Parris J Williams, Keir Ej Philip, Saeed M Alghamdi, Alexis M Perkins, Sara C Buttery, Michael I Polkey, Anthony A Laverty, Nicholas S Hopkinson
{"title":"在有针对性的肺部健康筛查期间提供戒烟干预措施的策略——一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Parris J Williams, Keir Ej Philip, Saeed M Alghamdi, Alexis M Perkins, Sara C Buttery, Michael I Polkey, Anthony A Laverty, Nicholas S Hopkinson","doi":"10.1177/14799731231183446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Lung cancer screening presents an important teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, but the most effective strategy to deliver support in this context remains to be established.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions delivered during lung health screening, published prior to 20/07/2022 MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases. Two reviewers screened titles, and abstracts, four reviewed each full text using prespecified criteria, extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias and confidence in findings using the GRADE criteria. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021242431).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with a control group were identified. Meta-analysis of nine RCTs demonstrated that smoking cessation interventions delivered during lung screening programmes increased quit rates compared to usual care (odds ratios: 2.01, 95%: 1.49-2.72 <i>p</i> < 0.001). Six RCTs using intensive (≥3 behavioural counselling sessions) interventions demonstrated greater quit rates compared to usual care (OR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.90, <i>p</i> < 0.001). A meta-analysis of two RCTs found intensive interventions were more effective than non-intensive (OR: 2.07, 95%CI 1.26-3.40 <i>p</i> = 0.004), Meta-analysis of two RCTs of non-intensive interventions (≤2 behavioural counselling sessions or limited to online information audio take home materials such as pamphlets) did not show a higher quit rate than usual care (OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.39-2.08 <i>p</i> = 0.80).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Moderate quality evidence supports smoking cessation interventions delivered within a lung screening setting compared to usual care, with high-quality evidence that more intensive interventions are likely to be most effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":10217,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Respiratory Disease","volume":"20 ","pages":"14799731231183446"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8f/00/10.1177_14799731231183446.PMC10286547.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies to deliver smoking cessation interventions during targeted lung health screening - a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Parris J Williams, Keir Ej Philip, Saeed M Alghamdi, Alexis M Perkins, Sara C Buttery, Michael I Polkey, Anthony A Laverty, Nicholas S Hopkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14799731231183446\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Lung cancer screening presents an important teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, but the most effective strategy to deliver support in this context remains to be established.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions delivered during lung health screening, published prior to 20/07/2022 MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases. Two reviewers screened titles, and abstracts, four reviewed each full text using prespecified criteria, extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias and confidence in findings using the GRADE criteria. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021242431).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with a control group were identified. Meta-analysis of nine RCTs demonstrated that smoking cessation interventions delivered during lung screening programmes increased quit rates compared to usual care (odds ratios: 2.01, 95%: 1.49-2.72 <i>p</i> < 0.001). Six RCTs using intensive (≥3 behavioural counselling sessions) interventions demonstrated greater quit rates compared to usual care (OR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.90, <i>p</i> < 0.001). A meta-analysis of two RCTs found intensive interventions were more effective than non-intensive (OR: 2.07, 95%CI 1.26-3.40 <i>p</i> = 0.004), Meta-analysis of two RCTs of non-intensive interventions (≤2 behavioural counselling sessions or limited to online information audio take home materials such as pamphlets) did not show a higher quit rate than usual care (OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.39-2.08 <i>p</i> = 0.80).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Moderate quality evidence supports smoking cessation interventions delivered within a lung screening setting compared to usual care, with high-quality evidence that more intensive interventions are likely to be most effective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Respiratory Disease\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"14799731231183446\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8f/00/10.1177_14799731231183446.PMC10286547.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Respiratory Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14799731231183446\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14799731231183446","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
肺癌筛查是促进戒烟的重要教育时刻,但在这方面提供支持的最有效战略仍有待确立。方法:我们对在20/07/2022 MEDLINE、PsychINFO、CENTRAL、EMBASE、CINAHL和Scopus数据库之前发表的肺健康筛查期间提供的戒烟干预措施进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。两名审稿人筛选标题和摘要,四名审稿人使用预先指定的标准审查全文,提取相关数据,使用GRADE标准评估偏倚风险和研究结果的置信度。该综述在PROSPERO (CRD42021242431)前瞻性注册。结果:共纳入10项随机对照试验和3项观察性研究,其中有一个对照组。9项随机对照试验的荟萃分析表明,与常规护理相比,在肺部筛查项目期间提供的戒烟干预措施增加了戒烟率(优势比:2.01,95%:1.49-2.72 p < 0.001)。6项使用强化(≥3次行为咨询)干预的随机对照试验显示,与常规护理相比,戒烟率更高(OR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.90, p < 0.001)。对两项随机对照试验的荟萃分析发现,强化干预比非强化干预更有效(OR: 2.07, 95%CI 1.26-3.40 p = 0.004),对两项非强化干预(≤2次行为咨询或仅限于在线信息音频带回家材料,如小册子)的荟萃分析没有显示出比常规护理更高的戒烟率(OR: 0.90, 95%CI 0.39-2.08 p = 0.80)。讨论:与常规护理相比,中等质量的证据支持在肺部筛查设置中提供戒烟干预措施,高质量的证据表明更密集的干预措施可能最有效。
Strategies to deliver smoking cessation interventions during targeted lung health screening - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: Lung cancer screening presents an important teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, but the most effective strategy to deliver support in this context remains to be established.
Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions delivered during lung health screening, published prior to 20/07/2022 MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases. Two reviewers screened titles, and abstracts, four reviewed each full text using prespecified criteria, extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias and confidence in findings using the GRADE criteria. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021242431).
Results: 10 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with a control group were identified. Meta-analysis of nine RCTs demonstrated that smoking cessation interventions delivered during lung screening programmes increased quit rates compared to usual care (odds ratios: 2.01, 95%: 1.49-2.72 p < 0.001). Six RCTs using intensive (≥3 behavioural counselling sessions) interventions demonstrated greater quit rates compared to usual care (OR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.90, p < 0.001). A meta-analysis of two RCTs found intensive interventions were more effective than non-intensive (OR: 2.07, 95%CI 1.26-3.40 p = 0.004), Meta-analysis of two RCTs of non-intensive interventions (≤2 behavioural counselling sessions or limited to online information audio take home materials such as pamphlets) did not show a higher quit rate than usual care (OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.39-2.08 p = 0.80).
Discussion: Moderate quality evidence supports smoking cessation interventions delivered within a lung screening setting compared to usual care, with high-quality evidence that more intensive interventions are likely to be most effective.
期刊介绍:
Chronic Respiratory Disease is a peer-reviewed, open access, scholarly journal, created in response to the rising incidence of chronic respiratory diseases worldwide. It publishes high quality research papers and original articles that have immediate relevance to clinical practice and its multi-disciplinary perspective reflects the nature of modern treatment. The journal provides a high quality, multi-disciplinary focus for the publication of original papers, reviews and commentary in the broad area of chronic respiratory disease, particularly its treatment and management.