WTS database

Title Sort descending	Pub Year	Author	SearchLink
Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation	2011	Department 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 16-Feb Volume (2):CD004306. doi Issue 2 Start Page CD004306 Other Pages Notes LR: 20151222; JID: 100909747; 0 (Benzazepines); 0 (Chewing Gum); 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); 0 (Quinoxalines); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); 6M3C89ZY6R (Nicotine); W6HS99O8ZO (Varenicline); UIN: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:CD004306. PMID: 26501380; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 21328266 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004306.pub4 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 21328266 Abstract BACKGROUND: Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to nicotine addiction 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 STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts Online, and Scopus. Date of last search: October 2010. 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: Two authors independently extracted data. We summarised as odds ratios. 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: Data from one study suggest that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.36) among Swedish snus users.Two trials of bupropion SR did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57). Nicotine replacement therapy (patch, gum, and lozenge) was not observed to increase tobacco abstinence rates (OR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.42). There was statistical heterogeneity among the 14 trials of behavioural interventions; seven of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits, four suggested benefit but with wide CIs, whilst two had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by the design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. Most trials included either telephone counselling, an oral examination and feedback about any ST induced mucosal changes, or both. In a post-hoc subgroup analysis there was some evidence that behavioural interventions which include telephone counselling might increase abstinence rates more than interventions with less contact. In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Behavioural interventions incorporating telephone counselling or an oral examination are likely to increase abstinence rates. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Ebbert,J., Montori,V.M., Erwin,P.J., Stead,L.F. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20110216 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
Interventions for smoking cessation and reduction in individuals with schizophrenia	2013	Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. daniel.tsoi@nottshc.nhs.uk.	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 28-Feb Volume (2):CD007253. doi Issue 2 Start Page CD007253 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; 0 (Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation); 0 (Benzazepines); 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: 23450574 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007253.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 23450574 Abstract BACKGROUND: Individuals with schizophrenia smoke more heavily than the general population and this contributes to their higher morbidity and mortality from smoking-related illnesses. It remains unclear what interventions can help them to quit or to reduce smoking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different treatments for nicotine dependence in schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to October 2012, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in November 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials for smoking cessation or reduction, comparing any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention with placebo or with another therapeutic control in adult smokers with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials, as well as extracted data. Outcome measures included smoking abstinence, reduction in the amount smoked and any change in mental state. We extracted abstinence and reduction data at the end of treatment and at least six months after the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence or reduction and biochemically validated data where available. We noted any reported adverse events. Where appropriate, we pooled data using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 trials (16 trials of cessation; nine trials of reduction; one trial of relapse prevention; eight trials that reported smoking outcomes for interventions aimed at other purposes). Seven trials compared bupropion with placebo; meta-analysis showed that cessation rates after bupropion were significantly higher than placebo at the end of treatment (seven trials, N = 340; risk ratio [RR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69 to 5.42) and after six months (five trials, N = 214, RR 2.78; 95% CI 1.02 to 7.58). There were no significant differences in positive, negative and depressive symptoms between bupropion and placebo groups. There were no reports of major adverse events such as seizures with bupropion.Smoking cessation rates after varenicline were significantly higher than placebo, at the end of treatment (2 trials, N = 137; RR 4.74, 95% CI 1.34 to 16.71). Only one trial reported follow-up at six months and the CIs were too wide to provide evidence of a sustained effect (one trial, N = 128, RR 5.06, 95% CI 0.67 to 38.24). There were no significant differences in psychiatric symptoms between the varenicline and placebo groups. Nevertheless, there were reports of suicidal ideation and behaviours from two people on varenicline.Two studies reported that contingent reinforcement (CR) with money may increase smoking abstinence rates and reduce the level of smoking in patients with schizophrenia. However, it is uncertain whether these benefits can be maintained in the longer term. There was no evidence of benefit for the few trials of other pharmacological therapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)) and psychosocial interventions in helping smokers with schizophrenia to quit or reduce smoking. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion increases smoking abstinence rates in smokers with schizophrenia, without jeopardizing their mental state. Varenicline may also improve smoking cessation rates in schizophrenia, but its possible psychiatric adverse effects cannot be ruled out. CR may help this group of patients to quit and reduce smoking in the short term. We failed to find convincing evidence that other interventions have a beneficial effect on smoking in schizophrenia. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Tsoi,D.T., Porwal,M., Webster,A.C. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20130228 PMCID Editors
Interventions for smoking cessation and reduction in individuals with schizophrenia	2010	(a) Academic Clinical Psychiatry, University of Sheffield, (b) Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Division of Psychiatry, A Floor, South Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, 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 16-Jun Volume (6):CD007253. doi Issue 6 Start Page CD007253 Other Pages Notes LR: 20151119; JID: 100909747; 0 (Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation); 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); 6M3C89ZY6R (Nicotine); UIN: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD007253. PMID: 23450574; RF: 96; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 20556777 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007253.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 20556777 Abstract BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia smoke more heavily than the general population and this contributes to their higher morbidity and mortality from smoking-related illnesses. It remains unclear what interventions can help them to quit or reduce smoking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different treatments for nicotine dependence in schizophrenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to April 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials for smoking cessation or reduction, comparing any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention with placebo or with another therapeutic control in adult smokers with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data. Outcome measures included smoking abstinence, reduction in the amount smoked and any change in mental state. We extracted abstinence and reduction data at the end of treatment and at least six months after the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence or reduction and biochemically validated data where available. Any reported adverse events were noted. Where appropriate, we pooled data using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials (11 trials of smoking cessation; four trials of smoking reduction; one trial for relapse prevention; five trials reported smoking outcomes for interventions aimed at other purposes). Seven trials compared bupropion with placebo; meta-analysis showed that smoking cessation rates after bupropion were significantly higher than placebo at the end of treatment (seven trials, N=340; risk ratio [RR] 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61 to 4.99) and after six months (five trials, N=214, RR 2.78; 95% CI 1.02 to 7.58). Expired carbon monoxide (CO) level and the number of cigarettes smoked daily were significantly lower with bupropion at the end of therapy but not after six months. There were no significant differences in positive, negative and depressive symptoms between bupropion and placebo group. There was no report of major adverse event such as seizures with bupropion.Contingent reinforcement (CR) with money may increase smoking abstinence rates and reduce the level of smoking in patients with schizophrenia. However, it is uncertain whether these benefits are maintained in the longer term. There was no evidence of benefit for the few trials of other pharmacological therapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)) and psychosocial interventions in helping smokers with schizophrenia to quit or reduce smoking. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion increases smoking abstinence rates in smokers with schizophrenia, without jeopardising their mental state. Bupropion may also reduce the amount these patients smoke. CR may help this group of patients to quit and reduce smoking. We failed to find convincing evidence that other interventions have a beneficial effect on smoking behaviour in schizophrenia. Descriptors Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation/therapeutic use, Bupropion/therapeutic use, Humans, Nicotine/administration & dosage, Nicotinic Agonists/administration & dosage, Reinforcement (Psychology), Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Smoking/prevention & control, Smoking Cessation/methods Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Tsoi,D. T., Porwal,M., Webster,A. C. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20100616 PMCID Editors
Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients	2007	Massachusetts General Hospital, General Internal Medicine Unit, S50-9, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. nrigotti@partners.org	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-Jul Volume -3 Issue 3 Start Page CD001837 Other Pages Notes LR: 20130628; JID: 100909747; CIN: Evid Based Nurs. 2008 Jan;11(1):18. PMID: 18192523; UIN: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5:CD001837. PMID: 22592676; RF: 94; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 17636688 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 17636688 Abstract BACKGROUND: An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to make and sustain a quit attempt. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCINFO in January 2007, and CINAHL in August 2006 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient) or hospitali or inpatient* or admission* or admitted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-three trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 1.90; 17 trials). No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. The one study that tested a single brief (<=15 minutes) in-hospital intervention did not find it to be effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67). Counselling of longer duration during the hospital stay was not associated with a higher quit rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29, eight trials). Even counselling that began in the hospital but had less than one month of supportive contact after discharge did not show significant benefit (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31, six trials). Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over what was achieved by intensive counselling alone (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35, five studies). The one study that tested the effect of adding bupropion to intensive counselling had a similar nonsignificant effect (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.06). A similar pattern of results was observed in smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the odds of smoking cessation (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.15, 11 trials), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. These interventions are effective regardless of the patient's admitting diagnosis. lnterventions of lower intensity or shorter duration have not been shown to be effective in this setting. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding NRT or bupropion to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over Descriptors Hospitalization, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Smoking/prevention & control, Smoking Cessation/methods Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Rigotti,N. A., Munafo,M. R., Stead,L. F. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20070718 PMCID Editors
Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients	2012	Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School,Boston,Massachusetts, USA. nrigotti@partners.org.	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 16-May Volume (5):CD001837. doi Issue 5 Start Page CD001837 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; GR: K24 HL004440/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States; JID: 100909747; CIN: Evid Based Nurs. 2013 Jan;16(1):21-2. PMID: 22961882; CIN: Evid Based Med. 2013 Jun;18(3):e25. PMID: 23002093; NIHMS704512; OID: NLM: NIHMS704512; OID: NLM: PMC4498489; ep Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22592676 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22592676 Abstract BACKGROUND: Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient) or hospitali or inpatient* or admission* or admitted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Rigotti,N.A., Clair,C., Munafo,M.R., Stead,L.F. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120516 PMCID PMC4498489 Editors
Interventions for smoking cessation in Indigenous populations	2012	Clinical Practice Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. kristin.carson@health.sa.gov.au.	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-Jan Volume 1 Issue Start Page CD009046 Other Pages Notes LR: 20131121; JID: 100909747; 0 (Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors); 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22258998 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009046.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22258998 Abstract BACKGROUND: Tobacco use in Indigenous populations (people who have inhabited a country for thousands of years) is often double that of the non-Indigenous population. A disproportionate burden of substance-related morbidity and mortality exists as a result. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in Indigenous populations and to summarise these approaches for future cessation programmes and research. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register of Trials was searched (April 2011), with additional searches of MEDLINE (May 2011). Online clinical trial databases and publication references were also searched for potential studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials for smoking cessation interventions in Indigenous populations. Interventions could include pharmacotherapies, cognitive and behavioural therapies, alternative therapies, public policy and combination therapies. No attempts were made to re-define Indigenous status for the purpose of including a study in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data pertaining to methodology, participants, interventions and outcomes were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, whilst methodological quality was extracted independently by two reviewers. Studies were assessed by qualitative narrative synthesis and where possible meta-analysis. The review process was examined by an Indigenous (Aboriginal) Australian for applicability, acceptability and content. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met all of the eligibility criteria for inclusion within the review. Two used combination therapies consisting of a pharmacotherapy combined with cognitive and behavioural therapies, whilst the remaining two used cognitive and behavioural therapy through counselling, one via text message support and the other delivered via clinic doctors trained in smoking cessation techniques. Smoking cessation data were pooled across all studies producing a statistically and clinically significant effect in favour of the intervention (risk ratio 1.43, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.98, p=0.032), however following sensitivity analysis a statistically non-significant but clinically significant effect was observed in favour of the intervention (risk ratio 1.33, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.85, p=NS) . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A significant health disparity exists, whereby Indigenous populations, a minority, are over-represented in the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. This review highlights the paucity of evidence available to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, despite the known success of these interventions in non-Indigenous populations. Due to this lack of published investigations, the external validity of this review is limited, as is the ability to draw reliable conclusions from the results. The limited but available evidence reported does indicate that smoking cessation interventions specifically targeted at Indigenous populations can produce smoking abstinence. However this evidence base is not strong with a small number of methodologically sound trials investigating these interventions. More rigorous trials are now required to assist in bridging the gap between tobacco related health disparities in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Carson,K.V., Brinn,M.P., Peters,M., Veale,A., Esterman,A.J., Smith,B.J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120118 PMCID Editors
Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting	2012	Department of Dental Specialities, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.Carr.Alan@mayo.edu.	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 13-Jun Volume (6):CD005084. doi Issue 6 Start Page CD005084 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; GR: 1R21DE016024/DE/NIDCR NIH HHS/United States; GR: R01 CA096881/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States; GR: R21 DE016024/DE/NIDCR NIH HHS/United States; JID: 100909747; NIHMS548637; OID: NLM: NIHMS548637; OID: NLM: PMC3916957; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22696348 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD005084.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22696348 Abstract BACKGROUND: Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users. OBJECTIVES: This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by oral health professionals and offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-November 2011), EMBASE (1988-November 2011), CINAHL (1982-November 2011), Healthstar (1975-November 2011), ERIC (1967-November 2011), PsycINFO (1984-November 2011), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-November 2011), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-November 2011), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-November 2011), and Web of Science (1993-November 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from smoking or all tobacco use (for users of smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. The effect was summarised as an odds ratio, with correction for clustering where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic and where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using an inverse variance fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or in a community school or college setting. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions among smokeless tobacco (ST) users, and eight studies evaluated interventions among cigarette smokers, six of which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. All studies employed behavioral interventions and only one required pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling all 14 studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals can increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44 to 2.03) at six months or longer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 61%). Within the subgroup of interventions for smokers, heterogeneity was smaller (I(2) = 51%), but was largely attributable to a large study showing no evidence of benefit. Within this subgroup there were five studies which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. Pooling these showed clear evidence of benefit and minimal heterogeneity (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.35, 5 studies, I(2) = 3%) but this was a posthoc subgroup analysis. Amongst the studies in smokeless tobacco users the heterogeneity was also attributable to a large study showing no sign of benefit, possibly due to intervention spillover to control colleges; the other five studies indicated that interventions for ST users were effective (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in c Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Carr,A.B., Ebbert,J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120613 PMCID PMC3916957 Editors
Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV and AIDS	2016	Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK.	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 13-Jun Volume (6):CD011120. doi Issue 6 Start Page CD011120 Other Pages Notes JID: 100909747; 0 (Nicotinic Agonists); W6HS99O8ZO (Varenicline); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 27292836 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011120.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 27292836 Abstract BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is highly prevalent amongst people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and has a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to motivate and assist tobacco use cessation for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and to evaluate the risks of any harms associated with those interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in June 2015. We also searched EThOS, ProQuest, four clinical trial registries, reference lists of articles, and searched for conference abstracts using Web of Science and handsearched speciality conference databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions for tobacco cessation for PLWHA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised electronic data collection form. They extracted data on the nature of the intervention, participants, and proportion achieving abstinence and they contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We collected data on long-term (greater than or equal to six months) and short-term (less than six months) outcomes. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis and estimated the pooled effects using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. Two authors independently assessed and reported the risk of bias according to prespecified criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies relevant to this review, of which we included 12 in a meta-analysis (n = 2087). All studies provided an intervention combining behavioural support and pharmacotherapy, and in most studies this was compared to a less intensive control, typically comprising a brief behavioural intervention plus pharmacotherapy.There was moderate quality evidence from six studies for the long-term abstinence outcome, which showed no evidence of effect for more intense cessation interventions: (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.39) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). The pooled long-term abstinence was 8% in both intervention and control conditions. There was very low quality evidence from 11 studies that more intense tobacco cessation interventions were effective in achieving short-term abstinence (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00); there was moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 42%). Abstinence in the control group at short-term follow-up was 8% (n = 67/848) and in the intervention group was 13% (n = 118/937). The effect of tailoring the intervention for PLWHA was unclear. We further investigated the effect of intensity of behavioural intervention via number of sessions and total duration of contact. We failed to detect evidence of a difference in effect according to either measure of intensity, although there were few studies in each subgroup. It was not possible to perform the planned analysis of adverse events or HIV outcomes since these were not reported in more than one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions provide similar outcomes to controls in PLWHA in the long-term. There is very low quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions were effective in helping PLWHA achieve short-term abstinence. Despite this, tobacco cessation interventions should be offered to PLWHA, since even non-sustained periods of abstinence have proven benefits. Further large, well designed studies of cessation interventions for PLWHA are needed. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Pool,E.R., Dogar,O., Lindsay,R.P., Weatherburn,P., Siddiqi,K. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20160613 PMCID Editors
Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation	2015	Department of Epidemiology, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.	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 31-Jul Volume (7):CD005549. doi Issue 7 Start Page CD005549 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160731; GR: P50 DA036105/DA/NIDA NIH HHS/United States; GR: R01 DA035160/DA/NIDA NIH HHS/United States; GR: TW05962/TW/FIC NIH HHS/United States; GR: TW07233/TW/FIC NIH HHS/United States; JID: 100909747; 01ZG3TPX31 (Bupropion); 059QF0KO0R (Water); N Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 26228266 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD005549.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 26228266 Abstract BACKGROUND: Waterpipe tobacco smoking is a traditional method of tobacco use, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), but its use is now spreading worldwide. Recent epidemiological data, for example, show that waterpipe smoking has become the most prevalent tobacco use method among adolescents in the EMR, and the second most prevalent in the US. Waterpipes are used socially, often being shared between friends or family at home, or in dedicated bars and cafes that provide waterpipes to patrons. Because the smoke passes through a reservoir of water, waterpipe tobacco smoking is perceived as being less harmful than other methods of tobacco use. At least in some cultures, women and girls are more likely to use a waterpipe than to use other forms of tobacco, and it is popular among younger smokers. Accumulating evidence suggests that some waterpipe smokers become addicted, have difficulty quitting, and experience similar health risks as cigarette smokers. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions for waterpipe users. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group specialized register in June 2015. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL , using variant terms and spellings ('waterpipe' or 'narghile' or 'arghile' or 'shisha' or 'goza' or 'narkeela' or 'hookah' or 'hubble bubble'). We searched for trials, published or unpublished, in any language, and especially in regions where waterpipe use is widespread. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions for waterpipe smokers of any age or gender. The primary outcome of interest was abstinence from tobacco use, measured at six months post-cessation or longer, regardless of whether abstinence was biochemically verified. We included interventions that were pharmacological (for example, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or bupropion) or behavioural, or both, and could be directed at individual waterpipe users or at groups of users. We only included tobacco cessation interventions, and did not consider trials of prevention of uptake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed abstracts of the studies retrieved by the search strategy, for possible inclusion in the review. We retrieved full-text articles for all abstracts that any of the authors believed might be suitable. Two review authors then extracted data and assessed trial quality independently in accordance with standard Cochrane Collaboration methodologies. We aimed to pool groups of studies that we considered to be sufficiently similar, provided there was no evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity, and aimed to estimate a pooled risk ratio (RR) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we presented summary and descriptive statistics. MAIN RESULTS: Our search retrieved 1311 unique citations, of which 1289 were excluded after title and abstract screening. Of the remaining 22, we excluded 19 because they were empirical studies that were not randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials (n = 12), because they were review articles (n = 3), because they described protocols only (n = 2), they were conducted among cigarette smokers only (n = 1), or they had only a three-month follow-up (n = 1).We identified three controlled trials which tested cessation interventions for waterpipe smokers. Studies were carried out in Egypt (Mohlman 2013), Pakistan (Dogar 2014), and the US (Lipkus 2011). One was a randomized controlled trial and two were cluster-randomized trials. Two studies tested individual-level interventions, and one tested a community-level intervention. Two studies included only behavioural interventions, and one study (Dogar 2014) included two intervention groups: one behavioural, and the other behavioural with bupropion. The Lipkus and Mohlman studies delivered waterpip Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Maziak,W., Jawad,M., Jawad,S., Ward,K.D., Eissenberg,T., Asfar,T. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20150731 PMCID PMC4838024 Editors

E-mail