Low-risk aversive group treatments, physiological feedback, and booster sessions for smoking cessation

Walker, William B.; Franzini, Louis R.

doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(85)80014-9

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 The mean number of cigarettes smoked per day varied between 11.9 and 29.2 and was highest in the trials set in a ''smoking clinic''. 39 Only one of the eight trials reported an adequate randomisation procedure. 40 Only three studies explicitly mentioned that assessors were blinded to allocation at the time of outcome determination.…”

Section: We Identified 22 Trials For Possible Inclusion Out Of 4049mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies isolated the effect of exhaled CO measurement on smoking cessation rate 5 35 36 with ORs (95% CI) of 0.73 ( 0.38 to 1.39), 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64) and 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), respectively. Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials [37][38][39] with ORs (95% CI) of 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92), 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46) and 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), respectively. We did not pool these studies because of heterogeneous settings that would preclude the drawing of clinically relevant conclusions.…”

Section: We Identified 22 Trials For Possible Inclusion Out Of 4049mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review

Bize

Burnand²,

Müeller³

et al. 2007

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation. Data sources: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2004) and EMBASE (1980-2004. Study selection: Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria. Data synthesis: Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31). Conclusions: Scarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment. D espite increasing scientific knowledge about health hazards due to cigarette consumption, there is, in many countries, an increase in the prevalence of smoking among young people.1 2 The gap between knowledge and smoking cessation has been attributed, partly, to smokers' underestimation of their personal risks of smoking-related illness. A possible strategy for increasing quit rates might be to provide a personalised feedback on the physical effects of smoking by physiological measurements. We can distinguish three different types of feedback: the first one explores biomarkers of smoking exposure (cotinine and carbon monoxide (CO)); the second one gives information on smokingrelated disease risk (eg, lung cancer susceptibility according to CYP2D6 genotyping) 5 ; and the third one depicts smokingrelated harm (eg, atherosclerotic plaque and impaired lung functions). 6 The rationale for such interventions is to promote risk awareness and motivation to accelerate changes in smoking-behaviour. Individual studies have provided conflicting data on the effect of physiological feedback. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] We aimed to review the data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials using feedback on the physiological effects of smoking or on the genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases. This article is a shortened version of our Cochrane review.

show abstract

Section: We Identified 22 Trials For Possible Inclusion Out Of 4049mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: We Identified 22 Trials For Possible Inclusion Out Of 4049mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review

Bize

Burnand²,

Müeller³

et al. 2007

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the smoking cessation literature there is good evidence that NRT can usefully be supplemented with other techniques, for example, Lando (1977), Lando and McGovern (1982), Killen et al . (1984), Walker and Franzini (1985), Killen et al . (1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using psychological insights to help people quit smoking

Ward

2001

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is highly suggestive that nicotine replacement therapy can be enhanced by the inclusion of psychological techniques in group work, resulting in abstention rates higher than nicotine replacement alone and increasing participant satisfaction. Further work is needed with larger numbers to verify that this is indeed a significant gain and to investigate whether psychological techniques can give longer term benefits.

show abstract

“…Prior research in this area has evaluated the use of ultrasound images of atherosclerotic plaque 11, 12, lung age and respiratory symptom feedback 13, pulmonary functioning feedback 14-18, genetic marker feedback 19, carbon monoxide exposure 16, 17, 19, 20, and spiral CT lung scans 21 to promote smoking cessation; however, the empirical support for using personalized health risk feedback to motivate behavior change is mixed. Several recent literature reviews concluded that there have been too few studies of acceptable methodological quality to draw any firm conclusions about the utility of this approach, both with respect to health behavior change in general 22 and smoking cessation in particular 23-27.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%