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. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain an attempt to quit. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the eVectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Methods-We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL, and the Smoking and Health database for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological, or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters were included. Studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates, and those with follow up of less than 6 months were excluded. Two of the authors extracted data independently for each paper, with assistance from others. Results-Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow up for at least 1 month) was associated with a significantly higher cessation rate compared with controls (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.22). Any contact during hospitalisation followed by minimal follow up failed to detect a statistically significant eVect on cessation rate, but did not rule out a 30% increase in smoking cessation (Peto OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31). There was insuYcient evidence to judge the eVect of interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis aVected the likelihood of quitting. Conclusions-High intensity behaviouralinterventions that include at least 1 month of follow up contact are eVective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.
BACKGROUNDAn 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. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain an attempt to quit. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL, and the Smoking and Health database for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological, or multi-component interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters were included. Studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates, and those with follow up of less than 6 months were excluded. Two of the authors extracted data independently for each paper, with assistance from others.RESULTSIntensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow up for at least 1 month) was associated with a significantly higher cessation rate compared with controls (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.22). Any contact during hospitalisation followed by minimal follow up failed to detect a statistically significant effect on cessation rate, but did not rule out a 30% increase in smoking cessation (Peto OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31). There was insufficient evidence to judge the effect of interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting.CONCLUSIONSHigh intensity behavioural interventions that include at least 1 month of follow up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.
This study investigates the extent to which the distinctive cross-sectional marital status picture of risk for cancer of the uterine cervix (single, married, widowed, divorced in ascending order of risk) has persisted in post-war Britain. Incidence and mortality due to invasive cervical cancer amongst single women now exceeds that of the married, and for both has become much closer to that of the widowed and divorced. A dramatic increase in carcinoma in situ in Scotland, seen particularly in the single since 1982, must partly reflect changes in screening and diagnostic classification, but is also consistent with the later occurrence of the sexual revolution in Scotland. Overall in Britain, the distribution of screening and hysterectomy cannot account for the present day pattern of the disease. Available data on patterns of smoking and oral contraceptive use are broadly consistent with a role for them in determining the current disease pattern associated with marital status but their possible involvement cannot be disentangled from the more likely effect of changing levels of sexual activity increasing the risk of sexually transmitted disease. As marital status becomes a less important social indicator of sexual behaviour, it has also become a much less reliable marker of cervical cancer risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.