Felix Naughton1, A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton. 1. General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. fmen2@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: Self-help smoking cessation interventions for pregnant smokers are of importance due to their potential to be wide-reaching, low-cost and their appeal to pregnant smokers who are interested in quitting smoking. To date, however, there has been no systematic assessment of their efficacy. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of self-help interventions for pregnant smokers and to investigate whether self-help material intensity, type or delivery are associated with cessation. METHODS: The literature was searched for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of self-help smoking cessation interventions for pregnant smokers without significant cessation counselling. Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria and relevant data were extracted independently. RESULTS: The primary meta-analysis pooled 12 trials comparing usual care (median quit rate 4.9%) with self-help (median quit rate 13.2%) and yielded a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.73], indicating that self-help interventions on average nearly double the odds of quitting compared with standard care. However, a further meta-analysis failed to find evidence that intervention materials of greater intensity increase quitting significantly over materials of lesser intensity (pooled OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.81-1.94). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the tailoring of materials or levels of one-to-one contact were related to intervention efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Self-help interventions appear to be more effective than standard care although, due mainly to a lack of trials, it is unclear whether more sophisticated and intensive approaches increase intervention effectiveness.
AIMS: Self-help smoking cessation interventions for pregnant smokers are of importance due to their potential to be wide-reaching, low-cost and their appeal to pregnant smokers who are interested in quitting smoking. To date, however, there has been no systematic assessment of their efficacy. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of self-help interventions for pregnant smokers and to investigate whether self-help material intensity, type or delivery are associated with cessation. METHODS: The literature was searched for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of self-help smoking cessation interventions for pregnant smokers without significant cessation counselling. Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria and relevant data were extracted independently. RESULTS: The primary meta-analysis pooled 12 trials comparing usual care (median quit rate 4.9%) with self-help (median quit rate 13.2%) and yielded a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.73], indicating that self-help interventions on average nearly double the odds of quitting compared with standard care. However, a further meta-analysis failed to find evidence that intervention materials of greater intensity increase quitting significantly over materials of lesser intensity (pooled OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.81-1.94). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the tailoring of materials or levels of one-to-one contact were related to intervention efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Self-help interventions appear to be more effective than standard care although, due mainly to a lack of trials, it is unclear whether more sophisticated and intensive approaches increase intervention effectiveness.
Authors: Thomas H Brandon; Vani Nath Simmons; Cathy D Meade; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Elena N Lopez Khoury; Steven K Sutton; Ji-Hyun Lee Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Theo van Achterberg; Getty G J Huisman-de Waal; Nicole A B M Ketelaar; Rob A Oostendorp; Johanna E Jacobs; Hub C H Wollersheim Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Aleksandra Herbec; Emma Beard; Jamie Brown; Benjamin Gardner; Ildiko Tombor; Robert West Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sue Cooper; Katharine Foster; Felix Naughton; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Stephen Sutton; Michael Ussher; Matthew Leighton; Alan Montgomery; Steve Parrott; Tim Coleman Journal: Trials Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Min Lian; Pamela A Madden; Michael T Lynskey; Graham A Colditz; Christina N Lessov-Schlaggar; Mario Schootman; Andrew C Heath Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Felix Naughton; Sue Cooper; Katharine Bowker; Katarzyna Campbell; Stephen Sutton; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Melanie Sloan; Tim Coleman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Muhammad Riaz; Sarah Lewis; Tim Coleman; Paul Aveyard; Robert West; Felix Naughton; Michael Ussher Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 6.526