Search

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among women smokers in low socio-economic status (SES) groups or women living in disadvantaged areas who are historically underserved by smoking cessation services. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Web of Science databases. Eligibility criteria included randomised controlled trials of any smoking cessation intervention among women in low SES groups or living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. A random effects meta-analysis assessed effectiveness of interventions on smoking cessation. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The GRADE approach established certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 396 studies were screened for eligibility and 11 (6153 female participants) were included. Seven studies targeted women-only. 5/11 tested a form of face-to-face support. A pooled effect size was estimated in 10/11 studies. At end of treatment, two-thirds more low SES women who received a smoking cessation intervention were more likely to stop smoking than women in control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% CI 1.36–2.08, I2= 34%). The effect was reduced but remained significant when longest available follow-up periods were pooled (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04–1.48, I2 = 0%). There was moderate-to-high risk of bias in most studies. Certainty of evidence was low. Conclusions: Behavioural and behavioural + pharmacotherapy interventions for smoking cessation targeting women in low SES groups or women living in areas of disadvantage were effective in the short term. However, longer follow-up periods indicated reduced effectiveness. Future studies to explore ways to prevent smoking relapse in this population are needed. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: CRD42019130160 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited information on community health volunteer (CHV) programmes in urban informal settlements in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is despite such settings accounting for a high burden of disease. Many factors intersect to influence the performance of CHVs working in urban informal settlements in LMICs. This review was conducted to identify both the programme level and contextual factors influencing performance of CHVs working in urban informal settlements in LMICs.Methods: Four databases were searched for qualitative and mixed method studies focusing on CHVs working in urban and peri-urban informal settlements in LMICs. We focused on CHV programme outcome measures at CHV individual level. A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria and were double read to extract relevant data. Thematic coding was conducted, and data synthesized across ten categories of both programme and contextual factors influencing CHV performance. Quality was assessed using both the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAST); and certainty of evidence evaluated using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach.Results: Key programme-level factors reported to enhance CHV performance in urban informal settlements in LMICs included both financial and non-financial incentives, training, the availability of supplies and resources, health system linkage, family support, and supportive supervision. At the broad contextual level, factors found to negatively influence the performance of CHVs included insecurity in terms of personal safety and the demand for financial and material support by households within the community. These factors interacted to shape CHV performance and impacted on implementation of CHV programmes in urban informal settlements.Conclusion: This review identified the influence of both programme-level and contextual factors on CHVs working in both urban and peri-urban informal settlements in LMICs. The findings suggest that programmes working in such settings should consider adequate remuneration for CHVs, integrated and holistic training, adequate supplies and resources, adequate health system linkages, family support and supportive supervision. In addition, programmes should also consider CHV personal safety issues and the community expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]