OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to systematically scope the evidence on opportunistic tobacco smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register to 21 March 2023. We duplicate screened 20% of titles/abstracts and all full texts. We included primary studies investigating smoking cessation interventions delivered opportunistically to people who smoked tobacco, within settings offering support for problems caused by financial hardship, for example homeless support services, social housing and food banks. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by another and narratively synthesized.
RESULTS: We included 25 studies conducted in a range of financial support settings using qualitative (e.g. interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (e.g. randomized controlled trials, surveys and single arm intervention studies) methodologies. Evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of opportunistic smoking cessation advice was investigated among both clients and providers. Approximately 90% of service providers supported such interventions; however, lack of resources, staff training and a belief that tobacco smoking reduced illicit substance use were perceived barriers. Clients welcomed being asked about smoking and offered assistance to quit and expressed interest in interventions including the provision of nicotine replacement therapy, e-cigarettes and incentives to quit smoking. Six studies investigated the comparative effectiveness of opportunistic smoking cessation interventions on quitting success, with five comparing more to less intensive interventions, with mixed results.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies investigating opportunistic smoking cessation interventions in financial support settings have not measured their effectiveness. Where they have, settings, populations, interventions and findings have varied. There is more evidence investigating acceptability, with promising results.

OBJECTIVE: To review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of text message-based interventions for smoking cessation, including the effects of dose (number of text messages) and concomitant use of behavioural or pharmacological interventions.
METHODS: We searched seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science), Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant publications for RCTs. Eligible studies included participants aged ≥15 years who smoked tobacco at enrolment.
METHODS: One reviewer screened titles and abstracts and two reviewers independently screened full texts of articles.
METHODS: One of three reviewers independently extracted data on study and intervention characteristics and smoking abstinence rates using Qualtrics software.
RESULTS: 30 of the 40 included studies reported higher rates of smoking cessation among those receiving text messaging interventions compared with comparators, but only 10 were statistically significant. A meta-analysis of seven RCTs found that participants receiving text messages were significantly more likely to quit smoking compared with participants in no/minimal intervention or \'usual care\' conditions (risk ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.29, p <0.001). Three trials found no benefit from a higher dose of text messages on smoking cessation. Two trials that tested the added benefit of text messaging to pharmacotherapy reported outcomes in favour of adding text messaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that text messaging-based interventions are effective at promoting smoking cessation. Further research is required to establish if any additional benefit is gained from an increased number of text messages or concurrent pharmacotherapy or behavioural counselling.

Tobacco consumption is an area of public health concern in India. One of the unmet needs of many low-resource countries is to provide cost-effective tobacco cessation interventions for reducing tobacco-related mortality. This article reviews studies on non-pharmacological interventions for tobacco cessation in India. A systematic review by PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) of behavioural intervention-based tobacco cessation studies that met the inclusion criteria, with a minimum 1-month follow-up, reporting outcomes in terms of frequencies or percentages published between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Following the review stages, 16 studies comprising 9,613 participants were included in the review. A pooled estimate was derived using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. The intervention showed good overall efficacy for any tobacco user (relative risk [RR] = 1.73 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58-1.90) (fixed-effect model)] and (RR = 2.02 [95% CI: 1.64-2.48] [random-effects model]). Behavioural intervention studies targeted towards only smokers (RR of 1.81 [95% CI: 1.55-2.11] and 1.96 [95% CI: 1.52-2.53]) and combined smoking and smokeless tobacco users (RR of 1.69 [95% CI: 1.50-1.90] and 2.12 [95% CI: 1.49-3.01]) were equally efficacious. The review provides the effectiveness of behavioural interventions in quitting tobacco among users of both smoking and smokeless forms of tobacco. The review findings are of particular significance to inform health policy decisions on the integration of cost-effective brief behavioural intervention into existing health care services in resource-constrained countries.

Current US lung cancer screening recommendations limit eligibility to adults with a pack-year (PY) history of ≥20 years and the first 15 years since quit (YSQ). The authors conducted a systematic review to better understand lung cancer incidence, risk and mortality among otherwise eligible individuals in this population beyond 15 YSQ. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched through February 14, 2023, and relevant articles were searched by hand. Included studies examined the relationship between adults with both a ≥20-PY history and ≥15 YSQ and lung cancer diagnosis, mortality, and screening ineligibility. One investigator abstracted data and a second confirmed. Two investigators independently assessed study quality and certainty of evidence (COE) and resolved discordance through consensus. From 2636 titles, 22 studies in 26 articles were included. Three studies provided low COE of elevated lung cancer incidence beyond 15 YSQ, as compared with people who never smoked, and six studies provided moderate COE that the risk of a lung cancer diagnosis after 15 YSQ declines gradually, but with no clinically significant difference just before and after 15 YSQ. Studies examining lung cancer-related disparities suggest that outcomes after 15 YSQ were similar between African American/Black and White participants; increasing YSQ would expand eligibility for African American/Black individuals, but for a significantly larger proportion of White individuals. The authors observed that the risk of lung cancer not only persists beyond 15 YSQ but that, compared with individuals who never smoked, the risk may remain significantly elevated for 2 or 3 decades. Future research of nationally representative samples with consistent reporting across studies is needed, as are better data from which to examine the effects on health disparities across different populations.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review of systematic reviews with an update of the existing evidence relating to a broad range of smoking cessation interventions, including psycho-social, digital and pharmacologic interventions, for pregnant women.
UNASSIGNED: Search was conducted in March 2022 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane in two stages: 1) a search of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published from January 2012 through January 2022; 2) an update of those that fulfilled eligibility criteria reproducing the primary search strategy.
METHODS: We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological, digital, and psychosocial interventions in aged 18 years and over who were daily smokers, and compared these with routine care, less intense interventions or placebo.
METHODS: Data from eligible studies were manually extracted by two authors and reviewed by a third. The quality of the reviews was evaluated using the AMSTAR scale, and risk of bias was measured with the Rob-2 tool and GRADE level of evidence.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 63 RCTs (n = 19849 women). The interventions found to be effective were: financial incentives (RR:1.77; 95%CI:1.21-2.58), counseling (RR:1.27; 95%CI:1.13-1.43) and long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR:1.53; 95%CI:1.16-2.01). Short-term NRT, bupropion, digital interventions, feedback, social support, and exercise showed no effectiveness. The GRADE level of evidence was moderate-to-high for all interventions, with the exception of long-term NRT.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are the most effective for pregnant women. The moderator analysis suggests that pregnant women of low socioeconomic status might benefit less from smoking cessation interventions than women of a high socioeconomic status. These women are usually heavier smokers that live in pro-smoking environments and could require more intensive and targeted interventions.

UNASSIGNED: Tobacco smoking is one of the main preventable causes of illness and premature death. Globally, more than 7 million people die annually from diseases associated with smoking, and this number is projected to increase to 8 million per year by 2030. Wide disparities in smoking prevalence exist by gender, age, socioeconomic status, rurality and ethnicity. In several countries, smoking is disproportionately high among the Indigenous populations.
UNASSIGNED: This review assesses the prevalence and harm of smoking and current trends in smoking cessation among the diverse multi-ethnic populations of Russia, with a particular emphasis on Indigenous populations.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched health, nursing, social science and grey literature databases and bibliographies for relevant studies. Search strings combined keywords related to smoking prevalence and smoking cessation with keywords related to Russia and the Indigenous populations of Russia.
UNASSIGNED: Studies were included if they were published between 1 January 2005 and 14 October 2020, and if they reported prevalence of tobacco smoking and/or activities and outcomes of a smoking cessation programme or ban in the Russian Federation.
UNASSIGNED: Tobacco smoking is significant in the entire Russian population, a higher prevalence of smoking in Indigenous populations compared to the dominant Russian (Slavic) ethnic group is common. Smoking prevalence data for most of the Indigenous ethnic groups of Russia remains unclear. Tobacco control interventions for Indigenous groups are underdeveloped even though they have the potential to deliver proportionately greater reduction in smoking harm.

BACKGROUND: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), commonly called e-cigarettes, have been examined in clinical studies for their effects on tobacco smoking cessation. In the past 2 years, a dozen or more systematic reviews on ENDS and cigarette smoking cessation have been published that present differing conclusions and recommendations on the use of ENDS.
OBJECTIVE: Our umbrella review aims to synthesize the findings from current systematic reviews to investigate the quit rates and the percentage of participants abstinent from cigarette smoking using ENDS. Additionally, we will examine the quit rates with ENDS in comparison to other established cessation treatments.
METHODS: The search will retrieve systematic reviews that include both clinical trials and experimental studies on the use of ENDS for smoking cessation. We will also include nonrandomized cohort studies that track ENDS use and the subsequent abstinence from smoking. Databases searches will be conducted in Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and 7 additional registries. Secondary searches will include reference checking, citation chasing, and consultations with topic experts. Two reviewers will perform a title and abstract exclusion followed by a full-paper inclusion process. Data extraction will be conducted by 1 reviewer and completely checked by a second reviewer. Each systematic review will be assessed by 2 reviewers for methodological quality using AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2) and for reporting bias using categories from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine\'s Catalogue of Bias. Unreported discrepancies between the protocol and the published review will be identified.
RESULTS: The umbrella review started on March 1, 2023. At the time of publication, the study selection was being conducted and the pilot testing of the data extraction and bias assessment forms were in progress. The review is expected to be completed by December 31, 2023, followed by the submission of the review for journal publication. A second-order meta-analysis will calculate the range and average of quit rates for ENDS. A vote counting of the direction of effect, based on quit rates, will be used to present the relative effectiveness of ENDS for smoking cessation compared to other cessation treatments (including no treatment). A citation matrix will list primary studies with their bias ratings from all the systematic reviews. The effect of overlapping studies between the systematic reviews will be calculated using the corrected coverage area analysis. A sensitivity analysis will examine the impact of the intensity of cessation treatment on quit rates. Depending on the availability of data, subgroup analyses will be conducted based on participants\' gender, age, prior quit attempts, and nicotine dependence. The strength or weakness of the evidence synthesis will be assessed using a stratification of evidence technique. Reporting bias will be presented with a tabulation of bias indicators. Publication bias will be assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ENDS for smoking cessation is a highly controversial subject. Through an exhaustive synthesis of the available data, we will present the quit rates of cigarette smoking cessation obtained with ENDS and how they compare to quit rates obtained from other established cessation treatments. The critical quality and bias assessment of the systematic reviews will indicate the most reliable sources to inform treatment considerations and policy development.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42023406165; https://tinyurl.com/4ekzpbrj.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/47711.

Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable death, and identifying novel treatment approaches to promote smoking cessation is critical for improving public health. With the rise of digital health and mobile apps, these tools offer potential opportunities to address smoking cessation, yet the functionality of these apps and whether they offer scientifically based support for smoking cessation are unknown.
The goal of this research was to use the American Psychiatric Association app evaluation model to evaluate the top-returned apps from Android and Apple app store platforms related to smoking cessation and investigate the common app features available for end users.
We conducted a search of both Android and iOS app stores in July 2021 for apps related to the keywords \"smoking,\" \"tobacco,\" \"smoke,\" and \"cigarette\" to evaluate apps for smoking cessation. Apps were screened for relevance, and trained raters identified and analyzed features, including accessibility (ie, cost), privacy, clinical foundation, and features of the apps, using a systematic framework of 105 objective questions from the American Psychiatric Association app evaluation model. All app rating data were deposited in mindapps, a publicly accessible database that is continuously updated every 6 months given the dynamic nature of apps available in the marketplace. We characterized apps available in July 2021 and November 2022.
We initially identified 389 apps, excluded 161 due to irrelevance and nonfunctioning, and rated 228, including 152 available for Android platforms and 120 available for iOS platforms. Some of the top-returned apps (71/228, 31%) in 2021 were no longer functioning in 2022. Our analysis of rated apps revealed limitations in accessibility and features. While most apps (179/228, 78%) were free to download, over half had costs associated with in-app purchases or full use. Less than 65% (149/228) had a privacy policy addressing the data collected in the app. In terms of intervention features, more than 56% (128/228) of apps allowed the user to set and check in on goals, and more than 46% (106/228) of them provided psychoeducation, although few apps provided evidence-based support for smoking cessation, such as peer support or skill training, including mindfulness and deep breathing, and even fewer provided evidence-based interventions, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy. Only 12 apps in 2021 and 11 in 2022 had published studies supporting the feasibility or efficacy for smoking cessation.
Numerous smoking cessation apps were identified, but analysis revealed limitations, including high rates of irrelevant and nonfunctioning apps, high rates of turnover, and few apps providing evidence-based support for smoking cessation. Thus, it may be challenging for consumers to identify relevant, evidence-based apps to support smoking cessation in the app store, and a comprehensive evaluation system of mental health apps is critically important.

The present study addresses the need to synthesize the findings in the current literature on e-cigarette use cessation.
PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched in November 2022 to systematically review studies focused on intentions, attempts, and successful e-cigarette use cessation. Three authors independently reviewed the full-texts of the initial pool of potentially eligible articles. Narrative data synthesis was conducted, and the risk of bias was evaluated.
A total of 12 studies were selected for review, 7 of which were experimental and 5longitudinal. The majority of the studies focused on participants\' intentions to quit e-cigarette use. The experimental studies varied in sample size, intervention type, and length of participant follow-up. Findings across the experimental studies were mixed, with only one full-fledged trial having examined cessation as an outcome. The experimental studies that assessed cessation outcomes utilized mobile technology as an intervention tool. Results from longitudinal studies indicated sociodemographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity), vaping frequency, and cigarette smoking status as predictors of intentions, attempts and e-cigarette use cessation.
This review highlights the current paucity of methodologically rigorous research on e-cigarette use cessation. Our findings suggest that vaping cessation programs that employ mobile health technology to provide personalized cessation services may help promote intentions, attempts, and e-cigarette use cessation. Limitations of the current studies on vaping cessation include small sample sizes, heterogeneous cohorts that limit comparisons, and inconsistent ways of assessing vaping cessation. Future research needs to test long-term intervention effects using experimental and prospective designs among representative samples.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesise the findings of modelling studies on the population impacts of e-cigarette use and to identify potential gaps requiring future investigation.
METHODS: Four databases were searched for modelling studies of e-cigarette use on population health published between 2010 and 2023. A total of 32 studies were included.
METHODS: Data on study characteristics, model attributes and estimates of population impacts including health outcomes and smoking prevalence were extracted from each article. The findings were synthesised narratively.
RESULTS: The introduction of e-cigarettes was predicted to lead to decreased smoking-related mortality, increased quality-adjusted life-years and reduced health system costs in 29 studies. Seventeen studies predicted a lower prevalence of cigarette smoking. Models that predicted negative population impacts assumed very high e-cigarette initiation rates among non-smokers and that e-cigarette use would discourage smoking cessation by a large margin. The majority of the studies were based on US population data and few studies included factors other than smoking status, such as jurisdictional tobacco control policies or social influence.
CONCLUSIONS: A population increase in e-cigarette use may result in lower smoking prevalence and reduced burden of disease in the long run, especially if their use can be restricted to assisting smoking cessation. Given the assumption-dependent nature of modelling outcomes, future modelling studies should consider incorporating different policy options in their projection exercises, using shorter time horizons and expanding their modelling to low-income and middle-income countries where smoking rates remain relatively high.