BACKGROUND: Adult smoking usually has its roots in adolescence. If individuals do not take up smoking during this period it is unlikely that they ever will. Further, once smoking becomes established, cessation is challenging; the probability of subsequently quitting is inversely proportional to the age of initiation. One novel approach to reducing the prevalence of youth smoking is the use of incentives.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of incentives on preventing children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) from starting to smoke. It was also our intention to assess, where possible, the dose-response of incentives, the costs of incentive programmes, whether incentives are more or less effective in combination with other interventions to prevent smoking initiation, and any unintended consequences arising from the use of incentives.
SEARCH METHODS: For the original review (published 2012) we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CSA databases and PsycINFO for terms relating to incentives, in combination with terms for smoking and tobacco use, and children and adolescents. The most recent searches were of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and were carried out in December 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) as individuals, groups or communities to intervention or control conditions, where the intervention included an incentive aimed at preventing smoking uptake. We also considered controlled trials (CTs) with baseline measures and post-intervention outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted and independently assessed the data. The primary outcome was the smoking status of children or adolescents at follow-up who reported no smoking at baseline. We required a minimum follow-up of six months from baseline and assessed each included study for risks of bias. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial; we did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion. Where possible we combined eligible studies to calculate pooled estimates at the longest follow-up, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, grouping studies by study design.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified three eligible RCTs and five CTs, including participants aged 11 to 14 years, who were non-smokers at baseline. Of the eight trials identified, six had analyzable data relevant for this review, which contributed to meta-analyses (7275 participants in total: 4003 intervention; 3272 control; 2484 participants after adjusting for clustering). All except one of the studies tested the 'Smokefree Class Competition' (SFC), which has been widely implemented throughout Europe. In this competition, classes with youth generally between the ages of 11 and 14 years commit to being smoke-free for a six-month period, and report their smoking status regularly. If 90% or more of the class are non-smokers at the end of the six months, the class goes into a competition to win prizes. The one study that was not a trial of the SFC was a controlled trial in which schools in two communities were assigned to the intervention, with schools in a third community acting as controls. Students in the intervention community with lower smoking rates at the end of the project (one school year) received rewards.Most studies resulted in statistically non-significant results. Only one study of the SFC reported a significant effect of the competition on the prevention of smoking at the longest follow-up. However, this study was at risk of multiple biases, and when we calculated the adjusted risk ratio (RR) we no longer detected a statistically significant difference. The pooled RR for the more robust RCTs (3 studies, n = 3056 participants/1107 adjusted for clustering) suggests that there is no statistically significant effect of incentives, in the form of the SFC, to prevent smoking initiation among children and adolescents in the long term (RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.19). Pooled results from the non-randomized trials also did not detect a significant effect of the SFC, and we were unable to extract data on our outcome of interest from the one trial that did not study the SFC. There is little robust evidence to suggest that unintended consequences (such as making false claims about their smoking status and bullying of smoking students) are consistently associated with such interventions, although this has not been the focus of much research. There was insufficient information to assess the dose-response relationship or to report costs of incentives for preventing smoking uptake.We judged the included RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias, and the non-RCTs to be at high risk of bias. Using GRADE, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our primary outcome as 'low' (for RCTs) and 'very low' (for non-RCTs), because of imprecision (all studies had wide confidence intervals), and for the risks of bias identified. We further downgraded the non-RCT evidence, due to issues with the non-RCT study design, likely to introduce further bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very limited evidence currently available suggests that incentive programmes do not prevent smoking initiation among youth. However, there are relatively few published studies and these are of variable quality. In addition, trials included in the meta-analyses were all studies of the SFC, which distributed small to moderately-sized prizes to whole classes, usually through a lottery system. It is therefore possible that other incentive programmes could be more successful at preventing smoking uptake in young people.Future studies might investigate the efficacy of a wider range of incentives, including those given to individual participants to prevent smoking uptake, whilst considering both the effect of incentives on smoking initiation and the progression to smoking. It would be useful if incentives were evaluated in varying populations from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, and if intervention components were described in detail.
BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.
BACKGROUND: Mass media tobacco control campaigns can reach large numbers of people. Much of the literature is focused on the effects of tobacco control advertising on young people, but there are also a number of evaluations of campaigns targeting adult smokers, which show mixed results. Campaigns may be local, regional or national, and may be combined with other components of a comprehensive tobacco control policy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of mass media interventions in reducing smoking among adults.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group search strategy was combined with additional searches for any studies that referred to tobacco/smoking cessation, mass media and adults. We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and a number of electronic databases. The last search was carried out in November 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials allocating communities, regions or states to intervention or control conditions; interrupted time series.Adults, 25 years or older, who regularly smoke cigarettes. Studies which cover all adults as defined in studies were included.Mass media are defined here as channels of communication such as television, radio, newspapers, billboards, posters, leaflets or booklets intended to reach large numbers of people, and which are not dependent on person-to-person contact. The purpose of the mass media campaign must be primarily to encourage smokers to quit. They could be carried out alone or in conjunction with tobacco control programmes. The primary outcome was change in smoking behaviour. This could be reported as changes in prevalence, changes in cigarette consumption, quit rates, or odds of being a smoker.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed all studies for inclusion criteria and for study quality (MB, LS, RTM). One author (MB) extracted data, and a second author (LS) checked them.Results were not pooled due to heterogeneity of the included studies and are presented narratively and in table form.
MAIN RESULTS: Eleven campaigns met the inclusion criteria for this review. Studies differed in design, settings, duration, content and intensity of intervention, length of follow-up, methods of evaluation and also in definitions and measures of smoking behaviour used. Among seven campaigns reporting smoking prevalence, significant decreases were observed in the California and Massachusetts statewide tobacco control campaigns compared with the rest of the USA. Some positive effects on prevalence in the whole population or in the subgroups were observed in three of the remaining seven studies. Three large-scale campaigns of the seven presenting results for tobacco consumption found statistically significant decreases. Among the eight studies presenting abstinence or quit rates, four showed some positive effect, although in one of them the effect was measured for quitting and cutting down combined. Among the three that did not show significant decreases, one demonstrated a significant intervention effect on smokers and ex-smokers combined.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that comprehensive tobacco control programmes which include mass media campaigns can be effective in changing smoking behaviour in adults, but the evidence comes from a heterogeneous group of studies of variable methodological quality. One state-wide tobacco control programme (Massachusetts) showed positive results up to eight years after the campaign. Another (California) showed positive results during the period of adequate funding and implementation and in final evaluation since the beginning of the programme. Six of nine studies carried out in communities or regions showed some positive effects on smoking behaviour and at least one significant change in smoking prevalence (Sydney). The intensity and duration of mass media campaigns may influence effectiveness, but length of follow-up and concurrent secular trends and events can make this difficult to quantify. No consistent relationship was observed between campaign effectiveness and age, education, ethnicity or gender.
BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and the smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. Since the first version of this review in 2010, more countries have introduced national smoking legislation banning indoor smoking.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of legislative smoking bans on (1) morbidity and mortality from exposure to secondhand smoke, and (2) smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and reference lists of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; February 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans affecting populations. The minimum standard was having an indoor smoking ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. Our search included a broad range of research designs including: randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author extracted characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies and a second author checked the details. We extracted health and smoking behaviour outcomes. We did not attempt a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in design and content of the studies included. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS: There are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.
OBJECTIVE: The Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center systematically reviewed evidence about smoking cessation interventions in pregnant and postpartum women.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, and PsycINFO® for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions and prospective studies on patient characteristics published in English.
REVIEW METHODS: We dually reviewed abstracts and full texts. Studies were excluded if they did not address a Key Question, were not an eligible study design, or did not report biochemically validated smoking cessation outcomes. Data were extracted into evidence tables and summarized qualitatively. A meta-analysis of effectiveness data assessed relative impact of components in smoking cessation interventions.
RESULTS: We included 59 unique studies reported in 72 publications. Of the 56 RCTs, 13 were good, 15 fair, and 28 poor quality. Studies evaluated counseling-based interventions, educational materials, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), peer support, multicomponent interventions, and other unique interventions. Multicomponent approaches were most likely to be effective, but results were inconsistent. In the meta-analysis, incentives demonstrated the strongest effect; other components with a greater than 80-percent likelihood of success were feedback about biologic measures, information, personal followup, NRT, and quit guides. Findings regarding infant outcomes were inconsistent or did not reach statistical significance. No serious harms were identified in four studies that reported adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Across interventions, data are sparse to evaluate sustained cessation among pregnant and postpartum women. This review suggests that approaches that combine multiple components will have the best likelihood of success. Selecting which components to include is more complex and should be based on the particular considerations of the clinical setting, including patient characteristics and resource allocation, but incentives demonstrated the greatest effect among components studied. Infant outcomes are limited to data collected at time of birth; no studies assessed longer term or child outcomes. Harms data were rarely reported.
The benefits of preventing smoking onset are well known. Existing reviews clearly demonstrate that increasing the prices of tobacco products reduces smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption. However, only a small number of studies included in existing reviews have examined smoking onset (the transition between never smoking and smoking). Moreover, existing reviews provide limited quality assessment of the data and methods utilised. This paper systematically searches for and critically reviews studies that examine the impact of tobacco prices or taxes on smoking onset. Most studies reviewed have important methodological limitations, including recall bias; a general failure to apply diagnostic tests, to discuss the choice of estimators and distributional assumptions and to conduct sensitivity analysis; and a reliance on empirical approaches that are methodologically weak. On the whole, existing studies do not provide strong evidence that tobacco prices or taxes affect smoking onset.
BACKGROUND: Germany's 16 states regulate smoking differently within health protection principles laid down in the federal law. All state smoke-free laws in Germany have undergone at least one change since taking effect.
METHODS: We systematically review federal and state laws regulating smoking, as well as petitions, popular initiatives and referenda that aimed at changing statutory smoking bans. Data generated through the systematic review were correlated with state smoking rates.
RESULTS: The protection from the dangers of secondhand smoke is the primary motive for smoking bans in Germany. The first smoke-free laws affecting smoking in pubs, restaurants and several other public places were introduced in 2007. In 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled in a leading decision on the smoke-free laws of two states that some common smoking ban exemptions of the introduced smoke-free laws violate the basic right to freely exercise a profession and mandated revisions. All states but Bavaria and Saarland, whose smoking bans were more and less comprehensive than those judged by the constitutional court, respectively, needed to change the smoking ban exemptions to reconcile their smoke-free laws with the constitution. Direct democracy initiatives to change smoking bans were only successful in Bavaria in 2010, but a total of 15 initiatives by citizens' or interest groups attempted to influence non-smokers protection legislation through direct democratic procedures. Early ratification of a smoking ban in a federal state correlates with a higher reduction in the smoking rate from 2005 to 2009 (Spearman's ρ = 0.51, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: The federal government structure and direct democratic participation in smoke-free legislation in Germany has produced a diversity of local smoking bans and exemptions.
BACKGROUND: The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking.
2. To collect and evaluate data on costs and cost effectiveness associated with workplace interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (July 2013), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2013), EMBASE (1985 - June 2013), and PsycINFO (to June 2013), amongst others. We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces, or companies to intervention or control conditions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author extracted information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the studies, and a second author checked them. For this update we have conducted meta-analyses of the main interventions, using the generic inverse variance method to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
MAIN RESULTS: We include 57 studies (61 comparisons) in this updated review. We found 31 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and social support, and 30 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole, i.e. environmental cues, incentives, and comprehensive programmes. The trials were generally of moderate to high quality, with results that were consistent with those found in other settings. Group therapy programmes (odds ratio (OR) for cessation 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants), individual counselling (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants), pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.11; five trials, 1092 participants), and multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.82; six trials, 1906 participants), and two relapse prevention programmes (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term abstinence. Incentives did not appear to improve the odds of quitting, apart from one study which found a sustained positive benefit. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors reduced the prevalence of smoking.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 1. We found strong evidence that some interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling, pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction, and multiple interventions targeting smoking cessation as the primary or only outcome. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.
2. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors in reducing the prevalence of smoking, although this finding was not based on meta-analysed data.
3. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer, although one trial demonstrated a sustained effect of financial rewards for attending a smoking cessation course and for long-term quitting. Further research is needed to establish which components of this trial contributed to the improvement in success rates.
4. Further research would be valuable in low-income and developing countries, where high rates of smoking prevail and smoke-free legislation is not widely accepted or enforced.
BACKGROUND: Smoke-free legislation has the potential to reduce the substantive disease burden associated with second-hand smoke exposure, particularly in children. We investigated the effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health.
METHODS: We searched 14 online databases from January, 1975 to May, 2013, with no language restrictions, for published studies, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies. Citations and reference lists of articles of interest were screened and an international expert panel was contacted to identify additional studies. We included studies undertaken with designs approved by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care that reported associations between smoking bans in workplaces, public places, or both, and one or more predefined early-life health indicator. The primary outcomes were preterm birth, low birthweight, and hospital attendances for asthma. Effect estimates were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42013003522.
FINDINGS: We identified 11 eligible studies (published 2008-13), involving more than 2·5 million births and 247,168 asthma exacerbations. All studies used interrupted time-series designs. Five North American studies described local bans and six European studies described national bans. Risk of bias was high for one study, moderate for six studies, and low for four studies. Smoke-free legislation was associated with reductions in preterm birth (four studies, 1,366,862 individuals; -10·4% [95% CI -18·8 to -2·0]; p=0·016) and hospital attendances for asthma (three studies, 225,753 events: -10·1% [95% CI -15·2 to -5·0]; p=0·0001). No significant effect on low birthweight was identified (six studies, >1·9 million individuals: -1·7% [95% CI -5·1 to 1·6]; p=0·31).
INTERPRETATION: Smoke-free legislation is associated with substantial reductions in preterm births and hospital attendance for asthma. Together with the health benefits in adults, this study provides strong support for WHO recommendations to create smoke-free environments.
FUNDING: Thrasher Fund, Lung Foundation Netherlands, International Paediatric Research Foundation, Maastricht University, Commonwealth Fund.
