A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected disadvantaged groups

Abstract

Few well-controlled trials have examined the most effective smoking cessation strategies for highly disadvantaged groups, especially among the homeless, indigenous smokers and prisoners. The use of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for some socially disadvantaged groups appears promising; however, overall findings are inconsistent. Further research is needed to establish the most effective interventions for vulnerable high-risk groups. Special attention should be given to increasing sample size and power, and to sound evaluation methodology to overcome methodological limitations of conducting research with these high-risk groups.

Predictors of retention in a randomised trial of smoking cessation in low-socioeconomic status Australian smokers

“…[53] Few behavioural smoking cessation clinical trials have been undertaken internationally among socially disadvantaged groups, [54] and only one of 32 published studies in a recent systematic review [55] was conducted in Australia among smokers with a psychotic disorder. It achieved a retention rate of 83% (247/298) at 12-month final follow-up, [53] but factors associated with retention were not investigated One recent RCT published in 2014 among 430 homeless smokers from US emergency shelters and transitional housing units identified a overall retention rate of 75% at 26-week followup, and found similar to the current study found that age was associated with increased retention, and that alcohol, other drug use and health-related constructs were not associated with retention.…”

Alcohol and disadvantaged men: A feasibility trial of an intervention delivered by mobile phone

“…Brief interventions may need to be tailored for disadvantaged people, because they are less likely to engage in health promotion programs 10. For example, there is good evidence that smoking cessation interventions are less effective in disadvantaged groups 11, 12.…”

An Exploratory Analysis of the Smoking and Physical Activity Outcomes From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of an Exercise Assisted Reduction to Stop Smoking Intervention in Disadvantaged Groups

“…Good quality evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for disadvantaged groups is limited 6,7 and further research is needed on how best to both increase intervention reach and smoking cessation success 8 . It is likely that a range of intervention options may be needed to increase reach and to reduce smoking prevalence, such as locating services in community settings with most need, developing roles for outreach workers (e.g., health trainers) 9 , and developing multidimensional and complex behaviour change interventions that are specifically designed for disadvantaged groups 10 .…”