Fagerström Test score for Nicotine Dependence were ¥31,953, ¥47,450 and ¥64,956, respectively. When a sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the 95% confidence interval of the success rate, the variance in the corresponding costs was ¥25,514–45,034 for 0–2 points, ¥38,344–61,824 for 3–6 points, and ¥45,698–108,260 for 7–10 points. The degree of nicotine dependence may therefore be an important determinant of the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation programs.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Tobacco use cessation and weight management among motor freight workers: results of the gear up for health study

OBJECTIVES

To present the results of a study of a worksite-based intervention to promote tobacco use cessation and improve weight management among motor freight workers.

METHODS

This study used a pre-test/post-test, non-randomized design to assess the effectiveness of a four-month intervention that addressed the social context of the work setting. We evaluated 7-day tobacco quit prevalence among baseline tobacco users, and successful weight management, defined as no weight gain in workers with BMI <25 at baseline and any weight loss among overweight and obese workers.

RESULTS

At baseline, 40% were current tobacco users, and 88% had a BMI of 25 or greater. Of 542 workers invited to participate, 227 agreed to participate and received at least the first telephone call (42%). Ten-month post-baseline, baseline tobacco users who participated in the intervention were more likely to have quit using tobacco than non-participants: 23.8% vs. 9.1% (p = 0.02). There was no significant improvement in weight management.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating work experiences and job conditions into messages of health behavior change resulted in significant tobacco use cessation among participating motor freight workers.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2008, MEDLINE (1966 - April 2008), EMBASE (1985 - Feb 2008) and PsycINFO (to March 2008). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by another. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 51 studies covering 53 interventions in this updated review. We found 37 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy and social support. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective. We also found 16 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Incentive schemes increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer.3. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes in reducing the prevalence of smoking.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare 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 July 2007.

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 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care found the intervention to significantly increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.38). There was heterogeneity among the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of a statistically significant effect. In a subgroup analysis there was weaker evidence that lower intensity interventions were effective (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.62). 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 patients also showed evidence of benefit. Nine 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 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 to patients, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence of 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.

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2004) and EMBASE (1980-2004).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Scarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment.

Smoking Cessation for Women: Evidence of the Effectiveness of Nursing Interventions

The association between cigarette smoke and disease is direct; cigarette smoking is a major cause of disease in the United States. More than 400,000 people die each year as a result of cigarette smoke. Smoking is responsible for almost 90% of all cases of lung cancer. Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer within five years. Cessation also may reduce the risk of other cancers, such as cancer of the head and neck, pancreas, and esophagus. Smoking causes skin wrinkling and sexual dysfunction, which can be mediated by smoking cessation. Even after a diagnosis of cancer, smoking cessation improves the odds of survival and reduces the risk of developing a second cancer.

Nursing intervention and smoking cessation: meta-analysis update

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to determine through meta-analysis the effects of nursing-delivered smoking-cessation interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria in this updated meta-analysis. Twenty-six studies compared a nursing intervention with a control or usual care group of adults and found interventions of high and low intensity to modestly increase the odds of quitting (1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.22-1.51). The study results demonstrated heterogeneity; using a random effects model did not make a difference. There was evidence that interventions were most effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for patients with other conditions (odds ratio 2.14, confidence interval 1.39-3.31). Interventions in nonhospitalized adults were beneficial as well; no effect was found for additive intervention components. Counseling during health-screening programs or as part of multifactorial secondary preventions programs was found to be the least effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking-cessation interventions into evidence-based nursing practice.

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.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in October 2004, MEDLINE (1966 - October 2004), EMBASE (1985 - October 2004) and PsycINFO (to October 2004). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and we checked the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We categorized interventions into two groups: a) Interventions aimed at the individual to promote smoking cessation and b) interventions aimed at the workplace as a whole. We applied different inclusion criteria for the different types of study. For interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking, we included only randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions. For studies of smoking restrictions and bans in the workplace, we also included controlled trials with baseline and post-intervention outcomes and interrupted times series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by two others. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Workplace interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking included ten studies of group therapy, seven studies of individual counselling, nine studies of self-help materials and five studies of nicotine replacement therapy. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective.Workplace interventions aimed at the workforce as a whole included 14 studies of tobacco bans, two studies of social support, four studies of environmental support, five studies of incentives, and eight studies of comprehensive (multi-component) programmes. Tobacco bans decreased cigarette consumption during the working day but their effect on total consumption was less certain. We failed to detect an increase in quit rates from adding social and environmental support to these programmes. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Competitions and incentives increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found: 1. Strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include advice from a health professional, individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. Self-help interventions are less effective. All these interventions are effective whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low. 2. Limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer. 3. Consistent evidence that workplace tobacco policies and bans can decrease cigarette consumption during the working day by smokers and exposure of non-smoking employees to environmental tobacco smoke at work, but conflicting evidence about whether they decrease prevalence of smoking or overall consumption of tobacco by smokers. 4. A lack of evidence that comprehensive approaches reduce the prevalence of smoking, despite the strong theoretical rationale for their use. 5. A lack of evidence about the cost-effectiveness of workplace programmes.

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.