An adolescent tobacco-use prevention trial in orthodontic offices

Primary Care-Relevant Interventions for Tobacco and Nicotine Use Prevention and Cessation in Children and Adolescents: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Interventions to discourage the use of tobacco products (including electronic nicotine delivery systems or e-cigarettes) among children and adolescents may help decrease tobacco-related illness and injury.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 review on primary care-relevant interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PsyINFO, and EMBASE (September 1, 2012, to June 25, 2019), with surveillance through February 7, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary care-relevant studies; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies of children and adolescents up to age 18 years for cessation and age 25 years for prevention. Trials comparing behavioral or pharmacological interventions with no or a minimal tobacco use intervention control group (eg, usual care, attention control, wait list) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Tobacco use initiation; tobacco use cessation; health outcomes; harms.

RESULTS

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials (N = 44 521) met inclusion criteria. Behavioral interventions were associated with decreased likelihood of cigarette smoking initiation compared with control interventions at 7 to 36 months' follow-up (13 trials, n = 21 700; 7.4% vs 9.2%; relative risk [RR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.92]). There was no statistically significant difference between behavioral interventions and controls in smoking cessation when trials were restricted to smokers (9 trials, n = 2516; 80.7% vs 84.1% continued smoking; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93-1.01]). There were no significant benefits of medication on likelihood of smoking cessation in 2 trials of bupropion at 26 weeks (n = 523; 17% [300 mg] and 6% [150 mg] vs 10% [placebo]; 24% [150 mg] vs 28% [placebo]) and 1 trial of nicotine replacement therapy at 12 months (n = 257; 8.1% vs 8.2%). One trial each (n = 2586 and n = 1645) found no beneficial intervention effect on health outcomes or on adult smoking. No trials of prevention in young adults were identified. Few trials addressed prevention or cessation of tobacco products other than cigarettes; no trials evaluated effects of interventions on e-cigarette use. There were few trials of pharmacotherapy, and they had small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Behavioral interventions may reduce the likelihood of smoking initiation in nonsmoking children and adolescents. Research is needed to identify effective behavioral interventions for adolescents who smoke cigarettes or who use other tobacco products and to understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy.

Primary Care Interventions for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the US. An estimated annual 480 000 deaths are attributable to tobacco use in adults, including from secondhand smoke. It is estimated that every day about 1600 youth aged 12 to 17 years smoke their first cigarette and that about 5.6 million adolescents alive today will die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. Although conventional cigarette use has gradually declined among children in the US since the late 1990s, tobacco use via electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is quickly rising and is now more common among youth than cigarette smoking. e-Cigarette products usually contain nicotine, which is addictive, raising concerns about e-cigarette use and nicotine addiction in children. Exposure to nicotine during adolescence can harm the developing brain, which may affect brain function and cognition, attention, and mood; thus, minimizing nicotine exposure from any tobacco product in youth is important.

OBJECTIVE

To update its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of primary care interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents. The current systematic review newly included e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.

POPULATION

This recommendation applies to school-aged children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that primary care-feasible behavioral interventions, including education or brief counseling, to prevent tobacco use in school-aged children and adolescents have a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that there is insufficient evidence to determine the balance of benefits and harms of primary care interventions for tobacco cessation among school-aged children and adolescents who already smoke, because of a lack of adequately powered studies on behavioral counseling interventions and a lack of studies on medications.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians provide interventions, including education or brief counseling, to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care-feasible interventions for the cessation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. (I statement).

A randomized controlled trial of orthodontist-based brief advice to prevent child obesity

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether brief exercise and diet advice provided during child patient visits to their orthodontic office could improve diet, physical activity, and age-and-gender-adjusted BMI.

METHODS

We enrolled orthodontic offices in Southern California and Tijuana, Mexico, and recruited their patients aged 8-16 to participate in a two-year study. At each office visit, staff provided the children with "prescriptions" for improving diet and exercise behaviors. Multilevel models, which adjusted for clustering, determined differential group effects on health outcomes, and moderation of effects.

RESULTS

We found differential change in BMI favoring the intervention group, but only among male participants (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.085). Of four dietary variables, only junk food consumption changed differentially, in favor of the intervention group (p = 0.020; d = 0.122); the effect was significant among overweight/obese (p = 0.001; d = 0.335) but not normal weight participants. Physical activity declined non-differentially in both groups and both genders.

CONCLUSION

The intervention, based on the Geoffrey Rose strategy, had limited success in achieving its aims.

IMPLICATIONS

Orthodontists can deliver non-dental prevention advice to complement other health-practitioner-delivered advice. Higher fidelity to trial design is needed to adequately test the efficacy of clinician-based brief advice on preventing child obesity and/or reversing obesity.

Smoking prevention in children and adolescents: A systematic review of individualized interventions

OBJECTIVE

This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine what type of cognitive-behavioral based interventions administered outside of formal school settings effectively prevent smoking initiation among children and adolescents.

METHODS

Applying the PRISMA guidelines we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Pub Med, SCOPUS, and Sport Discus. Article review, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias were conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies administered in various settings: seven in health care; four informally during and outside of school hours; three in the home; and two in extra-curricular settings. Positive preventive effects in smoking behavior ranging from 3-months to 4-years were observed in eight studies. Social environmental influences (e.g., parental smoking, friends) are salient contributing factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective approaches involved interventions conducted in health care settings as well as those employing interpersonal communication and support strategies (e.g., via peer leaders, parent support, physicians).

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Primary health care settings may be optimal for implementing cigarette smoking prevention interventions for children and adolescents. Providing tailored education and facilitating interpersonal discussions between health care providers and families about the risks of smoking/strategies to avoid uptake, as well as capitalizing on technology-based modalities may reduce rates among children and adolescents.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.

Incentives for preventing smoking in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Adult smoking usually has its roots in adolescence. If individuals do not take up smoking during this period it is unlikely that they ever will. Further, once smoking becomes established, cessation is challenging; the probability of subsequently quitting is inversely proportional to the age of initiation. One novel approach to reducing the prevalence of youth smoking is the use of incentives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of incentives on preventing children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) from starting to smoke. It was also our intention to assess, where possible, the dose-response of incentives, the costs of incentive programmes, whether incentives are more or less effective in combination with other interventions to prevent smoking initiation, and any unintended consequences arising from the use of incentives.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review (published 2012) we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CSA databases and PsycINFO for terms relating to incentives, in combination with terms for smoking and tobacco use, and children and adolescents. The most recent searches were of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and were carried out in December 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) as individuals, groups or communities to intervention or control conditions, where the intervention included an incentive aimed at preventing smoking uptake. We also considered controlled trials (CTs) with baseline measures and post-intervention outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted and independently assessed the data. The primary outcome was the smoking status of children or adolescents at follow-up who reported no smoking at baseline. We required a minimum follow-up of six months from baseline and assessed each included study for risks of bias. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial; we did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion. Where possible we combined eligible studies to calculate pooled estimates at the longest follow-up, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, grouping studies by study design.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three eligible RCTs and five CTs, including participants aged 11 to 14 years, who were non-smokers at baseline. Of the eight trials identified, six had analyzable data relevant for this review, which contributed to meta-analyses (7275 participants in total: 4003 intervention; 3272 control; 2484 participants after adjusting for clustering). All except one of the studies tested the 'Smokefree Class Competition' (SFC), which has been widely implemented throughout Europe. In this competition, classes with youth generally between the ages of 11 and 14 years commit to being smoke-free for a six-month period, and report their smoking status regularly. If 90% or more of the class are non-smokers at the end of the six months, the class goes into a competition to win prizes. The one study that was not a trial of the SFC was a controlled trial in which schools in two communities were assigned to the intervention, with schools in a third community acting as controls. Students in the intervention community with lower smoking rates at the end of the project (one school year) received rewards.Most studies resulted in statistically non-significant results. Only one study of the SFC reported a significant effect of the competition on the prevention of smoking at the longest follow-up. However, this study was at risk of multiple biases, and when we calculated the adjusted risk ratio (RR) we no longer detected a statistically significant difference. The pooled RR for the more robust RCTs (3 studies, n = 3056 participants/1107 adjusted for clustering) suggests that there is no statistically significant effect of incentives, in the form of the SFC, to prevent smoking initiation among children and adolescents in the long term (RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.19). Pooled results from the non-randomized trials also did not detect a significant effect of the SFC, and we were unable to extract data on our outcome of interest from the one trial that did not study the SFC. There is little robust evidence to suggest that unintended consequences (such as making false claims about their smoking status and bullying of smoking students) are consistently associated with such interventions, although this has not been the focus of much research. There was insufficient information to assess the dose-response relationship or to report costs of incentives for preventing smoking uptake.We judged the included RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias, and the non-RCTs to be at high risk of bias. Using GRADE, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our primary outcome as 'low' (for RCTs) and 'very low' (for non-RCTs), because of imprecision (all studies had wide confidence intervals), and for the risks of bias identified. We further downgraded the non-RCT evidence, due to issues with the non-RCT study design, likely to introduce further bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The very limited evidence currently available suggests that incentive programmes do not prevent smoking initiation among youth. However, there are relatively few published studies and these are of variable quality. In addition, trials included in the meta-analyses were all studies of the SFC, which distributed small to moderately-sized prizes to whole classes, usually through a lottery system. It is therefore possible that other incentive programmes could be more successful at preventing smoking uptake in young people.Future studies might investigate the efficacy of a wider range of incentives, including those given to individual participants to prevent smoking uptake, whilst considering both the effect of incentives on smoking initiation and the progression to smoking. It would be useful if incentives were evaluated in varying populations from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, and if intervention components were described in detail.

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Brief Clinician Tobacco Counseling for Youth and Adults

PURPOSE

To help clinicians and care systems determine the priority for tobacco counseling in busy clinic schedules, we assessed the lifetime health and economic value of annually counseling youth to discourage smoking initiation and of annually counseling adults to encourage cessation.

METHODS

We conducted a microsimulation analysis to estimate the health impact and cost effectiveness of both types of tobacco counseling in a US birth cohort of 4,000,000. The model used for the analysis was constructed from nationally representative data sets and structured literature reviews.

RESULTS

Compared with no tobacco counseling, the model predicts that annual counseling for youth would reduce the average prevalence of smoking cigarettes during adult years by 2.0 percentage points, whereas annual counseling for adults will reduce prevalence by 3.8 percentage points. Youth counseling would prevent 42,686 smoking-attributable fatalities and increase quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 756,601 over the lifetime of the cohort. Adult counseling would prevent 69,901 smoking-attributable fatalities and increase QALYs by 1,044,392. Youth and adult counseling would yield net savings of $225 and $580 per person, respectively. If annual tobacco counseling was provided to the cohort during both youth and adult years, then adult smoking prevalence would be 5.5 percentage points lower compared with no counseling, and there would be 105,917 fewer smoking-attributable fatalities over their lifetimes. Only one-third of the potential health and economic benefits of counseling are being realized at current counseling rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief tobacco counseling provides substantial health benefits while producing cost savings. Both youth and adult intervention are high-priority uses of limited clinician time.

Youth receiving orthodontic care are not immune to poor diet and overweight: a call for dental providers to participate in prevention efforts

OBJECTIVES

While obesity is common in the US, disparities exist. Orthodontic samples are assumed to be more affluent than the general population and not in need of assistance in developing or maintaining healthy lifestyles. This paper evaluates the need of the orthodontic population for intervention by examining diet and weight status of an orthodontic patient sample and describes a role for dental clinicians in obesity prevention efforts.

METHODS

552 patients age 8-14 years, 54% female, 51% non-Hispanic white, 26% Hispanic were recruited from orthodontic practices in Southern California to participate in a randomized controlled trial of clinician-delivered health promotion. Height, weight, demographics, and diet were recorded. Chi-Square analyses were used to test for differences at baseline by gender, age, ethnicity, and income.

RESULTS

13% of the sample was overweight and 9% was obese. Males had a higher rate of obesity than females. Lower income youth had a higher rate than higher income youth. Hispanic youth had a higher rate than non-Hispanic white youth. Failure to meet national dietary guidelines was common, differing significantly by demographic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a sample not typically thought of as needing assistance, nearly 25% were overweight or obese and the majority failed to meet dietary recommendations. While most patients could benefit from intervention, male, Hispanic, and lower income groups were in greatest need of assistance. Dental providers, who see youth frequently and already discuss nutrition in the context of oral health, have the opportunity to contribute to obesity prevention.

Interventions for prevention and treatment of tobacco smoking in school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of primary health care relevant interventions to prevent and treat tobacco smoking in school-aged children and adolescents.

METHODS

This systematic review considered studies included in a prior review. We adapted and updated the search to April 2015. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate; data extraction and quality assessments were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Meta-analyses and pre-specified sub-group analyses were performed when possible. PROSPERO #CRD42015019051.

RESULTS

After screening 2118 records, we included nine randomized controlled trials. The mostly moderate quality evidence suggested targeted behavioral interventions can prevent smoking and assist with cessation. Meta-analysis showed intervention participants were 18% less likely to report having initiated smoking at the end of intervention relative to controls (Risk Ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.72, 0.94); the absolute effect is 1.92% for smoking initiation, Number Needed to Treat is 52 (95% confidence interval 33, 161). For cessation, meta-analysis showed intervention participants were 34% more likely to report having quit smoking at the end of intervention relative to controls (Risk Ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.05, 1.69); the absolute effect is 7.98% for cessation, Number Needed to Treat is 13 (95% confidence interval 6, 77). Treatment harms were not mentioned in the literature and no data were available to assess long-term effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Primary care relevant behavioral interventions improve smoking outcomes for children and youth. The evidence on key components is limited by heterogeneity in methodology and intervention strategy. Future trials should target tailored prevention or treatment approaches, establish uniform definition and measurement of smoking, isolate optimal intervention components, and include long-term follow-up.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

BACKGROUND

Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed public health goal, and schools provide a route to communicate with nearly all young people. School-based interventions have been delivered for close to 40 years.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to determine whether school smoking interventions prevent youth from starting smoking. Our secondary objective was to determine which interventions were most effective. This included evaluating the effects of theoretical approaches; additional booster sessions; programme deliverers; gender effects; and multifocal interventions versus those focused solely on smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, and Dissertation Abstracts for terms relating to school-based smoking cessation programmes. In addition, we screened the bibliographies of articles and ran individual MEDLINE searches for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area. The most recent searches were conducted in October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to intervention arm(s) versus a control group, and followed for at least six months. Participants had to be youth (aged 5 to 18). Interventions could be any curricula used in a school setting to deter tobacco use, and outcome measures could be never smoking, frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes smoked, or smoking indices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Based on the type of outcome, we placed studies into three groups for analysis: Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1), Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) and Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3).

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four studies involving 428,293 participants met the inclusion criteria. Some studies provided data for more than one group.Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1) included 49 studies (N = 142,447). Pooled results at follow-up at one year or less found no overall effect of intervention curricula versus control (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). In a subgroup analysis, the combined social competence and social influences curricula (six RCTs) showed a statistically significant effect in preventing the onset of smoking (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; seven arms); whereas significant effects were not detected in programmes involving information only (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 14.87; one study), social influences only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 25 studies), or multimodal interventions (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; five studies). In contrast, pooled results at longest follow-up showed an overall significant effect favouring the intervention (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96). Subgroup analyses detected significant effects in programmes with social competence curricula (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88), and the combined social competence and social influences curricula (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), but not in those programmes with information only, social influence only, and multimodal programmes.Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) included 15 studies (N = 45,555). At one year or less there was a small but statistically significant effect favouring controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). For follow-up longer than one year there was a statistically nonsignificant effect (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02).Twenty-five studies reported data on the Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3), though heterogeneity in this group was too high for data to be pooled.We were unable to analyse data for 49 studies (N = 152,544).Subgroup analyses (Pure Prevention cohorts only) demonstrated that at longest follow-up for all curricula combined, there was a significant effect favouring adult presenters (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). There were no differences between tobacco-only and multifocal interventions. For curricula with booster sessions there was a significant effect only for combined social competence and social influences interventions with follow-up of one year or less (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.96) and at longest follow-up (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96). Limited data on gender differences suggested no overall effect, although one study found an effect of multimodal intervention at one year for male students. Sensitivity analyses for Pure Prevention cohorts and Change in Smoking Behaviour over time outcomes suggested that neither selection nor attrition bias affected the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pure Prevention cohorts showed a significant effect at longest follow-up, with an average 12% reduction in starting smoking compared to the control groups. However, no overall effect was detected at one year or less. The combined social competence and social influences interventions showed a significant effect at one year and at longest follow-up. Studies that deployed a social influences programme showed no overall effect at any time point; multimodal interventions and those with an information-only approach were similarly ineffective.Studies reporting Change in Smoking Behaviour over time did not show an overall effect, but at an intervention level there were positive findings for social competence and combined social competence and social influences interventions.

Incentives for preventing smoking in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Adult smoking usually has its roots in adolescence. If individuals do not take up smoking during this period it is unlikely that they ever will. Further, once smoking becomes established, cessation is challenging; the probability of subsequently quitting is inversely proportional to the age of initiation. One novel approach to reducing the prevalence of youth smoking is the use of incentives.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether incentives prevent children and adolescents from starting to smoke. We also attempted to assess the dose-response of incentives, the costs of incentive programmes, whether incentives are more or less effective in combination with other interventions to prevent smoking initiation and any unintended consequences arising from the use of incentives.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CSA databases and PsycINFO for terms relating to incentives, in combination with terms for smoking and tobacco use, and children and adolescents. The most recent searches were in May 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials allocating children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) as individuals, groups or communities to intervention or control conditions, where the intervention included an incentive aimed at preventing smoking uptake. We also considered controlled trials with baseline measures and post-intervention outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two authors and assessed independently. The primary outcome was the smoking status of children or adolescents at follow-up who reported no smoking at baseline. We required a minimum follow-up of six months from baseline and assessed each included study for risk of bias. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial; we did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion. Where possible we combined eligible studies to calculate pooled estimates at the longest follow-up using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, grouping studies by study design.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven controlled studies that met our inclusion criteria, including participants with an age range of 11 to 14 years. Of the seven trials identified, only five had analysable data relevant for this review and contributed to the meta-analysis (6362 participants in total who were non-smokers at baseline; 3466 in intervention and 2896 in control). All bar one of the studies was a trial of the so-called Smokefree Class Competition (SFC), which has been widely implemented throughout Europe. In this competition, classes with youth generally between the ages of 11 to 14 years commit to being smoke free for a six month period. They report regularly on their smoking status; if 90% or more of the class is non-smoking at the end of the six months, the class goes into a competition to win prizes. The one study that was not a trial of the SFC was a controlled trial in which schools in two communities were assigned to the intervention, with schools in a third community acting as controls. Students in the intervention community with lower smoking rates at the end of the project (one school year) received rewards.Only one study of the SFC competition, a non-randomized controlled trial, reported a significant effect of the competition on the prevention of smoking at the longest follow-up. However, this study had a risk of multiple biases, and when we calculated the adjusted RR we no longer detected a statistically significant difference. The pooled RR for the more robust RCTs (3 studies, n = 3056 participants) suggests that, from the available data, there is no statistically significant effect of incentives to prevent smoking initiation among children and adolescents in the long term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19). Pooled results from non-randomized trials also did not detect a significant effect, and we were unable to extract data on our outcome of interest for the one trial that did not study the SFC. There is little robust evidence to suggest that unintended consequences (such as youth making false claims about their smoking status and bullying of smoking students) are consistently associated with such interventions, although this has not been the focus of much research. There was insufficient information to assess the dose-response relationship or to report costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

To date, incentive programmes have not been shown to prevent smoking initiation among youth, although there are relatively few published studies and these are of variable quality. Trials included in this meta-analysis were all studies of the SFC competition, which distributed small to moderately sized prizes to whole classes, usually through a lottery system.Future studies might investigate the efficacy of incentives given to individual participants to prevent smoking uptake. Future research should consider the efficacy of incentives on smoking initiation, as well as progression of smoking, evaluate these in varying populations from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, and describe the intervention components in detail.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that provision of financial assistance for smokers trying to quit, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs of providing or using smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use and/or prescription of smoking cessation treatment and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. We included economic evaluations when a study presented the costs and effects of two or more alternatives.

MAIN RESULTS

We found eleven trials involving financial interventions directed at smokers and healthcare providers.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a statistically significant favourable effect on abstinence at six months or greater when compared to no intervention (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.12, I² = 59%, 4 studies). There was also a significant effect of full financial interventions when compared to no interventions on the number of participants making a quit attempt (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32, I² = 15%) and use of smoking cessation treatment (NRT: RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.15, I² = 43%; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65). There was no evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%). Comparisons of full coverage with partial coverage, partial coverage with no coverage, and partial coverage with another partial coverage intervention did not detect significant effects. Comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage resulted in costs per additional quitter ranging from $119 to $6450.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting.  The absolute differences are small but the costs per additional quitter are low to moderate. We did not detect an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. The methodological qualities of the included studies need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Smoking on both sides of the pacific: home smoking restrictions and secondhand smoke exposure among Korean adults and children in Seoul and California

INTRODUCTION

This study, informed by ecological frameworks, compared the prevalence, predictors, and association of home smoking restrictions with secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) between Koreans in Seoul, South Korea, and Korean Americans in California, United States.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was drawn from telephone interviews with Korean adults in Seoul (N = 500) and California (N = 2,830) during 2001-02. Multivariable regressions were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Koreans, compared with Korean Americans, had significantly fewer complete home smoking bans, 19% (95% CI: 16-23) versus 66% (95% CI: 64-68), and were more likely to not have a home smoking restriction, 64% (95% CI: 60-69) versus 5% (95% CI: 4-6). Home smoking restrictions were associated with lower home SHSe; however, the impact was consistently larger among Korean Americans. Households with more SHSe sources were less likely to have the strongest home smoking restrictions, where the difference in complete bans among Korean Americans versus Koreans was largely among those at low risk of SHSe, 82% (95% CI: 76-86) versus 36% (95% CI: 17-57), while high-risk Korean American and Koreans had similar low probabilities, 10% (95% CI: 7-13) versus 7% (95% CI: 3-13).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with ecological frameworks, exposure to California's antismoking policy and culture was associated with stronger home smoking restrictions and improved effectiveness. Interventions tailored to Korean and Korean American SHSe profiles are needed. Behavioral interventions specifically for high-risk Korean Americans and stronger policy controls for Koreans may be effective at rapidly expanding home smoking restrictions.

Youth and Their Parents' Views on the Acceptability and Design of a Video-Based Tobacco Prevention Intervention

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of a brief, video-based parental intervention that modeled parent-child communication about tobacco, delivered within an emergency department (ED) setting. While waiting to be seen by a physician in the ED, 20 parent-youth dyads watched the video together and then private, semi-structured focused interviews were conducted around the "take home" message and views on the settings, actors, and content of the videos. Dyads agreed that the design, delivery, and content of the video intervention were acceptable, realistic, and useful in providing parental reinforcements about the importance of parent-youth tobacco communication and the ED was considered to be a good setting for watching the video. Our findings support the development and delivery of such an ED intervention and aids in determining content and scenarios for future intervention development.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that provision of financial assistance for smokers trying to quit, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs of providing or using smoking cessation treatment by health care financing interventions on abstinence from smoking and utilization of smoking cessation treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group specialized register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2008; MEDLINE (from January 1966 to August 2008) and EMBASE (from January 1980 to August 2008) to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their health care providers or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Rate ratios (RR) were calculated for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. We included economic evaluations when a study presented the costs and effects of two or more alternatives.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials involving financial interventions directed at smokers and two studies directed at health care providers.There was a statistically significant favourable effect of full financial interventions directed at smokers on continuous abstinence compared to no interventions with a risk ratio (RR) of 4.38 (95% CI 1.94 to 9.87). There was also a significant effect of full financial interventions when compared to no interventions on the number of participants making a quit attempt (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32; N = 3). There was a significant effect of financial interventions directed at health care providers in increasing the utilization of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.77). Comparison of full benefit with partial or no benefit resulted in costs per additional quitter ranging from $260 to $1453.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions could increase the proportion quitting, quit attempts and utilization of pharmacotherapy by smokers. Although the absolute differences were small the costs per additional quitter were low. The methodological qualities of the included studies need to be taken into consideration in interpreting the conclusions.

Youth caught in violation of tobacco purchase, use, and possession laws: education versus fines

Each day, thousands of children are caught for violation of tobacco purchase, use, and possession (PUP) laws. Little is known about their impact on violators; we do not know how the youth who are caught perceive these consequences or the effects they have on their tobacco use. Moreover, many communities are beginning to use brief tobacco education programs as a diversion from the normal processing of PUP law violators (i.e., fining the youth violator) without knowing the consequences of these classes. Consequently, it is important to review the literature and studies that have evaluated the effects of civic fines versus tobacco education as a consequence for PUP law violations. A consolidation of this information along with a presentation of pilot data on this issue might suggest areas of needed future research as well as help policy officials make decisions about best practices in their communities regarding these types of laws.

Smoking rates and the state of smoking interventions for children and adolescents with chronic illness

Engaging in smoking is particularly risky for children and adolescents with chronic illness whose health status is already compromised because of disease- and treatment-related complications. Yet, some of these youngsters smoke at rates at least comparable to those of their healthy peers. To date, few randomized smoking-prevention and cessation trials have been conducted in children with chronic medical problems. In this review we report on the smoking rates among youngsters with chronic illness, identify specific disease- and treatment-related complications that can be exacerbated by smoking, examine risk factors associated with tobacco use among medically compromised youngsters, and review smoking interventions that have been conducted to date with pediatric populations in the health care setting. The following chronic illnesses are included in this review: asthma, cystic fibrosis, cancer, sickle cell disease, juvenile-onset diabetes, and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Objectives for a tobacco-control agenda and recommendations for future tobacco studies in chronically ill pediatric populations are provided. Finally, tobacco counseling strategies are suggested for clinicians who treat these youngsters in their practices.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in adolescents are rising in some countries. Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed goal of public health, but there is uncertainty about how to do this. Schools provide a route for communicating with a large proportion of young people, and school-based programmes for smoking prevention have been widely developed and evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials of behavioural interventions in schools to prevent children (aged 5 to12) and adolescents (aged 13 to18) starting smoking.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsyclNFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, Dissertation Abstracts and studies identified in the bibliographies of articles. Individual MEDLINE searches were made for 133 authors who had undertaken randomized controlled trials in this area.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: those in which individual students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomized to the intervention or control groups and followed for at least six months.

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Children (aged 5 to12) or adolescents (aged 13 to18) in school settings. Types of interventions: Classroom programmes or curricula, including those with associated family and community interventions, intended to deter use of tobacco. We included programmes or curricula that provided information, those that used social influences approaches, those that taught generic social competence, and those that included interventions beyond the school into the community. We included programmes with a drug or alcohol focus if outcomes for tobacco use were reported. Types of outcome measures: Prevalence of non-smoking at follow up among those not smoking at baseline. We did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed whether identified citations were randomized controlled trials. We assessed the quality of design and execution, and abstracted outcome data. Because of the marked heterogeneity of design and outcomes, we computed pooled estimates only for those trials that could be analyzed together and for which statistical data were available. We predominantly synthesized the data using narrative systematic review. We grouped studies by intervention method (information; social competence; social influences; combined social influences/social competence; multi-modal programmes). Within each group, we placed them into three categories (low, medium and high risk of bias) according to validity using quality criteria for reported study design.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 94 randomized controlled trials identified, we classified 23 as category one (most valid). There was one category one study of information-giving and two of teaching social comeptence. There were thirteen category one studies of social influences interventions. Of these, nine found some positive effect of intervention on smoking prevalence, and four failed to detect an effect on smoking prevalence. The largest and most rigorous study, the Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project, found no long-term effect of an intensive eight-year programme on smoking behaviour. There were three category one RCTs of combined social influences and social competence interventions: one provided significant results and one only for instruction by health educators compared to self-instruction. There was a lack of high quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence approaches. There was one category one study providing data on social influences compared with information giving. There were four category one studies of multi-modal approaches but they provided limited evidence about the effectiveness of multi-modal approaches including community initiatives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is one rigorous test of the effects of information-giving about smoking. There are well-conducted randomized controlled trials to test the effects of social influences interventions: in half of the group of best quality studies those in the intervention group smoke less than those in the control, but many studies failed to detect an effect of the intervention. There are only three high quality RCTs which test the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence interventions, and four which test multi-modal interventions; half showed significant positive results.

A randomized controlled trial of an emergency department-based interactive computer program to prevent alcohol misuse among injured adolescents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an emergency department (ED)-based laptop computer intervention reduces the normative age-related increase in alcohol misuse compared with standard of care.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial conducted from October 11, 1999, to April 14, 2001, in a community teaching hospital and university medical center. Subjects were aged 14 to 18 years and with a minor injury. Controls and intervention participants completed a computer-based questionnaire. Intervention participants also completed a laptop-based interactive computer program to affect alcohol misuse. Main outcome measures were Alcohol Misuse Index (Amidx) and binge-drinking episodes. Follow-up occurred by telephone at 3 and 12 months. Analysis included repeated-measures analysis of variance (alpha=0.05; power 0.80; effect size 0.10).

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-nine participants were randomized to the intervention group, and 326 participants were randomized to the control group. Two hundred ninety-five (89.7%) intervention subjects and 285 (87.4%) control subjects completed 3- and 12-month follow-ups. For intervention and control groups, respectively, mean age was 16.0 and 15.9 years and men composed 66.8% and 66.3% of the groups; Amidx scores were 2.2 and 2.0; binge-drinking episodes were 1.2 and 1.0. Outcomes for intervention and control, respectively, were Amidx (3 months) 1.5 and 1.4; Amidx (12 months) 1.8 and 2.1; binge drinking (3 months) 0.9 and 0.8; and binge drinking (12 months) 1.4 and 1.2. Overall, there were no significant effects (effect size 0.04). No detrimental effects were noted. Subgroup analysis suggested that the intervention may have an effect among subjects with experience drinking and driving (5% of the sample).

CONCLUSION

The intervention was not effective in decreasing alcohol misuse among the study population. Further research will be required to determine effectiveness among the subgroup of adolescent minor injury patients who have experience drinking and driving.

Examining the role of the orthodontist in preventing adolescent tobacco use: A nationwide perspective

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of antitobacco practices currently in place in orthodontic offices across the United States, so that an antitobacco standard of care might be derived.

METHODS

A 23-item survey was constructed and mailed to 200 orthodontists practicing in the United States, asking about antitobacco counseling and record keeping, concern for the matter, level of preparedness in helping a patient quit smoking, and potential barriers to effective antitobacco practices.

RESULTS

A corrected response rate of 59.5% (n = 119) was obtained. Whereas 89.9% of respondents were concerned about tobacco use by their adolescent patients, only 50% reported actually asking their patients whether they use tobacco. Most orthodontists (67.5%) reported that they are either "not sure" or "not ready" to provide effective cessation counseling to patients who use tobacco, but 61.1% would be willing to integrate a tobacco control program into their practices. No orthodontists were familiar with the National Cancer Institute's strategy for doctors to help their patients stop tobacco habits, called the "Five A's" (formerly the "Four A's").

CONCLUSION

Because of the unique and often positive interactions orthodontists have with their adolescent patients, members of the specialty can play significant roles in educating patients about the health effects of tobacco use. Because of the lack of adequate training, this education is not taking place in orthodontic practices in the United States.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation treatment increases the number of successful quitters compared with unaided attempts to quit. However, only a small proportion of people who smoke take up treatment. One way to increase the use of smoking cessation treatment might be to give financial support through healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effect of using healthcare financing interventions to reduce the costs of providing or using smoking cessation treatment on abstinence from smoking.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Eligible studies were identified by a search of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group specialized register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2003, MEDLINE (from January 1966 to August 2003) and EMBASE (from January 1980 to October 2003), screening references of relevant reviews and studies, and contacting experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials (CTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) in which the study population consisted of smokers or healthcare providers or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and risk differences (RDs) for the individual studies and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We included economic evaluations when a study presented the costs and effects of two or more alternatives.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs and two CTs were directed at smokers. Five studies compared the effect of a full benefit with no benefit of which four reported the prolonged self-reported abstinence rate and showed an increase of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00 to 0.05). The pooled OR for achieving abstinence for a period of six months was 1.48 (95% 1.17 to 1.88). Two studies directed at smokers compared a full benefit with a partial benefit and showed that the odds of being abstinent were 2.49 times higher with a full benefit (95% CI 1.59 to 3.90). The pooled RD showed a non-significant increase (RD 0.05; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.16). Only one study compared a partial benefit with no benefit and only one study was directed at healthcare providers. When a full benefit was compared with a partial or no benefit, the costs per quitter varied between $260 and $2330.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that healthcare financing systems directed at smokers which offer a full financial benefit can increase the self-reported prolonged abstinence rates at relatively low costs when compared with a partial or no benefit. Since there were some limitations to the methodological quality of the studies the results should be interpreted with caution. More studies are needed on the effects of healthcare financing systems directed at healthcare providers.

Engineering clinician leadership and success in tobacco control: recommendations for policy and practice in Hungary and Central Europe

Decades of research and advocacy to control tobacco use and related public-health harm have not counterbalanced the tobacco industry's successful stronghold, which is ever-increasing in countries with weaker anti-tobacco leadership. Current rates of tobacco use and harm in Hungary and other Central European countries mark them as some of the industry's greater successes. Following the Behavioural Ecological Model, a framework for behavioural and cultural change, this paper reviews important ways that dentists, physicians and other healthcare providers can counter the tobacco industry's influence on patients, communities, and the nation. The analysis includes policies and practices shown to be effective in controlling and undermining the tobacco industry, and outlines new policies and practices that show promise based on the behavioural change framework. The components of an all-encompassing tobacco-control programme are described through explicit recommendations for research, practice and policy that are necessary to establish a professional and societal culture that extinguishes the influence and harm of the tobacco industry in Hungary, Central Europe and developing countries worldwide.

Pediatric smoking prevention interventions delivered by care providers: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of smoking prevention interventions for youth delivered via medical or dental providers' offices.

METHODS

Online bibliographic databases were searched as of July 2002, and reference lists from review articles and the selected articles were also reviewed for potential studies. The methodology and findings of all retrieved articles were critically evaluated. Data were extracted from each article regarding study methods, intervention studied, outcomes measured, and results.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 81 abstracts from MEDLINE and 49 from Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry (CCTR); of these, four articles met the inclusion criteria. Included were two studies conducted in primary care, and one each in dental and orthodontic offices. Only one study demonstrated a significant effect on smoking initiation; in that study, 5.1% of the intervention group and 7.8% of the control group reported smoking at 12-month follow-up (odds ratio= 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.91). None of the studies had follow-up times greater than 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited available evidence demonstrating efficacy of smoking prevention interventions in adolescents conducted in providers' offices and no evidence for long-term effectiveness of such interventions.

Prevention opportunities in health care settings

Psychologists have an opportunity to offer their expertise at a time when health care settings are beginning to recognize the importance of behaviorally based interventions for improving health and health care. The authors review the changing patterns of health and illness that have led to an increased interest in the role of patient and provider behavior and discuss the many advantages of using health care settings as prevention sites. Examples of successful behaviorally based prevention programs are presented, along with the evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of such programs. Challenges presented by working in health care settings are described. Throughout, the authors emphasize the multiple opportunities for psychologists' involvement across a wide variety of health care delivery sites.

Predictors of adherence to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection in high-risk Latino adolescents: a behavioral epidemiological analysis

The objective was to test whether theoretical variables predict adherence to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection in high-risk Latino adolescents. 286 Latino adolescents, age 13-18 years, were recruited from 10 middle/high schools in San Diego County, San Diego, USA. Participants completed a baseline interview and up to 9 monthly interviews. The cumulative number of pills consumed in 9 months was regressed on 16 independent variables, entered hierarchically in seven blocks. The final model accounted for 25% of the variance in adherence to isoniazid (INH), F (16, 230)=4.69, p<0.001. Adherence counseling (+), age (-), grades (+), being bicultural (+), and risk behaviors (-) were significantly related to adherence. Learning theories presume that adherence to medical regimens requires social support and freedom from physical and social barriers. Results support these theories. Future studies should explore additional precepts in order to identify additional predictors and to maximize adherence to INH among Latino adolescents and other high-risk populations. Doing so should decrease the risk of active TB among high-risk racial/ethnic and foreign-born populations.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in adolescents are rising. Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed goal of public health, but there is uncertainty about how to do this. Schools provide a route for communicating with a large proportion of young people, and school-based programmes for smoking prevention have been widely developed and evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions in schools to prevent children (aged 5 to12) and adolescents (aged 13 to18) starting smoking.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Controlled Trials and Tobacco Review group registers, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psyclnfo, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, Dissertation Abstracts and studies identified in the bibliographies of articles. Individual MEDLINE searches were made for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: those in which individual students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to the intervention or control groups and followed for at least six months.

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Children (aged 5 to12) or adolescents (aged 13 to18) in school settings. Types of interventions: Classroom programmes or curricula, including those with associated family and community interventions, intended to deter use of tobacco. We included programmes or curricula that provided information, those that used social influences approaches, those that taught generic social competence, and those that included interventions beyond the school into the community. We included programmes with a drug or alcohol focus if outcomes for tobacco use were reported. Types of outcome measures: Prevalence of non-smoking at follow-up among those not smoking at baseline. We did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed whether identified citations were randomised controlled trials. We assessed the quality of design and execution, and abstracted outcome data. Because of the marked heterogeneity of design and outcomes, we did not perform a meta-analysis. We synthesised the data using narrative systematic review. We grouped studies by intervention method (information; social competence; social influences; combined social influences/social competence and multi-modal programmes). Within each category, we placed them into three groups according to validity using quality criteria for reported study design.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 76 randomised controlled trials identified, we classified 16 as category one (most valid). There were no category one studies of information giving alone. There were fifteen category one studies of social influences interventions. Of these, eight showed some positive effect of intervention on smoking prevalence, and seven failed to detect an effect on smoking prevalence. The largest and most rigorous study, the Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project, found no long-term effect of an intensive 8-year programme on smoking behaviour. There was a lack of high quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence approaches. There was limited evidence about the effectiveness of multi-modal approaches including community initiatives.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no rigorous test of the effects of information giving about smoking. There are well-conducted randomised controlled trials to test the effects of social influences interventions: in half of the group of best quality studies those in the intervention group smoke less than those in the control, but many studies showed no effect of the intervention. There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence interventions, and of multi-modal programmes that include community interventions.

Social services referral of adolescent trauma patients admitted following alcohol-related injury

Alcohol screening of severely injured patients should be universal. Hospitalization following alcohol-related injury provides an opportunity for intervention to reduce recidivism. This study examines the frequency of social services referral of an alcohol positive cohort of adolescent trauma patients. This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from 1994 through 1998 by the National Pediatric Trauma Registry. All patients between the ages of 12 and 17 who had a blood alcohol level (BAL) measured were analyzed. Patients receiving referral to the department of social services, family counseling, or addiction services, and those receiving any substance abuse education intervention were considered a positive referral. There were 6006 children age 12 to 17 included in the database during this five-year period, 751 of whom had a BAL measured. Of those screened, 15.5% were positive. Sixty-eight (59%) of the BAL positive patients were referred for intervention through social services. The only statistically significant predictor of referral was whether or not the patient was the operator of a vehicle involved in the motor vehicle collision. Nearly half of the adolescents in this study, who screened positive for alcohol, received no social services support.

Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other effects, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected population-based interventions intended to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The related systematic reviews are linked by a common conceptual approach. These reviews form the basis of recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (TFCPS) regarding the use of these selected interventions. The TFCPS recommendations are presented on page 67 of this supplement.

Smoking-attributable periodontitis in the United States: findings from NHANES III. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

BACKGROUND

The principal objectives of this study were to examine the relationship between cigarette smoking and periodontitis and to estimate the proportion of periodontitis in the United States adult population that is attributable to cigarette smoking.

METHODS

Data were derived from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative multipurpose health survey conducted in 1988 to 1994. Participants were interviewed about tobacco use and examined by dentists trained to use standardized clinical criteria. Analysis was limited to dentate persons aged > or =18 years with complete clinical periodontal data and information on tobacco use and important covariates (n = 12,329). Data were weighted to provide U.S. national estimates, and analyses accounted for the complex sample design. We defined periodontitis as the presence of > or =1 site with clinical periodontal attachment level > or =4 mm apical to the cemento-enamel junction and probing depth > or =4 mm. Current cigarette smokers were those who had smoked > or =100 cigarettes over their lifetime and smoked at the time of the interview; former smokers had smoked > or =100 cigarettes but did not currently smoke; and never smokers had not smoked > or =100 cigarettes in their lifetime.

RESULTS

We found that 27.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: +/-1.8%) of dentate adults were current smokers and 23.3% (95% CI: +/-1.2%) were former smokers. Overall, 9.2% (95% CI: +/-1.4%) of dentate adults met our case definition for periodontitis, which projects to about 15 million cases of periodontitis among U.S. adults. Modeling with multiple logistic regression revealed that current smokers were about 4 times as likely as persons who had never smoked to have periodontitis (prevalence odds ratio [ORp] = 3.97; 95% CI, 3.20-4.93), after adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and income:poverty ratio. Former smokers were more likely than persons who had never smoked to have periodontitis (ORp = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.31-2.17). Among current smokers, there was a dose-response relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the odds of periodontitis (P <0.000001), ranging from ORp = 2.79 (95% CI, 1.90-4.10) for < or =9 cigarettes per day to ORp = 5.88 (95% CI, 4.03-8.58) for > or =31 cigarettes per day. Among former smokers, the odds of periodontitis declined with the number of years since quitting, from ORp = 3.22 (95% CI, 2.18-4.76) for 0 to 2 years to ORp = 1.15 (95% CI, 0.83-1.60) for > or =11 years. Applying standard epidemiologic formulas for the attributable fraction for the population, we calculated that 41.9% of periodontitis cases (6.4 million cases) in the U.S. adult population were attributable to current cigarette smoking and 10.9% (1.7 million cases) to former smoking. Among current smokers, 74.8% of their periodontitis was attributable to smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on findings from this study and numerous other reports, we conclude that smoking is a major risk factor for periodontitis and may be responsible for more than half of periodontitis cases among adults in the United States. A large proportion of adult periodontitis may be preventable through prevention and cessation of cigarette smoking.

Adolescent injury in the emergency department: opportunity for alcohol interventions?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Alcohol, the most commonly used substance among adolescents, is frequently associated with injury. Little is known regarding the drinking characteristics of injured adolescents. Such data are critical for developing emergency department interventions to decrease alcohol-related injury among adolescents. We sought to describe the drinking characteristics of injured adolescents and to describe the relationship of injury severity and mechanisms with drinking characteristics.

METHODS

This study was a prospective cohort study performed in a university hospital (sampled May 1, 1995, to July 15, 1995) and a large urban teaching hospital (sampled May 1, 1996, to August 1, 1996). The participants were aged 12 to 20 years, presenting within 6 hours of an injury. We performed a saliva alcohol test and self-administered questionnaire. Age, sex, E-code, injury severity score (ISS), and ED disposition were recorded. An alcohol frequency/quantity index was calculated. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-three patients with a mean age of 17 years and a mean ISS of 2.1 (SD 3.5) were recruited. One hundred fifty-two (50%) were males, and 33 (13%) were admitted. Ten (4%) patients had a positive saliva alcohol test response. On average, within the last year, these adolescents had 1.7 adverse alcohol consequences. Sixty percent drank in unsupervised settings, and 36% reported drinking 5 or more drinks in a row.

CONCLUSION

Alcohol use/misuse is a substantial problem among injured adolescents regardless of severity or mechanism of injury. ED physicians should consider screening/intervention or primary prevention of alcohol problems for all injured adolescents.

Epidemiology of substance use in adolescence: prevalence, trends and policy implications

This paper reviews the epidemiology of substance use among adolescents. There is a public health imperative in all countries to assess the population rates of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use among adolescents. In addition, monitoring trends over time may reflect the net effects of activities and programs carried out to prevent adolescent substance use. School based surveys provide prevalence estimates of substance use, but do not capture street and homeless youth and other high risk adolescents not found in the school environment. Overall, the results of this review suggest that tobacco, hazardous alcohol use, and most categories of illicit drug use have shown consistent increases in prevalence since about 1990 in most developed countries, for school-based adolescents, suggesting that the substance use problem among adolescents remains unsolved. These trends are remarkably similar across substance use behaviours, and among most developed countries, although limited data has emanated from adolescents in the developing world. Interventions to reduce or prevent substance use have shown mixed results, with those focusing on the adolescents' social environment showing the most promise. Broader public health approaches, including the linkage to community-wide prevention, and greater enforcement or regulatory and legislative approaches to tobacco and alcohol access are future directions for research and practice.

Counseling youth in tobacco-use prevention: determinants of clinician compliance

OBJECTIVE

The rate and determinants of tobacco prevention and cessation counseling to youth were examined for orthodontists participating in a controlled trial to decrease the incidence of tobacco use among adolescents.

METHODS

A cross-sectional interview design in private practice offices throughout Southern California was used. The survey was completed with 126 (82%) orthodontists. Clinicians randomly assigned to the experimental group (N = 77) received a 1.5 h workshop, anti-tobacco materials, reimbursement for provision of anti-tobacco prescriptions, and quarterly checkup visits. Control group clinicians (N = 77) did not receive training, materials, or visits.

RESULTS

Experimental group clinicians talked to more adolescent nonsmokers about never beginning tobacco use than did control group clinicians (P < 0.05). Experimental group clinicians talked to more adolescent tobacco users than did control group clinicians; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Content and determinants of counseling were affected by participation in the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Though training and support increased prevention and cessation counseling, absolute rates remained less than optimal. Social learning factors were associated with prevention and cessation counseling.

Patient perceptions of tobacco cessation services in dental offices

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is a leading cause of periodontitis and other oral diseases. Dental professionals can help patients quit, but few routinely offer tobacco cessation services, or TCS. In this article, the authors examine dental professionals' attitudes toward offering TCS and patients' attitudes toward receiving TCS from their dental offices.

METHODS

The authors used baseline data from a three-year randomized controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness of a dissemination strategy aimed at increasing the proportion of tobacco users identified by the dental office, as well as the proportion of tobacco users advised to quit. Fifty-two dental offices in rural communities completed a questionnaire asking for demographic and professional information about their offices, usual TCS offered, barriers to providing TCS and their views on patient receptivity to TCS. A random sample of patients seen during one month were interviewed over the telephone about the TCS provided during their last visit and their comfort in receiving such services from their dental offices.

RESULTS

The authors found that 58.5 percent of the 3,088 dental patients surveyed believed that dental offices should provide TCS to patients. There was equal support among tobacco users and nonusers. Male patients (60.8 percent) and younger patients (69.6 percent) were more likely to believe that dental offices should provide TCS than were female patients (56.8 percent, P < .05) and older patients (57.3 percent, P < .05). The authors also found that patients who had an interest in quitting were more likely to feel comfortable receiving TCS than were those patients who were not interested in quitting (59.7 percent vs. 39.4 percent, P < .01). A total of 61.5 percent of dentists, however, thought patients did not expect such services. When dentists were asked about barriers to providing TCS, 94.3 percent listed patient resistance as a barrier, and 53.9 percent were concerned that patients would leave their practices.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found a wide discrepancy between patients' and dental professionals' views on TCS. A total of 58.5 percent of patients believe dentists routinely should offer such services, while 61.5 percent of dental professionals believed patients did not expect TCS. Patients who were interested in quitting felt more comfortable receiving quit advice.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Periodontitis and other oral diseases are linked directly to tobacco use. Advising patients to quit is a professional responsibility. Tobacco users expect and are comfortable receiving such advice. It is up to dental professionals to overcome their concerns about patient receptivity and provide these services.

Clinician compliance with primary prevention of tobacco use: the impact of social contingencies

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated clinicians' compliance with delivering written advice and information against tobacco use (prevention prescriptions) to adolescent patients.

METHODS

Clinicians in 77 orthodontic offices were trained (and asked) to provide anti-tobacco counseling and prescriptions to 10- to 18-year-olds for 2 years. Each of eight prescriptions was provided for distribution to adolescent patients. Information concerning prescription-tracking methods and operant learning theory variables such as modeling and feedback was obtained using a cross-sectional interview of clinical staff. The proportion of prescriptions written was regressed on possible "determinants." Analyses were replicated for two time periods.

RESULTS

Mean anti-tobacco prescription compliance was 66 and 73% for two separate time periods. Multiple regression analyses were computed for the first (R = 0.45, F(7,63) = 2.29, P < 0.001) and second (R = 0.48, F(7,63) = 2.76, P < 0.001) time periods. Prescription tracking and praise from patients were significant correlates for the first time period; praise and modeling were significant for the second time period. Twenty and twenty-three percent, respectively, of the variance in office prescription rate was explained.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that compliance with primary prevention procedures may be influenced by feedback from patients, staff modeling, and formal office tracking information.