PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the uses, outcomes and implementation of interactive voice response (IVR) as a tobacco cessation intervention.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on 3 May 2023. The strategies used keywords such as \"tobacco cessation\", \"smoking reduction\" and \"interactive voice recording\". Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Grey literature searches were also conducted.
METHODS: Titles and abstracts were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if IVR was an intervention for tobacco cessation for adults; any outcomes were reported and study design was comparative. Any abstract included by either reviewer proceeded to full-text review. Full texts were reviewed by two independent reviewers.
METHODS: Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. The Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were used to assess study quality.
RESULTS: Of 308 identified abstracts, 20 moderate-quality to low-quality studies were included. IVR was used standalone or adjunctly as a treatment, follow-up or risk-assessment tool across populations including general smokers, hospitalised patients, quitline users, perinatal women, patients with cancer and veteran smokers. Effective studies found that IVR was delivered more frequently with shorter follow-up times. Significant gaps in the literature include a lack of population diversity, limited implementation settings and delivery schedules, and limited patient and provider perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: While the evidence is weak, IVR appears to be a promising intervention for tobacco cessation. However, pilot programmes and research addressing literature gaps are necessary.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on 3 May 2023. The strategies used keywords such as \"tobacco cessation\", \"smoking reduction\" and \"interactive voice recording\". Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Grey literature searches were also conducted.
METHODS: Titles and abstracts were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if IVR was an intervention for tobacco cessation for adults; any outcomes were reported and study design was comparative. Any abstract included by either reviewer proceeded to full-text review. Full texts were reviewed by two independent reviewers.
METHODS: Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. The Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were used to assess study quality.
RESULTS: Of 308 identified abstracts, 20 moderate-quality to low-quality studies were included. IVR was used standalone or adjunctly as a treatment, follow-up or risk-assessment tool across populations including general smokers, hospitalised patients, quitline users, perinatal women, patients with cancer and veteran smokers. Effective studies found that IVR was delivered more frequently with shorter follow-up times. Significant gaps in the literature include a lack of population diversity, limited implementation settings and delivery schedules, and limited patient and provider perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: While the evidence is weak, IVR appears to be a promising intervention for tobacco cessation. However, pilot programmes and research addressing literature gaps are necessary.
摘要：
目的：为了总结其用途，结果和实施交互式语音应答(IVR)作为戒烟干预措施。
方法：进行系统评价。搜索于2023年5月3日进行。这些策略使用了关键词，如“戒烟”，“减少吸烟”和“交互式录音”。OvidMEDLINE所有,Embase,APAPsycINFO,CINAHL,搜索了Cochrane图书馆和WebofScience。还进行了灰色文献检索。
方法：标题和摘要由两名独立的评审员进行评估。如果IVR是成人戒烟的干预措施，则纳入研究；报告了任何结果，研究设计是比较的。任一审阅者所包含的任何摘要都进行了全文审阅。全文由两名独立审稿人审查。
方法：数据由两名评审员使用标准化形式独立提取。使用随机试验的偏倚工具的风险和干预工具的非随机研究中的偏倚风险来评估研究质量。
结果：在308个确定的摘要中，纳入20项中等质量至低质量的研究。IVR单独或辅助作为治疗使用，包括一般吸烟者在内的人群的随访或风险评估工具，住院患者,quitline用户，围产期妇女，癌症患者和老吸烟者。有效的研究发现，IVR的交付频率更高，随访时间更短。文献中的重大差距包括缺乏人口多样性，有限的实施设置和交付时间表，以及有限的患者和提供者观点。
结论：虽然证据不足，IVR似乎是一种有希望的戒烟干预措施。然而,解决文献空白的试点计划和研究是必要的。
方法：进行系统评价。搜索于2023年5月3日进行。这些策略使用了关键词，如“戒烟”，“减少吸烟”和“交互式录音”。OvidMEDLINE所有,Embase,APAPsycINFO,CINAHL,搜索了Cochrane图书馆和WebofScience。还进行了灰色文献检索。
方法：标题和摘要由两名独立的评审员进行评估。如果IVR是成人戒烟的干预措施，则纳入研究；报告了任何结果，研究设计是比较的。任一审阅者所包含的任何摘要都进行了全文审阅。全文由两名独立审稿人审查。
方法：数据由两名评审员使用标准化形式独立提取。使用随机试验的偏倚工具的风险和干预工具的非随机研究中的偏倚风险来评估研究质量。
结果：在308个确定的摘要中，纳入20项中等质量至低质量的研究。IVR单独或辅助作为治疗使用，包括一般吸烟者在内的人群的随访或风险评估工具，住院患者,quitline用户，围产期妇女，癌症患者和老吸烟者。有效的研究发现，IVR的交付频率更高，随访时间更短。文献中的重大差距包括缺乏人口多样性，有限的实施设置和交付时间表，以及有限的患者和提供者观点。
结论：虽然证据不足，IVR似乎是一种有希望的戒烟干预措施。然而,解决文献空白的试点计划和研究是必要的。
