Introduction: Smoke-free homes can help protect children from tobacco smoke exposure (TSE). The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify effects of interventions on changes in tobacco smoke pollution in the home, as measured by air nicotine and particulate matter (PM). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Embase. We included controlled trials of interventions which aimed to help parents protect children from tobacco smoke exposure. Two reviewers identified relevant studies, and three reviewers extracted data. Results: Seven studies were identified. Interventions improved tobacco smoke air pollution in homes as assessed by nicotine or PM. (6 studies, N = 681, p = 0.02). Analyses of air nicotine and PM separately also showed some benefit (Air nicotine: 4 studies, N = 421, p = 0.08; PM: 3 studies, N = 340, p = 0.02). Despite improvements, tobacco smoke pollution was present in homes in all studies at follow-up. Conclusions: Interventions designed to protect children from tobacco smoke are effective in reducing tobacco smoke pollution (as assessed by air nicotine or PM) in homes, but contamination remains. The persistence of significant pollution levels in homes after individual level intervention may signal the need for other population and regulatory measures to help reduce and eliminate childhood tobacco smoke exposure.

Background and aimsAlthough smoking cessation medications have shown effectiveness in increasing abstinence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear to what extent benefits persist over time. This paper assesses whether the benefits of smoking cessation medications decline over the first year.MethodsWe selected studies from three systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration. RCTs of first‐line smoking cessation medications, with 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐up, were eligible for inclusion. Meta‐analysis was used to synthesize information on sustained abstinence (SA) at 6 versus 12 months and 3 versus 6 months, using the risk difference (RD) (‘net benefit’) between intervention and control group quit rates, the relative risk (RR) and the odds ratio (OR).ResultsSixty‐one studies (27 647 participants) were included. Fewer than 40% of intervention group participants were sustained abstinent at 3 months (bupropion: 37.1%; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): 34.8%; varenicline: 39.3%); approximately a quarter were sustained abstinent at 6 months (bupropion: 25.9%; NRT: 26.6%; varenicline: 25.4%), and approximately a fifth were sustained abstinent at 12 months (bupropion: 19.9%; NRT: 19.8%%; varenicline: 18.7%). There was only a small decline in RR (3 months: 1.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.74–2.18, P < 0.0001]; 6 months: 1.87 (95% CI = 1.67–2.08 P < 0.0001); 12 months: 1.75 (95% CI = 1.56–1.95, P < 0.0001) between intervention and control groups over time, but a substantial decline in net benefit [3 months: RD = 17.3% (14.5–20.1%); 6 months: RD = 11.8% (10.0–13.7%); 12 months: RD = 8.2% (6.8–9.6%)]. The decline in net benefit was statistically significant between 3 and 6 [RD = 4.95% (95% CI = 3.49–6.41%), P < 0.0001] and 6 and 12 months [RD = 3.00% (95% CI = 2.36%–3.64%), P < 0.0001)] for medications combined and individual medications.ConclusionsThe proportion of smokers who use smoking cessation medications who benefit from doing so decreases during the course of the first year, but a net benefit still remains at 12 months.

Summary Background The Modified Early Warning System (MEWS) is a well-validated tool used by hospitals to identify patients at high risk for an adverse event to occur. However, there has been little evaluation into whether a low MEWS score can be predictive of patients with a low likelihood of an adverse event. Aim The present study aims to evaluate the MEWS score as a method of identifying patients at low risk for adverse events. Design Retrospective cohort study of 5676 patient days and analysis of associated MEWS scores, medical comorbidities and adverse events. The primary outcome was the association of average daily MEWS scores in those who had an adverse event compared with those who did not. Results Those with an average MEWS score of &gt;2 were over 9 times more likely to have an adverse event compared with those with an average MEWS score of 1–2, and over 15 times more likely to have an adverse event compared to those with an average MEWS score of &lt;1. Conclusions Our study shows that those with average daily MEWS scores &lt;2 are at a significantly lower likelihood of having an adverse event compared with a score of &gt;2, deeming them ‘low-risk patients’. Formal recognition of such patients can have major implications in a hospital setting, including more efficient resource allocation in hospitals and better patient satisfaction and safety by adjusting patient monitoring according to their individual risk profile.

No abstract

No abstract