OBJECTIVE: Apply a "best practices" model to evidence regarding group smoking cessation to inform organizational decisions about adopting such programs. The best-practices model attempts to integrate rigorous review of evidence with context and practical considerations important to organizations contemplating adoption. DATA SOURCES: First, we identified effective practices by systematic literature review with two blinded reviewers to (1) search databases (99.8% agreement), (2) hand search journals with five or more papers selected in first step (99.9% agreement), (3) search reference lists of included papers (99.4% agreement), and (4) contact published experts. Second, model programs, theory, and expert opinion suggested plausible practices. Finally, a practitioner-researcher advisory group suggested practical considerations affecting adoption decisions. STUDY SELECTION: All 67 studies included in the review met six requirements: (1) peer reviewed, (2) primary studies, (3) using experimental or quasi-experimental design, (4) compared one or more smoking-cessation interventions that involved two or more group sessions, (5) studied persons 18+ years old, and (6) reported > or =6-month point prevalence or continuous abstinence outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent raters assessed study quality (89.5% agreement). Effective practices consistently exhibited a statistically significant effect. Plausible practices showed consistency across three types of evidence. An advisory group based practicality criteria on critical review and experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two practices were rated effective: multicomponent behavioral intervention and nicotine replacement therapy. Five practices received plausible ratings: components of behavioral skills, information about smoking, self-monitoring, social support, and four or more sessions of 60 to 90 minutes. The Advisory Group identified 11 practicality questions to assist organizations to make adoption decisions regarding effective and plausible practices. CONCLUSIONS: No research evidence guides potential smoking-cessation program adopters regarding program participants, providers, settings, or quality assurance. Reviews to influence practice must consider science and practice (context) to facilitate adoption of best practices.
OBJECTIVE: Apply a "best practices" model to evidence regarding group smoking cessation to inform organizational decisions about adopting such programs. The best-practices model attempts to integrate rigorous review of evidence with context and practical considerations important to organizations contemplating adoption. DATA SOURCES: First, we identified effective practices by systematic literature review with two blinded reviewers to (1) search databases (99.8% agreement), (2) hand search journals with five or more papers selected in first step (99.9% agreement), (3) search reference lists of included papers (99.4% agreement), and (4) contact published experts. Second, model programs, theory, and expert opinion suggested plausible practices. Finally, a practitioner-researcher advisory group suggested practical considerations affecting adoption decisions. STUDY SELECTION: All 67 studies included in the review met six requirements: (1) peer reviewed, (2) primary studies, (3) using experimental or quasi-experimental design, (4) compared one or more smoking-cessation interventions that involved two or more group sessions, (5) studied persons 18+ years old, and (6) reported > or =6-month point prevalence or continuous abstinence outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent raters assessed study quality (89.5% agreement). Effective practices consistently exhibited a statistically significant effect. Plausible practices showed consistency across three types of evidence. An advisory group based practicality criteria on critical review and experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two practices were rated effective: multicomponent behavioral intervention and nicotine replacement therapy. Five practices received plausible ratings: components of behavioral skills, information about smoking, self-monitoring, social support, and four or more sessions of 60 to 90 minutes. The Advisory Group identified 11 practicality questions to assist organizations to make adoption decisions regarding effective and plausible practices. CONCLUSIONS: No research evidence guides potential smoking-cessation program adopters regarding program participants, providers, settings, or quality assurance. Reviews to influence practice must consider science and practice (context) to facilitate adoption of best practices.
Authors: T Kadowaki; H Kanda; M Watanabe; A Okayama; N Miyamatsu; T Okamura; T Hayakawa; K Hishida; Y Kita; H Ueshima Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Paul W McDonald; Sarah Viehbeck; Sarah J Robinson; Scott T Leatherdale; Candace Ij Nykiforuk; Mari Alice Jolin Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 2.600
Authors: Andrea B Feigl; Joshua A Salomon; Goodarz Danaei; Eric L Ding; Esteban Calvo Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Rob Collins; Merryl Hammond; Catherine L Carry; Dianne Kinnon; Joan Killulark; Janet Nevala Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 1.228