Cargando…

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

AIMS: To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials. METHODS: Systematic review with meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop‐smoking me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Black, Nicola, Eisma, Maarten C., Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, Johnston, Marie, West, Robert, Hartmann‐Boyce, Jamie, Michie, Susan, de Bruin, Marijn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32043675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14969
_version_ 1783583028754251776
author Black, Nicola
Eisma, Maarten C.
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang
Johnston, Marie
West, Robert
Hartmann‐Boyce, Jamie
Michie, Susan
de Bruin, Marijn
author_facet Black, Nicola
Eisma, Maarten C.
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang
Johnston, Marie
West, Robert
Hartmann‐Boyce, Jamie
Michie, Susan
de Bruin, Marijn
author_sort Black, Nicola
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials. METHODS: Systematic review with meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop‐smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ≥ 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensive descriptions of their comparator interventions. Meta‐regression analyses examined the relationships of smoking cessation rates with stop‐smoking medication and behavior change techniques. RESULTS: One hundred and four of 142 eligible comparator groups (n = 23 706) had complete data and were included in analyses. There was considerable variability in the number of behavior change techniques delivered [mean = 15.97, standard deviation (SD) = 13.54, range = 0–45] and the provision of smoking cessation medication (43% of groups received medication) throughout and within categories of comparator groups (e.g. usual care, brief advice). Higher smoking cessation rates were predicted by provision of medication [B = 0.334, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.030–0.638, P = 0.031] and number of behavior change techniques included (B = 0.020, 95% CI = 0.008–0.032, P < 0.001). Modelled cessation rates in comparator groups that received the most intensive support were 15 percentage points higher than those that received the least (23 versus 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions delivered to comparator groups in smoking cessation randomized controlled trials vary considerably in content, and cessation rates are strongly predicted by stop‐smoking medication and number of behavior change techniques delivered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7496125
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74961252020-09-25 Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis Black, Nicola Eisma, Maarten C. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang Johnston, Marie West, Robert Hartmann‐Boyce, Jamie Michie, Susan de Bruin, Marijn Addiction Reviews AIMS: To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials. METHODS: Systematic review with meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop‐smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ≥ 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensive descriptions of their comparator interventions. Meta‐regression analyses examined the relationships of smoking cessation rates with stop‐smoking medication and behavior change techniques. RESULTS: One hundred and four of 142 eligible comparator groups (n = 23 706) had complete data and were included in analyses. There was considerable variability in the number of behavior change techniques delivered [mean = 15.97, standard deviation (SD) = 13.54, range = 0–45] and the provision of smoking cessation medication (43% of groups received medication) throughout and within categories of comparator groups (e.g. usual care, brief advice). Higher smoking cessation rates were predicted by provision of medication [B = 0.334, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.030–0.638, P = 0.031] and number of behavior change techniques included (B = 0.020, 95% CI = 0.008–0.032, P < 0.001). Modelled cessation rates in comparator groups that received the most intensive support were 15 percentage points higher than those that received the least (23 versus 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions delivered to comparator groups in smoking cessation randomized controlled trials vary considerably in content, and cessation rates are strongly predicted by stop‐smoking medication and number of behavior change techniques delivered. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-02-11 2020-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7496125/ /pubmed/32043675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14969 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews
Black, Nicola
Eisma, Maarten C.
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang
Johnston, Marie
West, Robert
Hartmann‐Boyce, Jamie
Michie, Susan
de Bruin, Marijn
Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32043675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14969
work_keys_str_mv AT blacknicola variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eismamaartenc variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT viechtbauerwolfgang variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT johnstonmarie variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT westrobert variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hartmannboycejamie variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT michiesusan variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT debruinmarijn variabilityandeffectivenessofcomparatorgroupinterventionsinsmokingcessationtrialsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis