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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mujcic, Ajla, Blankers, Matthijs, Bommelé, Jeroen, Boon, Brigitte, Berman, Anne H., Verdonck‐de Leeuw, Irma M., van Laar, Margriet, Engels, Rutger
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