BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine whether an intervention to enhance partner support helps as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program. METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis of English-language, randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions through July 2002 using the following data sources: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, Cochrane controlled trials register, CDC Tobacco Information and Prevention Database, MEDLINE, Cancer Lit, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, PsycLIT, Dissertation Abstracts, SSCI and HealthSTAR, with reviews of bibliographies of included articles. Included were trials that assessed a partner support component with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The outcomes measured were abstinence and biochemical assessment at 6 to 9 months and more than 12 months after treatment. Partner Interaction Questionnaire scores were primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Nine studies (31 articles) met inclusion criteria. Partner definition varied among studies. All studies included self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. For self-reported abstinence at 6 to 9 months after treatment, the Peto odds ratio (OR) = 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.44) and at 12 months Peto OR = 1.0 (95% CI, 0.75-1.34). Sensitivity analysis of studies using live-in, married, and equivalent-to-married partners found a higher odds ratio at 6 to 9 months after treatment, Peto OR = 1.64 (95% CI, 0.5-4.64). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting significant increases in partner support found at 6 to 9 months after treatment Peto OR = 1.83 (95% CI, 0.9-3.47); and at 12 months Peto OR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.67-2.23). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to enhance partner support showed the most promise for clinical practice when implemented with live-in, married, and equivalent-to-married partners. Such interventions should focus on enhancing supportive behaviors, while minimizing behaviors critical of smoking.
BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine whether an intervention to enhance partner support helps as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program. METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis of English-language, randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions through July 2002 using the following data sources: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, Cochrane controlled trials register, CDC Tobacco Information and Prevention Database, MEDLINE, Cancer Lit, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, PsycLIT, Dissertation Abstracts, SSCI and HealthSTAR, with reviews of bibliographies of included articles. Included were trials that assessed a partner support component with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The outcomes measured were abstinence and biochemical assessment at 6 to 9 months and more than 12 months after treatment. Partner Interaction Questionnaire scores were primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Nine studies (31 articles) met inclusion criteria. Partner definition varied among studies. All studies included self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. For self-reported abstinence at 6 to 9 months after treatment, the Peto odds ratio (OR) = 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.44) and at 12 months Peto OR = 1.0 (95% CI, 0.75-1.34). Sensitivity analysis of studies using live-in, married, and equivalent-to-married partners found a higher odds ratio at 6 to 9 months after treatment, Peto OR = 1.64 (95% CI, 0.5-4.64). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting significant increases in partner support found at 6 to 9 months after treatment Peto OR = 1.83 (95% CI, 0.9-3.47); and at 12 months Peto OR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.67-2.23). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to enhance partner support showed the most promise for clinical practice when implemented with live-in, married, and equivalent-to-married partners. Such interventions should focus on enhancing supportive behaviors, while minimizing behaviors critical of smoking.
Authors: Kathryn I Pollak; Susan Denman; Kristina Coop Gordon; Pauline Lyna; Pilar Rocha; Rebecca N Brouwer; Laura Fish; Donald H Baucom Journal: Ethn Health Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Denise M Levis; Brenda Stone-Wiggins; Michelle O'Hegarty; Van T Tong; Kara N D Polen; Cynthia H Cassell; Mary Council Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2014-09