Paschal Sheeran1, Katelyn Jones1, Aya Avishai1, Yael R Symes2, Charles Abraham3, Eleanor Miles4, Charles E Wright1, Deborah K Mayer5, Kurt M Ribisl2. 1. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2. Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 3. School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Sussex. 5. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials designed to promote smoking cessation among cancer survivors to (a) assess how effective interventions are at increasing quit rates, and (b) determine which intervention strategies are associated with effect sizes. METHODS: Out of 10,848 records that were located using computerized searches and informal sources, 21 interventions met the inclusion criteria for the review. We developed a bespoke taxonomy of 36 categories of techniques designed to change smoking behavior, and coded sample, intervention, and methodological characteristics. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregressions were conducted. RESULTS: The sample-weighted average effect size for smoking cessation was d+ = .030, and was not significantly different from zero (95%CI = -.042 to .101). Effect sizes exhibited both publication bias and small sample bias. Metaregressions indicated that, out of the many potential moderators that were tested, just a single intervention feature was associated with effect sizes. Interventions delivered solely by nurses exhibited larger effects compared to interventions from other sources. CONCLUSION: The present review indicates that current smoking cessation interventions for cancer survivors are ineffective. High-quality and effective interventions are needed. We offer suggestions regarding promising intervention strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials designed to promote smoking cessation among cancer survivors to (a) assess how effective interventions are at increasing quit rates, and (b) determine which intervention strategies are associated with effect sizes. METHODS: Out of 10,848 records that were located using computerized searches and informal sources, 21 interventions met the inclusion criteria for the review. We developed a bespoke taxonomy of 36 categories of techniques designed to change smoking behavior, and coded sample, intervention, and methodological characteristics. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregressions were conducted. RESULTS: The sample-weighted average effect size for smoking cessation was d+ = .030, and was not significantly different from zero (95%CI = -.042 to .101). Effect sizes exhibited both publication bias and small sample bias. Metaregressions indicated that, out of the many potential moderators that were tested, just a single intervention feature was associated with effect sizes. Interventions delivered solely by nurses exhibited larger effects compared to interventions from other sources. CONCLUSION: The present review indicates that current smoking cessation interventions for cancer survivors are ineffective. High-quality and effective interventions are needed. We offer suggestions regarding promising intervention strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Vani N Simmons; Steven K Sutton; Lauren R Meltzer; Ursula Martinez; Amanda M Palmer; Cathy D Meade; Paul B Jacobsen; Judith C McCaffrey; Eric B Haura; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michelle A Mollica; Ashley Wilder Smith; Emily Tonorezos; Kathleen Castro; Kelly K Filipski; Jennifer Guida; Frank Perna; Paige Green; Paul B Jacobsen; Angela Mariotto; Gina Tesauro; Lisa Gallicchio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elyse R Park; Giselle K Perez; Susan Regan; Alona Muzikansky; Douglas E Levy; Jennifer S Temel; Nancy A Rigotti; William F Pirl; Kelly E Irwin; Ann H Partridge; Mary E Cooley; Emily R Friedman; Julia Rabin; Colin Ponzani; Kelly A Hyland; Susan Holland; Sarah Borderud; Kim Sprunck; Diana Kwon; Lisa Peterson; Jacob Miller-Sobel; Irina Gonzalez; C Will Whitlock; Laura Malloy; Suhana de León-Sanchez; Maureen O'Brien; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tia N Borger; Gabriella E Puleo; Jessica N Rivera Rivera; Devin Montgomery; William R Bowling; Jessica L Burris Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Taghrid Asfar; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Debra Annane; Laura A McClure; Amanda Perez; Michael A Antoni; Judson Brewer; David J Lee Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-05-19
Authors: Kathleen Gali; Brittany Pike; Matthew S Kendra; Cindy Tran; Priya Fielding-Singh; Kayla Jimenez; Rachelle Mirkin; Judith J Prochaska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Emilie Manolios; Jordan Sibeoni; Maria Teixeira; Anne Révah-Levy; Laurence Verneuil; Ljiljana Jovic Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.871