Introducing smoking cessation to Indonesian males treated for tuberculosis: The challenges of low–moderate level smoking
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 16 publications
References 21 publications
Background While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or ‘buddies’ may encourage abstinence. Objectives To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component. Search methods We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect. Main results Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two rep...
Background While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or ‘buddies’ may encourage abstinence. Objectives To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component. Search methods We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect. Main results Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two rep...
International and cross-cultural research is critical for understanding multilevel influences on health, health behaviors, and disease. A particularly relevant area of need for such research is tobacco control. The tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public health threats globally, killing over 7 million people a year. Research critical to addressing this public health problem has leveraged variability in tobacco use, history, product market, and policies across different countries, settings, and populations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where the tobacco burden is increasing. These efforts are needed in order to advance the science and inform practice and policy in various settings, including the US. Several funding agencies provide support for international research focused on tobacco control in LMICs because of the importance and implications of such research. This paper provides some concrete examples of how such research has advanced our knowledge-base and informed practice and policy globally, particularly in high-income countries including the US. Some prominent themes emphasized in this manuscript include: the development of knowledge regarding the diverse tobacco products on the market; better understanding of tobacco use and its impact among different populations; generating knowledge about the impacts including unintended consequences of tobacco control policy interventions; and better understanding tobacco industry strategies and informing advocacy efforts. In summary, international tobacco control research, particularly in LMICs, is critical in effectively and efficiently building the evidence base to advance tobacco control research, policy, and practice globally, including the US, with the ultimate goal of curbing the tobacco epidemic.
Background: Little research in low and middle-income countries has been conducted on shifts in levels of smoking among those suffering from chronic diseases exposed to cessation messages. We present data on such shifts among diabetes patients participating in a randomized controlled cessation trial in Kerala state, India. The two-arm trial tested the relative effectiveness of diabetes specific cessation messages from doctors and the added value of motivational interviewing by trained cessation counsellors. Methods: Two hundred twenty-four smokers who participated in the trial were followed for 2 years. Intention to treat analysis documented changes in levels of smoking. We defined low-level smoking as 1-5 sticks per day, medium-level as 6-10 sticks, and high-level as more than 10 sticks. Twenty-three lowlevel smokers were interviewed about why they continued to smoke, and household response to their smoking. Results: At baseline, 32% of the 224 diabetes patients were low-level smokers, 24% medium-level and 44% high-level smokers. At year two 34% of the participants in the trial had quit smoking, 37% were low-level smokers, 16% medium-level smokers and 13% high-level smokers. Forty-nine percent of low-level smokers at baseline continued to smoke at low level. Fifty percent of mid-level and 45% of high-level smokers who did not quit shifted to low level smoking A majority of low-level smokers and their families perceived low-level smoking to be safe. Conclusions: Low level smoking among diabetes patients is common. Proactive and sustained cessation efforts are called for that are attentive to disease complications as teachable moments.
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.
Contact Info
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
