scholarly journals Effectiveness of training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 193-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Silagy ◽  
T Lancaster ◽  
S Gray ◽  
G Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Effectiveness Of Training ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Pharmacological and behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation in adults with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e027389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Pearsall ◽  
Daniel J Smith ◽  
John R Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Public Health Problem ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveSmoking in people with serious mental illness is a major public health problem and contributes to significant levels of morbidity and mortality. The aim of the review was to systematically examine the efficacy of methods used to aid smoking cessation in people with serious mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and behavioural programmes for smoking cessation in people with serious mental illness. Electronic databases were searched for trials to July 2018. We used the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias.ResultsTwenty-eight randomised controlled trials were identified. Varenicline increased the likelihood of smoking cessation at both 3 months (risk ratio (RR) 3.56, 95% CI 1.82 to 6.96, p=0.0002) and at 6 months (RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.08 to 12.60, p=0.04). Bupropion was effective at 3 months (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.86 to 8.40, p=0.0003), especially at a dose of 300 mg/day, but there was no evidence of effect at 6 months (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.47, p=0.28). In one small study, nicotine therapy proved effective at increasing smoking cessation up to a period of 3 months. Bupropion used in conjunction with nicotine replacement therapy showed more effect than single use. Behavioural and bespoke interventions showed little overall benefit. Side effects were found to be low.ConclusionThe new information of this review was the effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation at both 3 and 6 months and the lack of evidence to support the use of both bupropion and nicotine products for sustained abstinence longer than 3 months. Overall, the review found relatively few studies in this population.

scholarly journals Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044222
Author(s):  
Catherine M Pound ◽  
Jennifer Zhe Zhang ◽  
Ama Tweneboa Kodua ◽  
Margaret Sampson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Smoking Reduction ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesDespite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020.Eligibility criteria for studiesRandomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users.Data extraction and synthesisThe primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate.ResultsSix studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI −0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups.ConclusionWe found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS.PROSPERO registration numberSystematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.

scholarly journals Embedding qualitative research in randomised controlled trials to improve recruitment: findings from two recruitment optimisation studies of orthopaedic surgical trials

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arabella Scantlebury ◽  
Catriona McDaid ◽  
Stephen Brealey ◽  
Elizabeth Cook ◽  
Hemant Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Trials ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Patient Pathways ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Recruitment of patients is one of the main challenges when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Trials of rare injuries or those that include surgical interventions pose added challenges due to the small number of potentially eligible patients and issues with patient preferences and surgeon equipoise. We explore key issues to consider when recruiting to orthopaedic surgical trials from the perspective of staff and patients with the aim of informing the development of strategies to improve recruitment in future research. Design Two qualitative process evaluations of a UK-wide orthopaedic surgical RCT (ACTIVE) and mixed methods randomised feasibility study (PRESTO). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed thematically. Setting NHS secondary care organisations throughout the UK. Interviews were undertaken via telephone. Participants Thirty-seven health professionals including UK-based spinal and orthopaedic surgeons and individuals involved in recruitment to the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (e.g. research nurses, surgeons, physiotherapists). Twenty-two patients including patients who agreed to participate in the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (n=15) and patients that declined participation in the ACTIVE study (n=7) were interviewed. Results We used a mixed methods systematic review of recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials as a framework for reporting and analysing our findings. Our findings mapped onto those identified in the systematic review and highlighted the importance of equipoise, randomisation, communication, patient’s circumstances, altruism and trust in clinical and research teams. Our findings also emphasised the importance of considering how eligibility criteria are operationalised and the impact of complex patient pathways when recruiting to surgical trials. In particular, the influence of health professionals, who are not involved in trial recruitment, on patients’ treatment preferences by suggesting they would receive a certain treatment ahead of recruitment consultations should not be underestimated. Conclusions A wealth of evidence exploring factors affecting recruitment to randomised controlled trials exists. A methodological shift is now required to ensure that this evidence is used by all those involved in recruitment and to ensure that existing knowledge is translated into methods for optimising recruitment to future trials. Trial registration ACTIVE: (ISRCTN98152560). Registered on 06/03/2018. PRESTO: (ISRCTN12094890). Registered on 22/02/2018,

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document