The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta-analysis

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P =.007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors

Cancer survivors’ views on digital support for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation

Background: Digital interventions may provide low-threshold support for smoking cessation (SC) and alcohol moderation (AM) to the growing population of cancer survivors. The objective was to explore preconditions of successful AM and SC digital interventions for cancer survivors. Methods: Using a multi-method approach we conducted a survey (n = 240), a qualitative study consisting of four focus groups (n = 15) and semi-structured interviews with Dutch cancer survivors (n = 8). To help interpretation of our results we interviewed experts in the field of eHealth and cancer survivors (n = 6) and we organized an expert meeting (n = 7). Qualitative data were analysed using the Framework approach and were double-coded by two coders. Results: Survey results show the majority of drinkers had not previously considered AM (n = 158, 84.9%), often because they deemed their alcohol use to be non-problematic. All current smokers in the survey had considered SC before. In focus groups and interviews it became clear that SC efforts did not always stem from their own willingness to quit smoking, but originated from a wish to please their social environment. Main themes to be addressed in digital SC and AM that emerged from the interviews and focus groups, centred on the different ways of identification as cancer survivors, need for autonomy, differential beliefs about SC and AM, and the importance of a positive, non-patronizing tone-of-voice. Several specific preferences for digital interventions were formulated, although some cancer survivors prefer no support or face-to-face contact. Conclusions: Cancer survivors are a diverse group with diverse preferences for AM and SC support. Digital AM and SC interventions for cancer survivors are perceived to be of value by some, especially when they incorporate a positive, non-judgemental and non-patronizing tone-of-voice, address concerns specifically relevant to cancer survivors, offer possibilities for personalization, and emphasize autonomy throughout. To encourage AM specifically, problem recognition and awareness of the health benefits of AM should be improved.</p

The Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions Tailored to Smoking Parents of Children Aged 0-18 Years: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction:A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions tailored to parents of children aged 0-18 years. Methods: A systematic search was carried out in PsycInfo, Embase, and PubMed in March 2020. A manual search of the reference lists of the included studies and systematic reviews related to the topic was also performed. Two authors independently screened the studies based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) effect studies with control groups that examine smoking cessation interventions tailored to parents of children (0-18 years), and (2) full-text original articles written in English and published between January 1990 and February 2020. In total, 18 studies were included in the analyses. The TiDieR checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 were used to extract data and to assess the risk of bias. Consensus among authors was reached at each stage. Results: Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. With a total number of 8,560 parents, the pooled relative risk was 1.62 (95% CI 1.38-1.90; p < 0.00001), showing a modest effect of the interventions on smoking cessation. Overall, 13.1% of the parents in the intervention conditions reported abstinence versus 8.4% of the parents in the control conditions. Discussion/Conclusion: Smoking cessation interventions tailored to parents are modestly effective. To increase the effectiveness and the impact of these interventions in terms of controlling tobacco use and public health, it is crucial for further research to explore how these interventions can be improved