Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Parental Smoking Cessation to Protect Children: A Meta-Analytic Review

Stefanie Nichole Tan, J. H. Caduhada, Manuel Bautista
{"title":"Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Parental Smoking Cessation to Protect Children: A Meta-Analytic Review","authors":"Stefanie Nichole Tan, J. H. Caduhada, Manuel Bautista","doi":"10.35460/2546-1621.2021-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: This meta-analysis aims to synthesize available evidence from published studies on the effectiveness of parental non-pharmacologic smoking cessation programs which aim to reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke. Methodology: A database search using The Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar, was done by the investigators. This study included 20 randomized controlled trials published up to 2020. Pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR) for quit rates were computed using the random effects model. Results: Overall, the quit rate among those who underwent parental smoking cessation was 13.4% while the quit rate for controls was 11.9%. The pooled RR demonstrated that the parental smoking cessation program was significantly associated with higher quit rates (RR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.01 to 1.46, p-value = 0.04). The studies demonstrated moderate heterogeneity only (I2 = 54%). Among studies published prior to year 2000, no significant difference was observed between parental smoking cessation program and control (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.70, p-value = 0.93). On the other hand, the pooled RR demonstrated that among studies published after 2020, parental smoking cessation program was significantly associated with higher quit rates (RR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.03 to 1.56, p-value <0.0001). Among studies with self-help interventions, parental smoking cessation program has no additional benefit on quit rates (RR = 1.20, 95%CI = 0.94 to 1.58, p-value = 0.14). Among studies with biofeedback intervention also, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.89, p-value = 0.23). Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated sufficient evidence that non-pharmacologic interventions for parental smoking cessation are effective.","PeriodicalId":399180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine, University of Santo Tomas","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine, University of Santo Tomas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35460/2546-1621.2021-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This meta-analysis aims to synthesize available evidence from published studies on the effectiveness of parental non-pharmacologic smoking cessation programs which aim to reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke. Methodology: A database search using The Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar, was done by the investigators. This study included 20 randomized controlled trials published up to 2020. Pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR) for quit rates were computed using the random effects model. Results: Overall, the quit rate among those who underwent parental smoking cessation was 13.4% while the quit rate for controls was 11.9%. The pooled RR demonstrated that the parental smoking cessation program was significantly associated with higher quit rates (RR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.01 to 1.46, p-value = 0.04). The studies demonstrated moderate heterogeneity only (I2 = 54%). Among studies published prior to year 2000, no significant difference was observed between parental smoking cessation program and control (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.70, p-value = 0.93). On the other hand, the pooled RR demonstrated that among studies published after 2020, parental smoking cessation program was significantly associated with higher quit rates (RR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.03 to 1.56, p-value <0.0001). Among studies with self-help interventions, parental smoking cessation program has no additional benefit on quit rates (RR = 1.20, 95%CI = 0.94 to 1.58, p-value = 0.14). Among studies with biofeedback intervention also, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.89, p-value = 0.23). Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated sufficient evidence that non-pharmacologic interventions for parental smoking cessation are effective.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
父母戒烟保护儿童的非药物策略的有效性:一项荟萃分析综述
目的:本荟萃分析旨在综合已发表的关于父母非药物戒烟计划有效性的现有证据,该计划旨在减少儿童接触二手烟。方法:研究者使用Cochrane图书馆、PubMed®、Medline、Embase和Google Scholar进行数据库搜索。该研究纳入了截至2020年发表的20项随机对照试验。使用随机效应模型计算戒烟率的风险比(RR)的汇总估计。结果:总体而言,父母戒烟组的戒烟率为13.4%,而对照组的戒烟率为11.9%。合并RR显示,父母戒烟计划与较高的戒烟率显著相关(RR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.01 ~ 1.46, p值= 0.04)。这些研究仅显示中度异质性(I2 = 54%)。在2000年以前发表的研究中,没有观察到父母戒烟计划和对照组之间的显著差异(RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.62 ~ 1.70, p值= 0.93)。另一方面,合并RR显示,在2020年以后发表的研究中,父母戒烟计划与较高的戒烟率显著相关(RR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.03 ~ 1.56, p值<0.0001)。在自助干预的研究中,父母戒烟计划对戒烟率没有额外的好处(RR = 1.20, 95%CI = 0.94 ~ 1.58, p值= 0.14)。在采用生物反馈干预的研究中,差异无统计学意义(RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.86 ~ 1.89, p值= 0.23)。结论:本荟萃分析充分证明非药物干预对父母戒烟是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Current Insights into Covid-19 Vaccination Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma as an Adjunct to Core Decompression to Treatment Outcomes and Femoral Head Preservation in Avascular Necrosis of the Hip: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Clinical and Patient Reported Outcomes of Vitamin E Diffused Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Liner Versus Moderately Cross-Linked Polyethylene Liner in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis A Review of the Clinical Significance of Lumbar Puncture in the Diagnostic Approach of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH): A Case Report of CT-Negative and Lumbar Puncture–Positive SAH A Basic Review of Sarcopenia Diagnosis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1