BACKGROUND: About 1.35 million deaths annually are attributed to tobacco use in India. The main challenge, given the magnitude of tobacco use and limited resources, is delivering cessation support at scale, low cost, and through a coordinated cross-system effort; one such example being brief advice interventions. However, highly credentialed staff to identify and counsel tobacco users are scarce. Task-shifting is an important opportunity for scaling these interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The LifeFirst SWASTH (Supporting Wellbeing among Adults by Stopping Tobacco Habit) program-adapted from the LifeFirst program (developed by the Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation, Mumbai, India)-is a tobacco cessation program focusing on lower-socioeconomic status patients in Mumbai receiving private health care. This parallel-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial investigates whether the LifeFirst SWASTH program increases tobacco cessation rates in low-resource, high-reach health care settings in Mumbai.
METHODS: This study will target tuberculosis-specific nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), dental clinics, and NGOs implementing general health programs serving lower-socioeconomic status patients. Intervention arm patients will receive a pamphlet explaining tobacco\'s harmful effects. Practitioners will be trained to deliver brief cessation advice, and interested patients will be referred to a Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation counselor for free telephone counseling for 6 months. Control arm patients will receive the same pamphlet but not brief advice or counseling. Practitioners will have a customized mobile app to facilitate intervention delivery. Practitioners will also have access to a peer network through WhatsApp. The primary outcome is a 30-day point prevalence abstinence from tobacco. Secondary outcomes for patients and practitioners relate to intervention implementation.
RESULTS: The study was funded in June 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study experienced some delays, and practitioner recruitment commenced in November 2023. As of July 2024, all practitioners have been recruited, and practitioner recruitment and training are complete. Furthermore, 36% (1687/4688) of patients have been recruited.
CONCLUSIONS: It is hypothesized that those patients who participated in the LifeFirst SWASTH program will be more likely to have been abstinent from tobacco for 30 consecutive days by the end of 6 months or at least decreased their tobacco use. LifeFirst SWASTH, if found to be effective in terms of cessation outcomes and implementation, has the potential to be scaled to other settings in India and other low- and middle-income countries. The study will be conducted in low-resource settings and will reach many patients, which will increase the impact if scaled. It will use task-shifting and an app that can be tailored to different settings, also enabling scalability. Findings will build the literature for translating evidence-based interventions from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries and from high- to low-resource settings.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05234983; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05234983.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/57236.

BACKGROUND: Mobile Health (mHealth), leveraging nearly 4.5 billion people actively use mobile phone and internet, can be crucial in promoting tobacco cessation. This umbrella review aimed to assess the effectiveness of mobile phone applications in achieving this outcome.
METHODS: Searches were conducted in databases like Medline, EMBASE, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library from their inception till June 2022, without language restriction. Quality assessment was carried out using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The narrative synthesis findings were presented in terms of the overall effect size reported by the individual systematic review along with the heterogeneity measures and risk of bias assessment findings.
RESULTS: We included 11 reviews, most of which had critical weaknesses in certain domains. Among these, three reviews conducted meta-analyses providing pooled estimates, but the effect sizes were non-significant and imprecise, indicating that mobile phone applications did not have a significant effect on tobacco cessation. Only three reviews concluded a promising role for mobile phone applications in tobacco cessation, particularly when these applications were based on theoretical constructs or combined with face-to-face interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review indicates that mobile phone applications could play a promising role in tobacco cessation. However, using a single mobile phone application without any theoretical construct may not sufficiently drive behavioural change to reduce tobacco usage.

The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies.
To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group\'s Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible.
We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections.
We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital (\'warm handoff\') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT.
There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prescription of drugs to aid smoking cessation and to detect whether there are differences by age or sex.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. SITE: Zamora Health Area.
METHODS: Persons with smoking cessation attempts employing drugs funded in the period from 2020 to 2023.
METHODS: Request of pharmaceutical consumption of varenicline, bupropion and cytisine to the Pharmacy Information System of the Regional Health Management of Castilla y León.
METHODS: Number of quit attempts per person, treatment drug, number of medication containers per attempt, year, age and sex. Descriptive and statistical analysis using SPSS© v. 20.
RESULTS: 2581 people tried to quit smoking with drugs, 2206 made one attempt and 375 made several attempts. Mean age was 50.7 years (95% CI: 50.2-51.1). No significant differences were found for age (P=.71) or sex (P=.74). There was a preference for prescribing varenicline over bupropion and low drug compliance, with only one container of medication being collected in about 50% of cases. A total of 1680 attempts were made to quit using cytisine in 2023, equivalent to 55.4% of the total number of treatment drugs used in the four years. The estimated cumulative incidence rate of drug withdrawal attempts in smokers between 18 and 65 years of age was 11.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: The drug intervention had a low reach and poor compliance with the recommended treatment. It is essential to emphasize patient follow-up and drug adherence.

BACKGROUND: India is the second largest consumer of tobacco in the world and accounts for 70% of global deaths due to smokeless tobacco (SLT) use.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the perspectives of tobacco users (smokers and SLT users) and practitioners in India to inform cessation interventions.
METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with tobacco users (smoked and smokeless; n=23), and healthcare practitioners (n=13). Perspectives were triangulated using thematic analysis to examine convergence, divergence and complementarity of findings.
RESULTS: We present the results in a socio-ecological framework to highlight reasons for initiation and continuation of tobacco and motives to quit at the individual, interpersonal, occupational, societal and policy levels. SLT is seen as culturally acceptable compared to smoked forms of tobacco. Emotionally framed messages highlighting negative effects of tobacco on loved ones were perceived to be a better motivator than other types of cessation messages.
CONCLUSIONS: Nuanced differences exist between smokers and SLT user perspectives which have implications for cessation programs. Our findings supplement similar studies with other South Asian populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides useful insights to tailor cessation interventions to the type of tobacco consumed in order to enhance their acceptability and effectiveness.

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.

BACKGROUND: Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer).
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS: Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers\' who were involved in the provision of social support.
CONCLUSIONS: Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches.
We aimed to understand effective ways for cancer patients and caregivers to quit using tobacco. We focused on non-respiratory cancers (cancers not related to breathing issues) like breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. We reviewed 17 randomized controlled trials designed to help people quit tobacco, which included behavioral therapies (e.g., education and counseling), pharmacotherapy (i.e., medicine), and combinations of both. We found that people in these studies quit using tobacco, especially when more than one approach was used. The studies also showed that these approaches have been more successful since 2020. The research highlighted a need for more studies that include both patients and their caregivers together in the quitting process. This approach, called dyadic intervention, could be more effective in supporting patients and their caregivers. Overall, while the current approaches are promising, more research is needed to develop better ways to help cancer patients and caregivers quit smoking for longer.

BACKGROUND: The use of emerging tobacco and nicotine products affects tobacco use behaviors among college students. Thus, we aimed to examine transitions in tobacco use patterns and identify their predictors among smokers in a cohort of nursing students in Catalonia (Spain).
METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study of Catalan nursing students between 2015-2016 and 2018-2019. We examined transitions in tobacco use patterns between baseline and follow-up among smokers from: 1) daily to non-daily smoking, 2) non-daily to daily smoking, 3) cigarette-only use to poly-tobacco use, 4) poly-tobacco use to cigarette-only use, 5) between products, 6) reducing consumption by ≥5 cigarettes per day (CPD); and 7) quitting smoking. We applied a Generalized Linear Model with a log link (Poisson regression) and robust variance to identify predictors of reducing cigarette consumption by ≥5 CPD and quitting smoking, obtaining both crude and adjusted (APR) prevalence ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Among daily smokers at baseline, 12.1% transitioned to non-daily smoking at follow-up, while 36.2% of non-daily smokers shifted to daily smoking. Among cigarette-only users, 14.2% transitioned to poly-tobacco use, while 48.4% of poly-tobacco users switched to exclusive cigarette use. Among all smokers (daily and non-daily smokers), 60.8% reduced their cigarette consumption by ≥5 CPD and 28.3% quit smoking. Being a non-daily smoker (APR=0.33; 95% CI 0.19-0.55) and having lower nicotine dependence (APR=0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.96) were inversely associated with reducing cigarette consumption, while being a non-daily smoker (APR=1.19; 95% CI: 1.08-1.31) was directly associated with quitting smoking.
CONCLUSIONS: Nursing students who smoked experienced diverse transitions in tobacco use patterns over time. Evidence-based tobacco use preventive and cessation interventions are needed to tackle tobacco use among future nurses.