Identifying effective behavioural components of Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation (IC-SMOKE) interventions: a systematic review protocol.

Marijn De Bruin,Maarten C Eisma,Eleanor Bull,Susan Michie,Robert West,Marie Johnston,Jamie Hartmann-Boyce,Wolfgang Viechtbauer

doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0253-1

Abstract

BackgroundSystematic reviews of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation vary in scope, quality, and applicability. The current review aims to generate more accurate and useful findings by (1) a detailed analysis of intervention elements that change behaviour (i.e. behaviour change techniques (BCTs)) and potential moderators of behaviour change (i.e. other intervention and sample characteristics) and (2) assessing and controlling for variability in support provided to comparison groups in smoking cessation trials.MethodsA systematic review will be conducted of randomized controlled trials of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation in adults (with or without pharmacological support), with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, published after 1995. Eligible articles will be identified through the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. Study authors will be asked for detailed descriptions of smoking cessation support provided to intervention and comparison groups. All data will be independently coded by two researchers. The BCT taxonomy v1 (tailored to smoking cessation interventions) and template for intervention description and replication criteria will be used to code intervention characteristics. Data collection will further include sample and trial characteristics and outcome data (smoking cessation rates). Multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression models will be used to examine which BCTs and/or BCT clusters delivered to intervention and comparison groups explain smoking cessation rates in treatment arms (and effect sizes) and what key moderators of behaviour change are. Predicted effect sizes of each intervention will be computed assuming all interventions are compared against comparison groups receiving the same levels of behavioural support (i.e. low, medium, and high levels). Multi-disciplinary advisory board members (policymakers, health care providers, and (ex-)smokers) will provide strategic input throughout the project to ensure the review’s applicability to policy and practice.DiscussionBy capturing BCTs in intervention and comparison groups, this systematic review will provide more accurate estimates of the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, the most promising BCTs and/or BCT clusters associated with smoking cessation rates in intervention and comparison arms, and important moderators of behaviour change. The results could set new standards for conducting meta-analyses of behaviour change interventions and improve research, service delivery, and training in the area of smoking cessation.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015025251Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0253-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

Systematic reviews of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation vary in scope, quality, and applicability
We propose to conduct detailed content-coding of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation using the behaviour change technique taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) [7] and incorporate this in state-of-the-art meta-analyses in order to identify what works best for whom under which circumstances
We recently examined the content, variability, and effectiveness of BCTs provided to comparison groups in behaviour change interventions for the first time

Summary

Introduction

Systematic reviews of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation vary in scope, quality, and applicability. Numerous behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation have been developed and evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These trials have been synthesized in multiple systematic reviews including meta-analyses, which enable researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to draw conclusions based on the totality of available evidence [3]. The strength of these meta-analyses lies in their ability to identify the most effective interventions and to identify intervention characteristics associated with greater intervention effectiveness across settings and populations. To present unbiased and accurate recommendations about what interventions work and under what conditions, it is vital to take variability in comparison group contact into account [5, 8,9,10,11]

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion