Program uptake of a parent-tailored telephone smoking cessation counselling: An examination of recruitment approaches

Effects of interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty-four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self-help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short-term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions.

Implementation of a proactive referral tool for child healthcare professionals to encourage and facilitate parental smoking cessation in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study

Background

Recently, the parent-tailored telephone based smoking cessation counseling program ‘Smoke-free Parents’ was shown to be effective in helping parents to quit smoking. To implement this program in child healthcare settings in the Netherlands, the research team developed a proactive referral tool to refer parents to Smoke-free Parents. The aim of the present implementation study was to explore the facilitators, barriers, and suggestions for improvement in the implementation of this referral tool.

Methods

Child healthcare professionals (N = 68) were recruited via multiple strategies (e.g., social media, mailings, and word of mouth among healthcare professionals) and invited to complete two online (quantitative and qualitative) questionnaires and to participate in a telephone semi-structured qualitative interview between April 2017 and February 2019. In total, 65 child healthcare professionals were included in the analyses. After inductive coding, thematic analyses were performed on the qualitative data. Descriptive analyses were performed on the quantitative data.

Results

The data from both questionnaires and the telephone interview revealed that the majority of the child healthcare professionals (92.3 % female; average years of working as a healthcare professional: 23.0) found the Smoke-free Parents referral tool accessible and convenient to use. Yet there were several barriers that limited their use of the tool. The data revealed that one of the main barriers that healthcare professionals experienced was parental resistance to smoking cessation assistance. In addition, healthcare professionals noted that they experienced tension when motivating parents to quit smoking, as they were not the parent’s, but the child’s healthcare provider. Additionally, healthcare professionals reported being concerned about the lack of information about the costs of Smoke-free Parents, which limited professionals referring parents to the service.

Conclusions

Although healthcare professionals reported rather positive experiences with the Smoke-free Parents referral tool, the use of the tool was limited due to barriers. To increase the impact of the Smoke-free Parents telephone-based smoking cessation counseling program via child healthcare settings, it is important to overcome these barriers. Suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the referral tool in child healthcare settings are discussed.