WTS database | WHO FCTC

Title	Pub Year Sort descending	Author	SearchLink
'Enter at your own risk': a multimethod study of air quality and biological measures in Canadian waterpipe cafes	2015	Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.; Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.; Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Dalla La	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full Tobacco control Periodical, Abbrev. Tob.Control Pub Date Free Form Mar Volume 24 Issue 2 Start Page 175 Other Pages 181 Notes CI: Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.; JID: 9209612; 0 (Air Pollutants); 0 (Particulate Matter); 0 (Tobacc Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1468-3318; 0964-4563 Accession Number PMID: 24161999 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; IM DOI 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051180 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 24161999 Abstract BACKGROUND: Tobacco and non-tobacco-based waterpipe smoking has increased exponentially in many countries in recent decades, particularly among youth and young adults. Although tobacco smoking is banned in many indoor public places, waterpipe smoking, ostensibly non-tobacco, continues in Ontario and other jurisdictions where only tobacco smoking is prohibited. This study assessed air quality and exposure in waterpipe cafes using multiple methods and markers. METHODS: Indoor (n=12) and outdoor (n=5) air quality was assessed in Toronto, Canada waterpipe cafes from 30 August to 11 October 2012. Real-time measurements of air nicotine, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and ambient carbon monoxide (CO) were collected in 2 h sessions. Levels of CO in breath were collected in non-smoking field staff before entering and upon leaving venues. Observations of occupant behaviour, environmental changes and venue characteristics were also recorded. RESULTS: In indoor venues, mean values were 1419 microg/m(3) for PM2.5, 17.7 ppm for ambient CO, and 3.3 microg/m(3) for air nicotine. Levels increased with increasing number of active waterpipes. On outdoor patios, mean values were 80.5 microg/m(3) for PM2.5, 0.5 ppm for ambient CO, and 0.6 microg/m(3) for air nicotine. Air quality levels in indoor waterpipe cafes are hazardous for human health. Outdoor waterpipe cafes showed less harmful particulate levels than indoors, but mean PM2.5 levels (80.5 microg/m(3)) were still 'poor'. CONCLUSIONS: Staff and patrons of waterpipe cafes are exposed to air quality levels considered hazardous to human health. Results support eliminating waterpipe smoking in hospitality venues indoors and out. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Zhang,B., Haji,F., Kaufman,P., Muir,S., Ferrence,R. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20131025 PMCID Editors
Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence	2015	Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK, CB2 0SR.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 23-Feb Volume (2):CD009164. doi Issue 2 Start Page CD009164 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; 0 (Benzazepines); 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); 0 (Quinoxalines); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); BL03SY4LXB (Nortriptyline); W6HS99O8ZO (Varenicline); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 25914910 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009164.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 25914910 Abstract BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is therefore important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may include further educating individuals about the value of taking medications and providing additional support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation, such as NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline and varenicline (and combination regimens). This was considered in comparison to a control group, typically representing standard care. Secondary objectives were to i) assess which intervention approaches are most effective; ii) determine the impact of interventions on potential precursors of adherence, such as understanding of the treatment and efficacy perceptions; and iii) evaluate key outcomes influenced by prior adherence, principally smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1946 to July Week 3 2014), EMBASE (OVID SP) (1980 to Week 29 2014), and PsycINFO (OVID SP) (1806 to July Week 4 2014). The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register was searched on 9th July 2014. We conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which participants using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation are allocated to an intervention arm or a control arm. Eligible participants were adult (18+) smokers. Eligible interventions comprised any intervention that differed from standard care, and where the intervention content had a clear principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence. Acceptable comparison groups were those that provided standard care, which depending on setting may comprise minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure of adherence behaviour that allowed some assessment of the degree of adherence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors searched for studies and independently extracted data for included studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook guidance. For continuous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as relative risks (RRs). We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy retrieved 3165 unique references and we identified 31 studies as potentially eligible for inclusion. Of these, 23 studies were excluded at full-text screening stage or identified as studies awaiting classification subject to further information. We included eight studies involving 3336 randomised participants. The interventions were all additional to standard behavioural support and typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication, and supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.Five studies reported on whether or not participants achieved a specified satisfactory level of adherence to medication. There was evidence that adherence interventions led to modest improvements in adherence, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.28, P = 0.02, n = 1630). Four studies reported continuous measures of adherence to Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Hollands,G.J., McDermott,M.S., Lindson-Hawley,N., Vogt,F., Farley,A., Aveyard,P. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20150223 PMCID Editors
Pathophysiology of inner ear decompression sickness: potential role of the persistent foramen ovale	2015	Department of Anaesthesia, Auckland City Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Auckland Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand , Phone: +64-(0)9-923-2569, E-mail: sj.mitchell@auckland.ac.nz.; United States Navy Experimental Diving Unit,	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full Diving and hyperbaric medicine Periodical, Abbrev. Diving.Hyperb.Med. Pub Date Free Form Jun Volume 45 Issue 2 Start Page 105 Other Pages 110 Notes JID: 101282742; 206GF3GB41 (Helium); N762921K75 (Nitrogen); OTO: NOTNLM; 2015/04/15 [received]; 2015/04/30 [accepted]; ppublish Place of Publication Australia ISSN/ISBN 1833-3516; 1833-3516 Accession Number PMID: 26165533 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Review; IM DOI Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 26165533 Abstract Inner-ear decompression sickness (inner ear DCS) may occur in isolation ('pure' inner-ear DCS), or as part of a multisystem DCS presentation. Symptoms may develop during decompression from deep, mixed-gas dives or after surfacing from recreational air dives. Modelling of inner-ear inert gas kinetics suggests that onset during decompression results from supersaturation of the inner-ear tissue and in-situ bubble formation. This supersaturation may be augmented by inert gas counterdiffusion following helium to nitrogen gas switches, but such switches are unlikely, of themselves, to precipitate inner-ear DCS. Presentations after surfacing from air dives are frequently the 'pure' form of inner ear DCS with short symptom latency following dives to moderate depth, and the vestibular end organ appears more vulnerable than is the cochlea. A large right-to-left shunt (usually a persistent foramen ovale) is found in a disproportionate number of cases, suggesting that shunted venous gas emboli (VGE) cause injury to the inner-ear. However, this seems an incomplete explanation for the relationship between inner-ear DCS and right-to-left shunt. The brain must concomitantly be exposed to larger numbers of VGE, yet inner-ear DCS frequently occurs in the absence of cerebral symptoms. This may be explained by slower inert gas washout in the inner ear than in the brain. Thus, there is a window after surfacing within which VGE arriving in the inner-ear (but not the brain) would grow due to inward diffusion of supersaturated inert gas. A similar difference in gas kinetics may explain the different susceptibilities of cochlear and vestibular tissue within the inner-ear itself. The cochlea has greater perfusion and a smaller tissue volume, implying faster inert gas washout. It may be susceptible to injury by incoming arterial bubbles for a shorter time after surfacing than the vestibular organ. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Mitchell,S.J., Doolette,D.J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic PMCID Editors
Tobacco use among middle and high school students - United States, 2011-2014	2015		Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full MMWR.Morbidity and mortality weekly report Periodical, Abbrev. MMWR Morb.Mortal.Wkly.Rep. Pub Date Free Form 17-Apr Volume 64 Issue 14 Start Page 381 Other Pages 385 Notes LR: 20151006; JID: 7802429; CIN: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Aug 1;192(3):276-8. PMID: 26230233; ppublish Place of Publication United States ISSN/ISBN 1545-861X; 0149-2195 Accession Number PMID: 25879896 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; IM DOI mm6414a3 [pii] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 25879896 Abstract Tobacco use and addiction most often begin during youth and young adulthood. Youth use of tobacco in any form is unsafe. To determine the prevalence and trends of current (past 30-day) use of nine tobacco products (cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, hookahs, tobacco pipes, snus, dissolvable tobacco, and bidis) among U.S. middle (grades 6-8) and high school (grades 9-12) students, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed data from the 2011-2014 National Youth Tobacco Surveys (NYTS). In 2014, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used tobacco product among middle (3.9%) and high (13.4%) school students. Between 2011 and 2014, statistically significant increases were observed among these students for current use of both e-cigarettes and hookahs (p Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Arrazola,R.A., Singh,T., Corey,C.G., Husten,C.G., Neff,L.J., Apelberg,B.J., Bunnell,R.E., Choiniere,C.J., King,B.A., Cox,S., McAfee,T., Caraballo,R.S., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic PMCID Editors
Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents	2015	Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4N1. rthomas@ucalgary.ca.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 27-Feb Volume (2):CD004493. doi Issue 2 Start Page CD004493 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 25720328 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004493.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 25720328 Abstract BACKGROUND: There is evidence that family and friends influence children's decisions to smoke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help families stop children starting smoking. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL unpublished material, and key articles' reference lists. We performed free-text internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was 3 April 2014. There were no date or language limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and families to deter tobacco use. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data for each RCT and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The interventions were very heterogeneous in the components of the family intervention, the other risk behaviours targeted alongside tobacco, the age of children at baseline and the length of follow-up. Two interventions were tested by two RCTs, one was tested by three RCTs and the remaining 20 distinct interventions were tested only by one RCT. Twenty-three interventions were tested in the USA, two in Europe, one in Australia and one in India.The control conditions fell into two main groups: no intervention or usual care; or school-based interventions provided to all participants. These two groups of studies were considered separately.Most studies had a judgement of 'unclear' for at least one risk of bias criteria, so the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. Although there was heterogeneity between studies there was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity in the results. We were unable to extract data from all studies in a format that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis.There was moderate quality evidence family-based interventions had a positive impact on preventing smoking when compared to a no intervention control. Nine studies (4810 participants) reporting smoking uptake amongst baseline non-smokers could be pooled, but eight studies with about 5000 participants could not be pooled because of insufficient data. The pooled estimate detected a significant reduction in smoking behaviour in the intervention arms (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.84). Most of these studies used intensive interventions. Estimates for the medium and low intensity subgroups were similar but confidence intervals were wide. Two studies in which some of the 4487 participants already had smoking experience at baseline did not detect evidence of effect (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17).Eight RCTs compared a combined family plus school intervention to a school intervention only. Of the three studies with data, two RCTS with outcomes for 2301 baseline never smokers detected evidence of an effect (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and one study with data for 1096 participants not restricted to never users at baseline also detected a benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94). The other five studies with about 18,500 participants did not report data in a format allowing meta-analysis. One RCT also compared a family intervention to a school 'good behaviour' intervention and did not detect a difference between the two types of programme (RR 1.05, 95% CI Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Thomas,R.E., Baker,P.R., Thomas,B.C., Lorenzetti,D.L. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20150227 PMCID Editors
Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation	2015	Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 12-Oct Volume (10):CD009670. doi Issue 10 Start Page CD009670 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; 0 (Antidepressive Agents); 0 (Benzazepines); 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); 0 (Quinoxalines); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); BL03SY4LXB (Nortriptyline); W6HS99O8ZO (Varenicline); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 26457723 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 26457723 Abstract BACKGROUND: Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.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. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Providing Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Stead,L.F., Koilpillai,P., Lancaster,T. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20151012 PMCID Editors
Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation	2015	Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, Minnesota, USA, 55905.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 26-Oct Volume (10):CD004306. doi Issue 10 Start Page CD004306 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; 0 (Benzazepines); 0 (Chewing Gum); 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); 0 (Quinoxalines); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); 6M3C89ZY6R (Nicotine); W6HS99O8ZO (Varenicline); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 26501380 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004306.pub5 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 26501380 Abstract BACKGROUND: Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Ebbert,J.O., Elrashidi,M.Y., Stead,L.F. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20151026 PMCID Editors
Incentives for smoking cessation	2015	Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 18-May Volume (5):CD004307. doi Issue 5 Start Page CD004307 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 25983287 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub5 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 25983287 Abstract BACKGROUND: Material or financial incentives are widely used in an attempt to precipitate or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They operate in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. In this third update of our review we now include trials conducted in pregnant women, to reflect the increasing activity and resources now targeting this high-risk group of smokers. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether incentives and contingency management programmes lead to higher long-term quit rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The most recent searches were in December 2014, although we also include two trials published in 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures. We include studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community-, work-, institution-based), and also, for this update, trials in pregnant smokers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (KC) extracted data and a second (JH-B) checked them. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up, and at least six months from the start of the intervention. In the trials of pregnant smokers abstinence was measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 8400 participants. Ten studies were set in clinics or health centres, one in Thai villages served by community health workers, two in academic institutions, and the rest in worksites. All but six of the trials were run in the USA. The incentives included lottery tickets or prize draws, cash payments, vouchers for goods and groceries, and in six trials the recovery of money deposited by those taking part. The odds ratio (OR) for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.69; 17 trials, [20 comparisons], 7715 participants). Only three studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group at or beyond the six-month assessment: One five-arm USA trial compared rewards- and deposit-based interventions at individual and group level, with incentives available up to USD 800 per quitter, and demonstrated a quit rate in the rewards groups of 8.1% at 12 months, compared with 4.7% in the deposits groups. A direct comparison between the rewards-based and the deposit-based groups found a benefit for the rewards arms, with an OR at 12 months of 1.76 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.53; 2070 participants). Although more people in this trial accepted the rewards programmes than the deposit programmes, the proportion of quitters in each group favoured the deposit-refund programme. Another USA study rewarded both participation and quitting up to USD 750, and achieved sustained quit rates of 9.4% in the incentives group compared with 3.6% for the controls. A deposit-refund trial in Thailand also achieved significantly higher quit rates in the intervention group (44.2%) compared with the control group (18.8%), but uptake was relatively low, at 10.5%. In the remaining trials, there was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that contingent rewards enhanced success rates over fixed payment schedules. We rated the overall quality of the older studies as low, but with later trials (post-2000) more likely to meet current standards of methodology and reporting.Eight of nine trials with usable data in pre Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Cahill,K., Hartmann-Boyce,J., Perera,R. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20150518 PMCID Editors
Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy	2015	Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, D1411, Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2UH.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 22-Dec Volume (12):CD010078. doi Issue 12 Start Page CD010078 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; GR: Department of Health/United Kingdom; JID: 100909747; 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); W6HS99O8ZO (Varenicline); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 26690977 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD010078.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 26690977 Abstract BACKGROUND: Smoking in pregnancy is a public health problem. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline) are effective for smoking cessation, however, their efficacy and safety in pregnancy remains unknown. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), or e-cigarettes, are becoming widely used but their efficacy and safety when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy are also unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (including NRT, varenicline and bupropion), other medications, or ENDS when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 July 2015), checked references of retrieved studies, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women with designs that permit the independent effects of any type of pharmacotherapy or ENDS on smoking cessation to be ascertained were eligible for inclusion.The following RCT designs are included.Placebo-RCTs: any form of NRT, other pharmacotherapy, or ENDS, with or without behavioural support/cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), or brief advice, compared with an identical placebo and behavioural support of similar intensity.RCTs providing a comparison between i) any form of NRT, other pharmacotherapy, or ENDS added to behavioural support/CBT, or brief advice and ii) behavioural support of similar (ideally identical) intensity.Parallel- or cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised, cross-over and within-participant designs were not, due to the potential biases associated with these designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and also independently extracted data and cross checked individual outcomes of this process to ensure accuracy. The primary efficacy outcome was smoking cessation in later pregnancy (in all but one trial, at or around delivery); safety was assessed by 11 outcomes (principally birth outcomes) that indicated neonatal and infant well-being; and we also collated data on adherence with trial treatments. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes a total of nine trials which enrolled 2210 pregnant smokers: eight trials of NRT and one trial of bupropion as adjuncts to behavioural support/CBT. The risk of bias was generally low across trials with virtually all domains of the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool being satisfied for the majority of studies. We found no trials investigating varenicline or ENDS. Compared to placebo and non-placebo controls, there was a difference in smoking rates observed in later pregnancy favouring use of NRT (risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.93, eight studies, 2199 women). However, subgroup analysis of placebo-RCTs provided a lower RR in favour of NRT (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.66, five studies, 1926 women), whereas within the two non-placebo RCTs there was a strong positive effect of NRT, (RR 8.51, 95% CI 2.05 to 35.28, three studies, 273 women; P value for random-effects subgroup interaction test = 0.01). There were no differences between NRT and control groups in rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, birthweight, low birthweight, admissions to neonatal intensive care, caesarean section, congenital abnormalities or neonatal death. Compared to placebo group infants, at two years of age, infants born to women who had been randomised to NRT had higher rates of 'survival without developmental impairment' (one trial). Generally, adherence with trial NRT regimens was low. Non-serious side effects observed with NRT included headache, nausea and local reactions (e.g. skin irritation from patches or foul taste from gum), but these data could not be pooled. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NRT used in pregnancy for smoking cessation increases smoking cessation rates measured in late Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Coleman,T., Chamberlain,C., Davey,M.A., Cooper,S.E., Leonardi-Bee,J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20151222 PMCID Editors
Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease	2015	Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Niesenweg 6, Bern, Switzerland, CH-3012.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 6-Jul Volume (7):CD006886. doi Issue 7 Start Page CD006886 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 26148115 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006886.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 26148115 Abstract BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2008. Smoking increases the risk of developing atherosclerosis but also acute thrombotic events. Quitting smoking is potentially the most effective secondary prevention measure and improves prognosis after a cardiac event, but more than half of the patients continue to smoke, and improved cessation aids are urgently required. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to examine the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease in short-term (6 to 12 month follow-up) and long-term (more than 12 months). Moderators of treatment effects (i.e. intervention types, treatment dose, methodological criteria) were used for stratification. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX were searched from the start of the database to January 2013. This is an update of the initial search in 2003. Results were supplemented by cross-checking references, and handsearches in selected journals and systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CHD with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Abstinence rates were computed according to an intention to treat analysis if possible, or if not according to completer analysis results only. Subgroups of specific intervention strategies were analysed separately. The impact of study quality on efficacy was studied in a moderator analysis. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We found 40 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria in total (21 trials were new in this update, 5 new trials contributed to long-term results (more than 12 months)). Interventions consist of behavioural therapeutic approaches, telephone support and self-help material and were either focused on smoking cessation alone or addressed several risk factors (eg. obesity, inactivity and smoking). The trials mostly included older male patients with CHD, predominantly myocardial infarction (MI). After an initial selection of studies three trials with implausible large effects of RR > 5 which contributed to substantial heterogeneity were excluded. Overall there was a positive effect of interventions on abstinence after 6 to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.32, I(2) 54%; abstinence rate treatment group = 46%, abstinence rate control group 37.4%), but heterogeneity between trials was substantial. Studies with validated assessment of smoking status at follow-up had similar efficacy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39) to non-validated trials (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Studies were stratified by intervention strategy and intensity of the intervention. Clustering reduced heterogeneity, although many trials used more than one type of intervention. The RRs for different strategies were similar (behavioural therapies RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.34, I(2) 40%; telephone support RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30, I(2) 44%; self-help RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33, I(2) 40%). More intense interventions (any initial contact plus follow-up over one month) showed increased quit rates (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.40, I(2) 58%) whereas brief interventions (either one single initial contact lasting less than an hour with no follow-up, one or more contacts in total over an hour with no follow-up or any initial contact plus follow-up of less than one months) did not appear effective (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12, I(2) 0%). Seven trials had long-term follow-up (over 12 months), and did not show any benefits. Adverse side effects were not reported in any trial. These findings are based on studies with rather low risk of selection bias but high risk of detection bias (namely unblinded or no Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Barth,J., Jacob,T., Daha,I., Critchley,J.A. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20150706 PMCID Editors

E-mail