Search

Background: Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI)., Main Results: Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I 2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Background: Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized Register and CINAHL in June 2013., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI)., Main Results: Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooling 35 studies (over 17,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention to increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.39). In a subgroup analysis the estimated effect size was similar for the group of seven studies using a particularly low intensity intervention but the confidence interval was wider. There was limited indirect evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized adults also showed evidence of benefit. Eleven studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Six studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions., Authors' Conclusions: The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence for an effect is weaker when interventions are brief and are provided by nurses whose main role is not health promotion or smoking cessation. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

A quasi-experimental design was used to test a modified Project Towards No Tobacco (TNT) use program on cigarette smoking in 380 Arab American and 236 non-Arab American 9th graders in the Midwest. Tenth grade Non-Arab American students given the intervention as 9th graders were 23% less likely to experiment (Odds Ratio=1.31, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.64) or to have smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days (Odd Ratio=1.43 times, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.01) compared to Arab American youth. Arab American students reported greater experimentation with water pipe smoking than cigarettes (38% vs. 22%), and more current (16% vs. 6%) and regular (7% vs. 3%) use of water pipes than cigarettes, respectively. The intervention designed to focus on cigarette smoking had non-significant effects on water pipe smoking. These findings provide support for a school-based intervention revised to focus on prevention as well as cessation and to be culturally consistent. They also call for further research and intervention tailoring to address the problem of water pipe smoking in a growing Arab American adolescent population.

Background: Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register and CINAHL in July 2007., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow up of at least six months., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Main Results: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care found the intervention to significantly increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.38). There was heterogeneity among the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of a statistically significant effect. In a subgroup analysis there was weaker evidence that lower intensity interventions were effective (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.62). There was limited indirect evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized patients also showed evidence of benefit. Nine studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Five studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions., Authors' Conclusions: The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses to patients, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence of an effect is weaker when interventions are brief and are provided by nurses whose main role is not health promotion or smoking cessation. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice, so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow up.

Background: Health care professionals, including nurses, frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register and CINAHL in June 2003., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors extracted data independently., Main Results: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care found the intervention to significantly increase the odds of quitting (Peto Odds Ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.68). There was heterogeneity among the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of a statistically significant effect. There was limited evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized patients also showed evidence of benefit. Five studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Five studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found the nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions., Reviewer's Conclusions: The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses to patients, with reasonable evidence that interventions can be effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice, so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

Background: Health care professionals, including nurses, frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of nursing delivered smoking cessation interventions., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register was searched for studies of interventions using nurses or health visitors and an additional search made on CINAHL., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials with follow-up of at least 6 months., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors extracted data independently., Main Results: Sixteen studies comparing nursing intervention to a control or usual care found intervention to significantly increase the odds of quitting (Peto Odds Ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.29-1.73). There was heterogeneity between the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of effect. There was no evidence from indirect comparison that interventions classified as intensive had a larger effect than less intensive ones. There was limited evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non hospitalised patients also showed evidence of benefit. Five studies of nurse counseling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, not included in the main meta-analysis, found that under these conditions nursing intervention had less effect., Reviewer's Conclusions: The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and counseling given by nurses to their patients, with reasonable evidence that interventions can be effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking cessation intervention as part of standard practice so that all patients are given an opportunity to be queried about their tobacco use and to be given advice to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

Background: Health care professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of nursing delivered smoking cessation interventions., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register was searched for studies of interventions using nurses or health visitors and an additional search made on CINAHL., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials with follow-up of at least 6 months., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors extracted data independently., Main Results: Fifteen studies comparing nursing intervention to a control or usual care found intervention to significantly increase the odds of quitting (Peto Odds Ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.24-1.66). There was heterogeneity between the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of effect. There was no evidence from indirect comparison that interventions classified as intensive had a larger effect than less intensive ones. There was limited evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non hospitalised patients also showed evidence of efficacy. Three studies of nurse counseling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, not included in the main meta-analysis, suggested that under these conditions nursing intervention was likely to have less effect., Reviewer's Conclusions: The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and counseling given by nurses to their patients, with reasonable evidence that interventions can be effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking cessation intervention as part of standard practice so that all patients are given an opportunity to be queried about their tobacco use and to be given advice to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.