Smoking Cessation Interventions For People Research Articles

Opportunistic smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings: A scoping review.

The aim of this work was to systematically scope the evidence on opportunistic tobacco smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register to 21 March 2023. We duplicate screened 20% of titles/abstracts and all full texts. We included primary studies investigating smoking cessation interventions delivered opportunistically to people who smoked tobacco, within settings offering support for problems caused by financial hardship, for example homeless support services, social housingand food banks. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by anotherand narratively synthesized. We included 25 studies conducted in a range of financial support settings using qualitative (e.g. interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (e.g. randomized controlled trials, surveys and single arm intervention studies) methodologies. Evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of opportunistic smoking cessation advice was investigated among both clients and providers. Approximately 90% of service providers supported such interventions; however, lack of resources, staff training and a belief that tobacco smoking reduced illicit substance use were perceived barriers. Clients welcomed being asked about smoking and offered assistance to quit and expressed interest in interventions including the provision of nicotine replacement therapy, e-cigarettes and incentives to quit smoking. Six studies investigated the comparative effectiveness of opportunistic smoking cessation interventions on quitting success, with five comparing more to less intensive interventions, with mixed results. Most studies investigating opportunistic smoking cessation interventions in financial support settings have not measured their effectiveness. Where they have,settings, populations, interventions and findings have varied. There is more evidence investigating acceptability, with promising results.

Challenges and successes in the sustainment of Dutch community-level smoking cessation interventions for residents with a low socioeconomic position

BackgroundWhen health promotion interventions are implemented, the gains are often short-lived, as interventions are seldom successfully sustained. The current study explores how and under what conditions community-level smoking cessation interventions for people with a lower socioeconomic position can be sustained, drawing upon interventions delivered in Dutch neighbourhoods with a predominantly low socioeconomic position.MethodsWe conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from three Dutch community-level smoking cessation interventions implemented at least three years prior. The topic guide was developed based on the Determinants of Innovation framework and transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsWe identified several factors that promote the sustainment of smoking cessation community-level interventions: 1) structural, long-term funding through the commitment of health insurers and policy makers; 2) continued stakeholder enthusiasm and involvement; 3) training and time for professionals to discuss smoking cessation, thereby also increasing the visibility of the intervention for professionals and residents; 4) integrating the intervention with existing initiatives and adapting it to be compatible with current working practices of executive staff; and 5) planning for sustainment as a team from the outset.ConclusionsThe current study highlights challenges and successes in intervention sustainment for people with a lower socioeconomic position. Lack of structural funding was one of the most challenging aspects for intervention sustainment in which health insurers and policy makers can play an important role. Planning for sustainment from the outset would enable intervention coordinators to consider the abovementioned factors early on. This need not be done alone but can best be discussed within a team of stakeholders.

Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation.

Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation.

CO219 Effect of Smoking Cessation (SC) Interventions Among People with Lung Cancer (LC): A Systematic Literature Review

There is a pressing need to clarify the role of smoking cessation interventions (SCI) in the care of people with LC. Given the lack of studies reporting results from RCTs, A systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy/effectiveness of SCI in people with LC.

The cost-effectiveness of tailored smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental illness: amodel-based economic evaluation.

Tailored smoking cessation interventions, which combine behavioural and pharmaceutical support, are effective in populations with severe mental illness (SMI). We establish the cost-effectiveness of two tailored interventions in the UK: (i) a bespoke smoking cessation intervention (BSCI) versus usual care, and (ii) integrated tobacco cessation and mental health care (IC) versus standard smoking cessation clinic (SCC) referral. This economic evaluation was conducted between January 15th 2019 and August 4th 2022. We adapted a Markov model estimating smoking status, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) across the lifetime. Intervention effectiveness and costs were obtained from a systematic review and a meta-analysis. We obtained specific parameter values for populations with SMI for mortality, risk of smoking related comorbidities, and health utility. Uncertainty was analysed in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The BSCI was cost-effective versus usual care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3145 per QALY (incremental costs: £165; incremental QALYs: 0.05). Integrated care was cost-effective versus SCC with an ICER of £6875 per QALY (incremental costs: £292; incremental QALYs: 0.04). The BSCI and IC were cost-effective in 89% and 83% of PSA iterations respectively. The main area of uncertainty related to relapse rates. Our findings suggested that the tailored interventions were cost-effective and could increase QALYs and decrease expenditure on treating smoking related morbidities if offered to people with SMI. York Health Economics Consortium was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce economic evaluations to inform public health guidelines.

A smoking cessation intervention for people with severe mental illness treated in ambulatory mental health care (KISMET): study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundSmoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands.MethodsA pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verified by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical fitness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efficacy at 12 months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals.DiscussionThe results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of effective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.

Rapid systematic review of smoking cessation interventions for people who smoke and have cancer

Abstract Background Higher rates of cancer are reported in smokers compared to non-smokers, and continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced health outcomes and survival. Despite international evidence of increased risks, a substantial percentage of people with a cancer diagnosis continue to smoke. Patients may be unaware of the additional risks associated with continued smoking, and health care professionals may not engage with quit supports. As part of a larger feasibility study to develop a smoking cessation pathway in cancer services in Ireland, a rapid review of the evidence was completed. Methods Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL 2015 to December 2020 were conducted; with studies restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis [lung, breast, cervical, head and neck] and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs. 6404 studies were identified and uploaded into COVIDENCE platform, Cochrane's systematic review methods were adopted throughout, PRISMA reporting guidelines were used, and narrative data synthesis was completed (CRD 42020214204). Results The twenty-three-studies report evidence from USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, and Australia. The setting for all interventions was hospitals and cancer clinics. Evidence identifies high dropout rates, inconsistencies in approaches and duration of smoking cessation interventions with varied outcomes. A wide-ranging number of critical components emerged associated with optimal quit support- including the timing of and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, in-person support meetings, provision of nicotine replacement therapy and extended use of Varenicline, smoking cessation services embedded in oncology depts, and engaging with families wanting to quit at the same time. Conclusions Developing tailored smoking cessation interventions are needed for smokers diagnosed with cancer to enable engagement. Key messages • Continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced health outcomes. • Smoking cessation programmes for cancer patient should be tailored to meet needs.

Developing a Smoking Cessation Intervention for People With Severe Mental Illness Treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment Teams in the Netherlands: A Delphi Study.

BackgroundThere is still limited evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental illness (SMI) in Dutch outpatient psychiatric settings. The present study aimed to establish expert consensus on the core components and strategies to optimise practical implementation of a smoking cessation intervention for people treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands.DesignA modified Delphi method was applied to reach consensus on three core components (behavioural counselling, pharmacological treatment and peer support) of the intervention. The Delphi panel comprised five experts with different professional backgrounds. We proposed a first intervention concept. The panel critically examined the evolving concept in three iterative rounds of 90 min each. Responses were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.ResultsOverall, results yielded that behavioural counselling should focus on preparation for smoking cessation, guidance, relapse prevention and normalisation. Pharmacological treatment consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), Varenicline or Bupropion, under supervision of a psychiatrist, was recommended. The panel agreed on integrating peer support as a regular part of the intervention, thus fostering emotional and practical support among patients. Treatment of a co-morbid cannabis use disorder needs to be integrated into the intervention if indicated. Regarding implementation, staff's motivation to support smoking cessation was considered essential. For each ambulatory team, two mental health care professionals will have a central role in delivering the intervention.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into expert consensus on the core components of a smoking cessation intervention for people with SMI. The results of this study were used for the development of a comprehensive smoking cessation program.

Implementing a smoking cessation intervention for people experiencing homelessness: Participants’ preferences, feedback, and satisfaction with the ‘power to quit’ program

Smoking rates among populations experiencing homelessness are three times higher than in the general population. Developing smoking cessation interventions for people experiencing homelessness is often challenging. Understanding participant perceptions of such interventions may provide valuable insights for intervention development and implementation. We assessed participants' satisfaction and preferences for the Power to Quit (PTQ) program. PTQ was a 26-week community-based smoking-cessation RCT among people experiencing homelessness. A total of 315 of the 430 enrolled participants completed the 26 week-study feedback survey. Overall program satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale by asking the question "Overall, how satisfied were you with the Power to Quit Program?" Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with overall program satisfaction. Participants were mostly male (74.9%), African American (59.0%), 40 years and older (78.2%), and not married or living with a partner (94.9%). Visa gift cards were the most preferred incentive followed by bus tokens and Subway restaurant coupons. The patch and counseling were the top-ranked intervention component, 55.3% rated the patch as very helpful; 59.4% felt counseling sessions was very helpful; 48.6% found reminder phone calls or messages most helpful for appointment reminders. Majority (78.7%) said they were very satisfied overall, 80.0% were very satisfied with the program schedule, and 85.4% were very satisfied with program staff. Race and age at smoking initiation were predictors of overall program satisfaction. African American/Black participants were 1.9 times more likely to be satisfied with the program compared to White participants. Majority of the participants of PTQ were satisfied with the program. This study supports the acceptability of a smoking cessation program implemented in a population experiencing homelessness. The high rate of satisfaction among African American participants may be in part because of race concordance between participants, study staff, and community advisory board. Including staff that have a shared lived experience with participants in a smoking cessation study may improve the participant satisfaction within such studies.

Time trends in access to smoking cessation support for people with depression or severe mental illness: a cohort study in English primary care

ObjectivesTo investigate delivery of smoking cessation interventions, recorded quit attempts and successful quitting rates within primary care in smokers with depression or severe mental illness (SMI) compared with those without.DesignLongitudinal...

A systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health-what works?

Background and AimsPeople with severe mental ill health smoke more and suffer greater smoking‐related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation in this group. This review evaluated randomized controlled trial evidence to measure the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions (both digital and non‐digital) in people with severe mental ill health.DesignSystematic review and random‐effects meta‐analysis. We searched between inception and January 2020 in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and CENTRAL databases.Setting and participantsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of behavioural smoking cessation and reduction interventions in adults with severe mental ill health, conducted in any country, in either in‐patient or community settings and published in English.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was biochemically verified smoking cessation. Smoking reduction and changes in mental health symptoms and body mass index (BMI) were included as secondary outcomes. Narrative data synthesis and meta‐analysis were conducted and the quality of included studies was appraised using the risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool.FindingsWe included 12 individual studies (16 articles) involving 1861 participants. The first meta‐analysis (three studies, 921 participants) demonstrated effectiveness of bespoke face‐to‐face interventions compared with usual care across all time‐points [medium‐term: relative risk (RR) = 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38–3.81; long‐term: RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.09–2.30]. The second (three studies, 275 participants) did not demonstrate any difference in effectiveness of bespoke digital on‐line interventions compared with standard digital on‐line interventions (medium‐term: RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.17–4.46). A narrative overview revealed mixed results when comparing bespoke face‐to‐face interventions with other active interventions. The methodological quality of studies was mixed, with the majority having some concerns mainly around risk of selective reporting.ConclusionsFace‐to‐face bespoke smoking cessation interventions for adults with severe mental ill health appear to be effective when compared with treatment as usual, but evidence is equivocal when compared with other active interventions. There is limited evidence comparing bespoke digital interventions with generic interventions, and we found no studies comparing them with usual treatment.

Modelling long-term cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions in people with mental disorders

Modelling long-term cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions in people with mental disorders

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in People With Mental Disorders: A Dynamic Decision Analytical Model

ObjectivesPeople with mental disorders are more likely to smoke than the general population. The objective of this study is to develop a decision analytical model that estimates long-term cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in this population. MethodsA series of Markov models were constructed to estimate average lifetime smoking-attributable inpatient cost and expected quality-adjusted life-years. The model parameters were estimated using a variety of data sources. The model incorporated uncertainty through probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations. It also generated tables presenting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the proposed interventions with varying incremental costs and incremental quit rates. We used data from 2 published trials to demonstrate the model’s ability to make projections beyond the observational time frame. ResultsThe average smoker’s smoking-attributable inpatient cost was 3 times higher and health utility was 5% lower than ex-smokers. The intervention in the trial with a statistically insignificant difference in quit rate (19% vs 25%; P=.2) showed a 45% to 49% chance of being cost-effective compared with the control at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000 to £30 000/quality-adjusted life-years. The second trial had a significant outcome (quit rate 35.9% vs 15.6%; P<.001), and the corresponding probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 65%. ConclusionsThis model provides a consistent platform for clinical trials to estimate the potential lifetime cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with mental disorders and could help commissioners direct resources to the most cost-effective programs. However, direct comparisons of results between trials must be interpreted with caution owing to their different designs and settings.

Smoking cessation interventions for people living in rural and remote areas: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionSmoking rates among people living in rural and remote areas are higher and quit rates are lower over the past 10 years compared with people living in suburban and urban...

Effectiveness of Message Frame-Tailoring in a Web-Based Smoking Cessation Program: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundThe content of online computer-tailored interventions is often determined to match an individual’s characteristics, beliefs, and behavioral factors. These content-tailored interventions lead to better message processing and a higher likelihood of behavior change such as smoking cessation. However, a meta-analysis of online computer-tailored interventions showed that effect sizes, albeit positive, remain small, suggesting room for improvement. A promising strategy to enhance the effectiveness of online computer-tailored interventions is to tailor the message frame (ie, how a message is communicated) based on the preferred communication style of the user in addition to content-tailoring. One factor that determines an individual’s communication style preference is the need for autonomy; some individuals prefer an autonomy-supportive communication style (offering choice and use of suggestive language), whereas others might prefer a directive communication style, which is replete with imperatives and does not provide choice. Tailoring how messages are presented (eg, based on the need for autonomy) is called message frame-tailoring.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to test the effectiveness of message frame-tailoring based on the need for autonomy, in isolation and in combination with content-tailoring, within the context of an online computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention. The primary outcome measure was the 7-day point-prevalence of smoking abstinence. Secondary outcomes were perceived message relevance, self-determined motivation to quit smoking, and sociocognitive beliefs.MethodsA randomized controlled trial with a 2 (message frame-tailoring vs no message frame-tailoring) by 2 (content-tailoring vs no content-tailoring) design was conducted among adult smokers intending to quit smoking (N=273).ResultsStructural equation modeling revealed that the content-tailored condition increased smoking abstinence rates 1 month after the start of the intervention (beta=.57, P=.02). However, neither message frame-tailoring nor its interaction with content-tailoring significantly predicted smoking abstinence. In our model, message frame-tailoring, content-tailoring, as well as their interaction significantly predicted perceived relevance of the smoking cessation messages, which consequently predicted self-determined motivation. In turn, self-determined motivation positively affected attitudes and self-efficacy for smoking cessation, but only self-efficacy consequently predicted smoking abstinence. Participants in the control condition perceived the highest level of message relevance (mean 4.78, SD 1.27). However, messages that were frame-tailored for individuals with a high need for autonomy in combination with content-tailored messages led to significantly higher levels of perceived message relevance (mean 4.83, SD 1.03) compared to those receiving content-tailored messages only (mean 4.24, SD 1.05, P=.003).ConclusionsMessage frame-tailoring based on the need for autonomy seems to be an effective addition to conventional content-tailoring techniques in online smoking cessation interventions for people with a high need for autonomy; however, this is not effective in its current form for people with a low need for autonomy.Trial RegistrationDutch Trial Register (NL6512/NRT-6700); https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6512

Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer.

Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed. To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase up to 22 December 2018. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 30 December 2018. We applied no restriction on language of publication. We planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer. Two review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria. We identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1817 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 19 studies for further investigation. We excluded 15 trials: ten trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed four ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available. There were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.

Interventions Targeting Smoking Cessation for Patients With Chronic Pain: An Evidence Synthesis

Smoking is a risk factor for chronic pain conditions. Epidemiological evidence suggests that smoking cessation may be an important treatment target in people with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. We systematically searched for clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic pain, compared with any control comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and physical function. Secondary outcomes were smoking status, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria and the quality of evidence with GRADE. Searches retrieved 3845 records and identified two trials for inclusion (total n = 99 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no effect of smoking cessation programs on pain and very low-quality evidence of no effect on function at short-term follow-up. There was conflicting evidence on the effect of smoking cessation interventions for changing the smoking status and number of cigarettes consumed per day. There was no effect on depression and anxiety. Current evidence does not indicate clinically important effects of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. There is a need for high-quality trials in this area. Our review highlights an important evidence gap. We found only two studies investigating smoking cessation programs for chronic pain conditions providing very low- to low-quality evidence.

Reconceptualizing motivation for smoking cessation among people with rheumatoid arthritis as incentives and facilitators.

Smokers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may have different motivations for, and barriers to, quitting. Understanding the motivations of smokers and ex-smokers with RA will help in the design and implementation of targeted smoking cessation interventions for people with RA that are not based solely on extrapolation from the general population or populations with other chronic illnesses. Twenty-nine smokers and 10 recent ex-smokers with RA participated in semi-structured interviews via telephone 18months after being offered a smoking cessation intervention in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The sample consisted of 27 women and 12 men (age range 32-78years), of whom 14 had received the intervention, 14 had been in the control group and 11 had declined participation in the trial. Thematic analysis led to the formulation of four "incentives" to quit and five "facilitators" of quitting for people with RA. Desiring improvements to health (overall and specific to arthritis), social relationships and avoiding costs were incentives to quit. Coping with stress without smoking, commitment, mental preparedness, willpower and interventions were facilitators of quitting. Becoming aware of the effects of smoking on arthritis provides an important motivation to quit smoking that may counter RA-specific barriers to smoking cessation. Further research is needed to test whether similar incentives and facilitators of smoking cessation exist in other chronic illnesses, and how to develop interventions to address these motivational processes.

Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPeople with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe mental ill health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost –effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe mental ill health in both inpatient and outpatient settings.MethodsThis is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes).ResultsWe included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82–50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61–5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10–8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36–12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85–2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85–2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data.ConclusionsBupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe mental ill health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health, the percentage of people with severe mental ill health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.

Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer.

Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed. To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and EMBASE up to 22 June 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 1 July 2015. We applied no restriction on language of publication. We planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer. Two review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria. We identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1052 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 13 studies for further investigation. We excluded 10 trials: five trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed three ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available. There were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.