Tobacco cessation and screening in CALD communities

Abstract

Background Australia is a multi-cultural society with increasing rates of people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. On average, CALD groups have higher rates of tobacco use, lower participation in cancer screening programs, and poorer health outcomes than the general Australian population. Lower cancer screening and smoking cessation rates are due to differing cultural norms, health-related attitudes, and beliefs, and language barriers. Interventions can help address these potential barriers and increase tobacco cessation and cancer screening rates among CALD groups. Cancer Council NSW (CCNSW) aims to reduce the impact of cancer and improve cancer outcomes for priority populations including CALD communities. In line with this objective, CCNSW commissioned this rapid review of interventions implemented in Australia and comparable countries. Review questions This review aimed to address the following specific questions: Question 1 (Q1): What smoking cessation interventions have been proven effective in reducing or preventing smoking among culturally and linguistically diverse communities? Question 2 (Q2): What screening interventions have proven effective in increasing participation in population cancer screening programs among culturally and linguistically diverse populations? This review focused on Chinese-, Vietnamese- and Arabic-speaking people as they are the largest CALD groups in Australia and have high rates of tobacco use and poor screening adherence in NSW. Summary of methods An extensive search of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2013-March 2022 identified 19 eligible studies for inclusion in the Q1 review and 49 studies for the Q2 review. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Levels of Evidence and Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools were used to assess the robustness and quality of the included studies, respectively. Key findings Findings are reported by components of an intervention overall and for each CALD group. By understanding the effectiveness of individual components, results will demonstrate key building blocks of an effective intervention. Question 1: What smoking cessation interventions have been proven effective in reducing or preventing smoking among culturally and linguistically diverse communities? Thirteen of the 19 studies were Level IV (L4) evidence, four were Level III (L3), one was Level II (L2), none were L1 (highest level of evidence) and one study’s evidence level was unable to be determined. The quality of included studies varied. Fifteen tobacco cessation intervention components were included, with most interventions involving at least three components (range 2-6). Written information (14 studies), and education sessions (10 studies) were the most common components included in an intervention. Eight of the 15 intervention components explored had promising evidence for use with Chinese-speaking participants (written information, education sessions, visual information, counselling, involving a family member or friend, nicotine replacement therapy, branded merchandise, and mobile messaging). Another two components (media campaign and telephone follow-up) had evidence aggregated across CALD groups (i.e., results for Chinese-speaking participants were combined with other CALD group(s)). No intervention component was deemed of sufficient evidence for use with Vietnamese-speaking participants and four intervention components had aggregated evidence (written information, education sessions, counselling, nicotine replacement therapy). Counselling was the only intervention component to have promising evidence for use with Arabic-speaking participants and one had mixed evidence (written information). Question 2: What screening interventions have proven effective in increasing participation in population cancer screening programs among culturally and linguistically diverse populations? Two of the 49 studies were Level I (L1) evidence, 13 L2, seven L3, 25 L4 and two studies’ level of evidence was unable to be determined. Eighteen intervention components were assessed with most interventions involving 3-4 components (range 1-6). Education sessions (32 studies), written information (23 studies) and patient navigation (10 studies) were the most common components. Seven of the 18 cancer screening intervention components had promising evidence to support their use with Vietnamese-speaking participants (education sessions, written information, patient navigation, visual information, peer/community health worker, counselling, and peer experience). The component, opportunity to be screened (e.g. mailed or handed a bowel screening test), had aggregated evidence regarding its use with Vietnamese-speaking participants. Seven intervention components (education session, written information, visual information, peer/community health worker, opportunity to be screened, counselling, and branded merchandise) also had promising evidence to support their use with Chinese-speaking participants whilst two components had mixed (patient navigation) or aggregated (media campaign) evidence. One intervention component for use with Arabic-speaking participants had promising evidence to support its use (opportunity to be screened) and eight intervention components had mixed or aggregated support (education sessions, written information, patient navigation, visual information, peer/community health worker, peer experience, media campaign, and anatomical models). Gaps in the evidence There were four noteworthy gaps in the evidence: 1. No systematic review was captured for Q1, and only two studies were randomised controlled trials. Much of the evidence is therefore based on lower level study designs, with risk of bias. 2. Many studies provided inadequate detail regarding their intervention design which impacts both the quality appraisal and how mixed finding results can be interpreted. 3. Several intervention components were found to have supportive evidence available only at the aggregate level. Further research is warranted to determine the interventions effectiveness with the individual CALD participant group only. 4. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of certain intervention components were either unknown (no studies) or insufficient (only one study) across CALD groups. This was the predominately the case for Arabic-speaking participants for both Q1 and Q2, and for Vietnamese-speaking participants for Q1. Further research is therefore warranted. Applicability Most of the intervention components included in this review are applicable for use in the Australian context, and NSW specifically. However, intervention components assessed as having insufficient, mixed, or no evidence require further research. Cancer screening and tobacco cessation interventions targeting Chinese-speaking participants were more common and therefore showed more evidence of effectiveness for the intervention components explored. There was support for cancer screening intervention components targeting Vietnamese-speaking participants but not for tobacco cessation interventions. There were few interventions implemented for Arabic-speaking participants that addressed tobacco cessation and screening adherence. Much of the evidence for Vietnamese and Arabic-speaking participants was further limited by studies co-recruiting multiple CALD groups and reporting aggregate results. Conclusion There is sound evidence for use of a range of intervention components to address tobacco cessation and cancer screening adherence among Chinese-speaking populations, and cancer screening adherence among Vietnamese-speaking populations. Evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions with Vietnamese- and Arabic-speaking participants, and cancer screening interventions for Arabic-speaking participants. More research is required to determine whether components considered effective for use in one CALD group are applicable to other CALD populations.