Cargando…
The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance‐based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour intervention...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8246955/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31663182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.5261 |
_version_ | 1783716420284055552 |
---|---|
author | Mujcic, Ajla Blankers, Matthijs Bommelé, Jeroen Boon, Brigitte Berman, Anne H. Verdonck‐de Leeuw, Irma M. van Laar, Margriet Engels, Rutger |
author_facet | Mujcic, Ajla Blankers, Matthijs Bommelé, Jeroen Boon, Brigitte Berman, Anne H. Verdonck‐de Leeuw, Irma M. van Laar, Margriet Engels, Rutger |
author_sort | Mujcic, Ajla |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance‐based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single‐behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta‐analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow‐up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta‐regression, effectiveness of single‐behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance‐based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13‐2.15, P = .007). Single‐behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19‐0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance‐based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Distance‐based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single‐behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance‐based AM interventions for cancer survivors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8246955 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82469552021-07-02 The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis Mujcic, Ajla Blankers, Matthijs Bommelé, Jeroen Boon, Brigitte Berman, Anne H. Verdonck‐de Leeuw, Irma M. van Laar, Margriet Engels, Rutger Psychooncology Reviews OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance‐based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single‐behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta‐analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow‐up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta‐regression, effectiveness of single‐behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance‐based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13‐2.15, P = .007). Single‐behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19‐0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance‐based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Distance‐based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single‐behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance‐based AM interventions for cancer survivors. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-12-21 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8246955/ /pubmed/31663182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.5261 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Psycho‐Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Reviews Mujcic, Ajla Blankers, Matthijs Bommelé, Jeroen Boon, Brigitte Berman, Anne H. Verdonck‐de Leeuw, Irma M. van Laar, Margriet Engels, Rutger The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis |
title | The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis |
title_full | The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis |
title_fullStr | The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis |
title_short | The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis |
title_sort | effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: a meta‐analysis |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8246955/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31663182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.5261 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mujcicajla theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT blankersmatthijs theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT bommelejeroen theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT boonbrigitte theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT bermananneh theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT verdonckdeleeuwirmam theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT vanlaarmargriet theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT engelsrutger theeffectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT mujcicajla effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT blankersmatthijs effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT bommelejeroen effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT boonbrigitte effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT bermananneh effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT verdonckdeleeuwirmam effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT vanlaarmargriet effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis AT engelsrutger effectivenessofdistancebasedinterventionsforsmokingcessationandalcoholmoderationamongcancersurvivorsametaanalysis |