Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

Vh, Rice; Stead, Lindsay F

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001188

Cited by 106 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Brief advice by a physician leads to a small but significant increase in the odds of quitting smoking (odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.45 -1.98), which represents a difference between the BI and ''usual care'' control group of about 2.5% [4]. Similar findings have been shown in a meta-analysis of interventions delivered by nurses, where the increase in the odds of quitting was reported as 1.43 [5]. Brief interventions may also be effective in promoting other changes in lifestyle, such as dietary behaviour and exercise, although the findings are less robust than those for smoking and alcohol reduction [6].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

A systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions with substance using adolescents by type of drug

Tait¹,

Hulse²

2003

Drug and Alcohol Review

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of brief interventions (BI) with adolescents (mean age <20) in reducing alcohol, tobacco or other drug (ATOD) use by means of a systematic review of BI for adolescent substance use in the English language literature up to 2002. We identified 11 studies involving 3734 adolescents. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 24 months. Motivational interviewing was the predominant approach, underpinning eight studies: the remaining three provided personalized health information. Seven papers reported outcomes for alcohol interventions and four involved other substances (including one with separate alcohol outcomes). The overall effect size was d=0.126 with borderline homogeneity (Q=14.9, df=9, p=0.09). The effect size from the eight alcohol interventions (n=1,075) was classified as significant but "small" (d=0.275). The remaining non-alcohol studies were considered separately as interventions involving tobacco or multiple substance use. The two interventions with tobacco involved a substantial sample (n=2,626) but had a very small effect (d=0.037), while the two interventions addressing multiple substances involved few participants (n=110) but had a medium-large effect (d=0.78). Across a diverse range of settings (dental clinic, schools, universities, substance treatment centres) and, therefore, probably diverse clients, BI conferred benefits to adolescent substance users. BI had a small effect on alcohol consumption and related measures. The data for tobacco interventions suggested a very small reduction, particularly with general community interventions. The effect of BI with multiple substances appears substantial but the small sample cautions against expansive generalization.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

A systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions with substance using adolescents by type of drug

Tait¹,

Hulse²

2003

Drug and Alcohol Review

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings of the CHR appear contrary to clinical literature, predominantly from primary care. Low intensity or minimal interventions were found to significantly increase patient cessation in both the Cochrane review of physician advice for smoking cessation (OR 1.69, CI 1.45 -1.98) [15] and the Cochrane review of nursing interventions for smoking cessation (OR 1.67, CI 1.14 -2.45) [16]. Similarly, based on a meta-analysis, the US Department of Health and Human Services Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend brief cessation intervention during every contact with a smoking patient [12].…”

Section: Smoking Cessation Interventions For In-patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, based on a meta-analysis, the US Department of Health and Human Services Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend brief cessation intervention during every contact with a smoking patient [12]. As can be seen in Table 2, minimal interventions described in the Cochrane review of physician advice for smoking cessation [15] and the Cochrane review of nursing interventions for smoking cessation [16] are of a reduced intensity in comparison to the 'low intensity' group of studies described in the CHR. While no interventions included in the CHR were of a similar intensity to the minimal interventions described in the Cochrane reviews of physician and nursing interventions [15,16], it is unlikely that such interventions will be effective in hospitals.…”

Section: Smoking Cessation Interventions For In-patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Physiological feedback: the CHR did not investigate the effectiveness of incorporating physiological feedback as a cessation adjunct [13]. However, an analysis of two studies by the Cochrane review of nursing interventions for smoking cessation suggests that within clinical settings, the addition of physiological feedback to cessation interventions does not improve patient cessation rates (OR 0.79, CI 0.44 -1.44) [16]. Similarly, a Cochrane review of physician advice for smoking cessation concluded from indirect comparison, that the use of smoking cessation aids (such as pulmonary function tests, demonstrations of expired air carbon monoxide and selfhelp manuals), does not appear to enhance the effectiveness of physician cessation advice [15].…”

Section: Smoking Cessation Interventions For In-patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other clinical research recognizes that a range of health professionals can provide successful interventions to patients. The Cochrane review of nursing interventions for smoking cessation found that intervention delivered by nurses increased the odds of quitting significantly compared to usual care (OR 1.50, CI 1.29 -1.73) [16]. Furthermore, meta-analysis by Fiore, on behalf of the US Department of Health and Human Services, indicates that a variety of health professionals, including physicians, nurses, dentists and psychologists can increase cessation rates of their patients [12].…”

Section: Does Diagnosis Influence the Response Of The Patient To Intementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Smoking cessation interventions for in‐patients: a selective review with recommendations for hospital‐based health professionals

Wolfenden

Campbell

Walsh

et al. 2003

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A selective review of the literature was conducted to provide evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of hospitalized smokers. The Cochrane library, in particular the Cochrane review of 'Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients', was the basis for the review and was supplemented with other clinical and non-clinical literature where the review did not inform clinicians sufficiently. Evidence was reviewed on issues considered by the authors to be of importance to health professionals interested in providing a smoking cessation intervention to their patients. The review suggests that effective hospital interventions: incorporate an in-patient intervention lasting greater than 20 minutes in duration with extended post discharge follow-up; consist of at least five intervention contacts; and be delivered over at least a 3-month period. Furthermore, interventions should include in-patient advice and counselling, the provision of nicotine replacement therapy and extended proactive post discharge telephone support. The review also indicates that cessation interventions are particularly effective when delivered to patients with a cardiovascular diagnosis. All health professionals may be effective in providing cessation treatments; however, the addition of a specialist smoking cessation counsellor appears to improve interventions in this setting. Finally, without the development of supportive systems, routine intervention with smoking patients by health professionals is unlikely. Recommendations for the delivery of effective smoking cessation interventions in hospitals are provided. [Wolfenden L, Campbell E, Walsh RA, Wiggers J. Smoking cessation interventions for in-patients: a selective review with recommendations for hospital-based health professionals.

show abstract

Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons

Force¹,

Krist

Davidson

et al. 2021

JAMA

308

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the US. In 2014, it was estimated that 480 000 deaths annually are attributed to cigarette smoking, including second hand smoke exposure. Smoking during pregnancy can increase the risk of numerous adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, miscarriage and congenital anomalies) and complications in the offspring (including sudden infant death syndrome and impaired lung function in childhood). In 2019, an estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8% of the adult population) used tobacco; 14.0% of the US adult population currently smoked cigarettes and 4.5% of the adult population used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Among pregnant US women who gave birth in 2016, 7.2% reported smoking cigarettes while pregnant.OBJECTIVE To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary care interventions on tobacco use cessation in adults, including pregnant persons.POPULATION This recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older, including pregnant persons. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENTThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions and US Food and Drug Associated (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapy for tobacco smoking cessation, alone or combined, in nonpregnant adults who smoke is substantial. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions for tobacco smoking cessation on perinatal outcomes and smoking cessation in pregnant persons is substantial. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons is insufficient because few studies are available, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons, is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF has identified the lack of well-designed, randomized clinical trials on e-cigarettes that report smoking abstinence or adverse events as a critical gap in the evidence. RECOMMENDATIONSThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions and FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for cessation to nonpregnant adults who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant persons about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions for cessation to pregnant persons who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco cessation in pregnant persons. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant ...

show abstract

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

Cited by 106 publications

References 0 publications

A systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions with substance using adolescents by type of drug

A systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions with substance using adolescents by type of drug

Smoking cessation interventions for in‐patients: a selective review with recommendations for hospital‐based health professionals

Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About