Background: People with HIV have a higher risk of developing non-AIDS-defining cancers in older age, leading to a significant population living with two conditions, HIV and cancer. There is an increasing interest in cannabis use for symptom management in people with chronic conditions; in 2023, the American Nurses Association officially recognised cannabis nursing as a specialty nursing practice focusing on the care of individuals seeking education/guidance in the therapeutic use of cannabis, supporting the urgency of its research. However, the scientific literature lacks a synthesised review in the focused populations. Aim: To explore observational research on cannabis use for symptom management among people with HIV and/or cancer and identify gaps in current knowledge to inform future research and policy development. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, a literature search of relevant articles was conducted in the databases PubMed (n = 552), PsycInfo (n = 204), CINAHL (n = 164) and Embase (n = 976). Upon screening 1738 articles, 142 were identified for full-text review and 51 were retained for data extraction. Results: There were more studies evaluating cannabis use among people with cancer than with HIV and no studies among people living with comorbid HIV and cancer. Most studies were cross-sectional with limited metrics on the perceived effectiveness and safety of cannabis use for symptom management and its dosing/mode of delivery for reducing symptoms. While studies focused on cannabis therapy under the provision of healthcare providers, individuals reported obtaining information about cannabis from friends/family/the Internet. Implications for cannabis nursing: This body of research could be strengthened by rigorous longitudinal study designs to build causal relationships on the therapeutic effects of cannabis use and the inclusion of reliable and valid symptom assessment measures over time, which facilitates developing clinical practice guidance and policymaking in cannabis nursing. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution.

This is the protocol for an updated Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effect of behavioral interventions on smoking cessation among homeless individuals.

ObjectiveTo investigate the most effective and best-tolerated drugs for treating diseased smokers.MethodsEight databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving different pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in disease patients (January 2023). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 15.1 software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool assessed the risk of bias, and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA.ResultsA total of 60 RCTs involving 13,009 patients of 12 disease categories were included. All trials reported 13 interventions, resulting in 78 comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline (OR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.77, 3.00)) and bupropion (OR = 1.65, 95% CI (1.29, 2.11)) showed favorable abstinence effects compared to placebo in the cardiovascular disease population. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) had better withdrawal advantages than placebo (OR = 11.18, 95% CI (2.25, 55.54)) in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population. Some combination treatments showed better results than monotherapy, such as bupropion + NRT was superior to bupropion (OR = 8.45, 95% CI (1.84, 38.89)) and NRT (OR = 4.98, 95% CI (1.25, 19.78)) in mental illness population. The final surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that bupropion + NRT achieved the best smoking cessation effect. Overall confidence in the evidence was low. In a comparison of drugs, the results showed that bupropion + NRT had the best safety.ConclusionsMost interventions show the benefit of quitting smoking compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapy. Moreover, varenicline or bupropion combined with NRT is superior to some monotherapies.

Background: Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size. Results: A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating. Conclusions: The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Quitting smoking reduces the risk of all-cause mortality by 11%-34%. Smartphone app-based smoking cessation (SASC) interventions have been developed and are widely used. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone-based interventions for smoking cessation is currently equivocal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone app-based interventions for smoking cessation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of smartphone interventions for smoking cessation based on the Cochrane methodology. An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases to identify published papers in English or Chinese (there was no time limit regarding the publication date). The outcome was the smoking abstinence rate, which was either a 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate or a continuous abstinence rate. RESULTS: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials involving 12,967 adults were selected for the final analysis. The selected studies from 6 countries (the United States, Spain, France, Switzerland, Canada, and Japan) were included in the meta-analysis between 2018 and 2022. Pooled effect sizes (across all follow-up time points) revealed no difference between the smartphone app group and the comparators (standard care, SMS text messaging intervention, web-based intervention, smoking cessation counseling, or apps as placebos without real function; odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% CI 0.99-1.56, P=.06, I(2)=73.6%). Based on the subanalyses, 6 trials comparing smartphone app interventions to comparator interventions reported no significant differences in effectiveness (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.26, P=.74, I(2)=57.1%). However, the 3 trials that evaluated the combination of smartphone interventions combined with pharmacotherapy compared to pharmacotherapy alone found higher smoking abstinence rates in the combined intervention (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.38-2.33, P=.74, I(2)=7.4%). All SASC interventions with higher levels of adherence were significantly more effective (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.84, P<.001, I(2)=24.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis did not support the effectiveness of delivering smartphone-based interventions alone to achieve higher smoking abstinence rates. However, the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions increased when combined with pharmacotherapy-based smoking cessation approaches.

Background and objectives:Smoking is responsible for 9 out of 10 deaths related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and this number can be reduced by quitting smoking. In this study, the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was assessed through a network meta-analysis. Methods:Eight databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials involving different interventions for smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. The Cochrane Handbook tool was employed to assess the risk bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA software. Results:A total of 23 studies involving 13,480 patients were included. Eight studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, seven studies had a low risk, and in eight studies, the risk was unclear. All studies employed 13 different interventions, including eight monotherapies and five combination therapies. Network meta-analysis showed that a combination of behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy was superior in achieving patients' smoking cessation compared to monotherapy. Moreover, varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other single interventions. The final surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that cognitive behavior therapy combined with bupropion achieved the best smoking cessation effect. Conclusions:The obtained results indicate that a combination of behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy is most powerful in helping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients to quit smoking. Researchers should focus more on the safety of pharmacotherapeutic interventions. Moreover, more high-quality trials investigating the stability of evidence levels of different interventions on abstinence must be conducted.

Background: Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions. Methods: English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions. Results: Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention. Conclusions: Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Objective: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. Methods: English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Results: A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusion: Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published articles reporting the use of smoking cessation mobile health (mHealth) interventions in Latin America. METHODS: Five different databases were searched from database inception to 2020. Criteria: (1) the research was a smoking cessation randomized controlled trial (RCT), quasi-experimental research, or single-arm study; (2) the intervention used at least one type of mHealth intervention; (3) the research was conducted in Latin American; and (4) the research reported the cessation rate. RESULTS: Of the seven selected studies, four were conducted in Brazil, two in Mexico, and one in Peru. Only one study was an adequately powered RCT. Interventions relied on text messages (n = 3), web-based tools (n = 2), and telephone calls (n = 3). Some studies (n = 4) provided pharmacotherapy support. Smoking cessation outcomes included self-reported (n = 5) and biochemically verified (n = 2) abstinence. Follow-ups were conducted at Month 6 (n = 2), Week 12 (n = 4), and Day 30 (n = 1). Cessation rates varied from 9.4% at Week 12 to 55.5% at Day 30. CONCLUSION: Despite the promising cessation rates of mHealth interventions in Brazil, Mexico, and Peru, there is a need to rigorously evaluate these interventions in different Latin American countries with RCTs that are long-term, adequately powered, and use biochemical verification of cessation.

Objective: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation. Methods: Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). Findings: Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusions: The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

Background: The potential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized topic in the public health arena. To date, several general literature reviews have been conducted, but findings and conclusions have been discordant. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to examine the Key Question, "Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking cessation compared with non-menthol cigarette use?" Methods: Six databases-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo-were queried from inception to June 12, 2020. Articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers in terms of at least one predefined smoking cessation outcome were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. A random-effects model utilizing the DerSimonian and Laird method to pool adjusted odds ratio was applied. Variations among pooled studies were assessed using Cochran's Q statistic, and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency index (I2). Results: Forty-three demographically adjusted studies (22 rated "good", 20 rated "fair", and one study rated "poor" individual study quality) comparing menthol and non-menthol smokers were qualitatively synthesized across the following measures (study count; strength of evidence): duration of abstinence (2; low); quit attempts (15; insufficient); rate of abstinence/quitting (29; moderate); change in smoking quantity/frequency (5; insufficient); and, return to smoking/relapse (2; insufficient). Overall, the qualitative synthesis failed to show a consistent trend for an association between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation across outcomes. Meta-analyses found no difference between menthol and non-menthol cigarette use and either quit attempts or abstinence. Conclusions: Given the lack of consistency or statistical significance in the findings-combined with a "low" overall strength of evidence grade, based on deficiencies of indirectness and inconsistency-no consistent or significant associations between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation were identified. Recommendations for future studies include increased focus on providing longitudinal, adjusted data collected from standardized outcome measures of cessation to better inform long-term smoking cessation and menthol cigarette use. Such improvements should also be further considered in more methodologically rigorous systematic reviews characterized by objectivity, comprehensiveness, and transparency with the ultimate objective of better informing public health and policy decision making.

Introduction: The burden of disease associated with tobacco use has prompted a substantial increase in tobacco-related research, but the breadth of this literature has not been comprehensively examined. This review examines the nature of the research addressing the action areas in World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the populations targeted and how equity-related concepts are integrated. Method: A scoping review of published reviews addressing tobacco control within the primary prevention domain. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Educational Resources Information Centre, and PsycInfo from 2004 to 2018. Results: The scoping review of reviews offered a "birds-eye-view" of the tobacco control literature. Within the 681 reviews meeting inclusion criteria, there was a strong focus on smoking cessation targeting individuals; less attention has been given to product regulation, packaging, and labeling or sales to minors. Equity-related concepts were addressed in 167/681 (24.5%); few were focused on addressing inequity through structural and systemic root causes. Conclusion: This analysis of foci, trends, and gaps in the research pursuant to the FCTC illustrated the particular action areas and populations most frequently addressed in tobacco control research. Further research is needed to address: (1) underlying social influences, (2) particular action areas and with specific populations, and (3) sustained tobacco use through the influence of novel marketing and product innovations by tobacco industry. Implications: This scoping review of the breadth of tobacco control research reviews enables a better understanding of which action areas and target populations have been addressed in the research. Our findings alongside recommendations from other reviews suggest prioritizing further research to support policymaking and considering the role of the tobacco industry in circumventing tobacco control efforts. The large amount of research targeting individual cessation would suggest there is a need to move beyond a focus on individual choice and decontextualized behaviors. Also, given the majority of reviews that simply recognize or describe disparity, further research that integrates equity and targets various forms of social exclusion and discrimination is needed and may benefit from working in collaboration with communities where programs can be tailored to need and context.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. RESULTS: Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories. CONCLUSIONS: Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.

INTRODUCTION: Health providers are lacking in their provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to systematically review all available global studies on the effectiveness of interventions in improving health providers' provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy. METHODS: Five databases were searched, Inclusion criteria included all intervention study types. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts independently. Interventions were characterized according to the Effective Practice Of Care taxonomy. Random-effects meta-analyses examined intervention effects on smoking cessation care components based on the 5As. Estimates were number of participants reporting each outcome, or mean score, transformed into Cohen's d. Crude meta-regressions, and meta-analysis subgrouping, were performed to examine whether intervention effects for 'Ask', 'Advise' and 'Assist' differed by intervention components. RESULTS: Of 3165 manuscripts, 16 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed significant small to large intervention effects on the different care components (Cohen's d ranging from 0.47 for 'Ask' (95%CI 0.13-0.81) to 1.12 (95%CI 0.45-1.79) for 'Setting a quit date'). Crude meta-regression suggested that for 'Ask', having a theoretical basis may improve effectiveness (Cohen's d difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.12-1.1). Subgrouping the meta-analysis suggested that audit and feedback possibly increases intervention effectiveness for 'Advise' and 'Assist'. CONCLUSION: Interventions designed to improve provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy show a small increase in care components. Studies vary substantially in design, intervention components, and outcome measurement, impacting ability to synthesize available data. Audit and feedback and enhancing intervention design by using behaviour change theories may improve effectiveness.

AIMS: To summarize evidence for the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials SETTING: LMICs as defined by the World Bank PARTICIPANTS: Adult current cigarette smokers residing in LMICs INTERVENTIONS: Behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy smoking cessation interventions. MEASUREMENTS: PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), PsycINFO (Ebsco), SciELO, WHO Global Index Medicus and Scopus were searched from inception through 4/4/2018. Only studies with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. We used the most rigorous assessment of abstinence reported by each study. Effect sizes were computed from abstracted data. Where possible, a meta-analysis was done using Mantel-Haenzel random effect models reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). FINDINGS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were included. Six investigated the efficacy of pharmacologic agents. Four trials that compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to placebo found NRT improved cessation rates (n=1230, OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.30-2.77, P<0.001, I(2) = 13%). Eight trials found that behavioral counseling was more effective than minimal interventions (e.g., brief advice); n=5,735, OR 6.87, 95% CI 4.18-11.29, P<0.001, I(2) = 67%). There was also evidence of the benefit of brief advice over usual care (n=728, OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.56-3.88, P< 0.001, I(2) =0%). CONCLUSION: Nicotine replacement therapy, behavioral counseling and brief advice appear to be effective in aiding smoking cessation in low- and middle-income countries. There is limited rigorous research on other smoking cessation interventions in these regions.

OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this study were to evaluate abstinence rates of tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (DCCs) and to ascertain the number of NCI-DCCs with online references to TTPs. METHODS: Literature searches of Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were performed from their inception through January 2018 using keywords including cancer patients, cancer survivors, tobacco, smoking, cessation, and program. In total, 4094 articles were identified, 1450 duplicates were removed, 2644 candidate titles and abstracts were screened, and 210 selected full-text articles were independently reviewed by 2 authors. Three retrospective, single-institution cohort studies describing system-wide TTPs at 3 NCI-DCCs met inclusion criteria. Secondarily, online website audits of each NCI-DCC were performed to identify institutions with online evidence of a system-wide TTP servicing cancer patients. RESULTS: Among 62 NCI-DCCs, only 3 reported system-wide TTP outcomes. Abstinence rates ranged from 15% to 47%. Online website audit identified 47 NCI-DCCs maintaining system-wide TTPs. Seventeen TTPs were housed within the cancer center and 30 TTPs were offered by the primary affiliated institution; among the latter group, only 13 TTPs were identifiable via the NCI-DCC webpage. CONCLUSIONS: Most NCI-DCCs offer tobacco treatment services to cancer patients but very few have reported their results. Increased NCI-DCC TTP outcome publication and online presence are needed.

BACKGROUND:Tobacco smoking, one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease, is associated with 7 million deaths every year. This is estimated to rise to more than 8 million deaths per year by 2030, with 80% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Digital education, teaching, and learning using digital technologies have the potential to increase educational opportunities, supplement teaching activities, and decrease distance barriers in health professions education. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education compared with various controls in improving learners' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction to deliver smoking cessation therapy. The secondary objectives were to assess patient-related outcomes, change in health professionals' practice or behavior, self-efficacy or self-rated competence of health professionals in delivering smoking cessation therapy, and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. METHODS:We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registers for randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and August 2017. We used gold standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and appraise eligible studies. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (number of participants, n=2684) were included in the review. All studies found that digital education was at least as effective as traditional or usual learning. There was some suggestion that blended education results in similar or greater improvements in knowledge (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.72), skill (SMD=0.58, 95% CI 0.08-1.08), and satisfaction (SMD=0.62, 95% CI 0.12-1.12) compared with digital education or usual learning alone. There was also some evidence for improved attitude (SMD=0.45, 95% CI 0.18-0.72) following digital education compared with usual learning. Only 1 study reported patient outcomes and the setup cost of blended education but did not compare outcomes among groups. There were insufficient data to investigate what components of the digital education interventions were associated with the greatest improvements in learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that digital education is at least as effective as usual learning in improving health professionals' knowledge and skill for delivering smoking cessation therapy. However, limitations in the evidence base mean that these conclusions should be interpreted with some caution.

Preventable diseases and late diagnosis of disease impose great clinical and economic burden for health care systems, especially in the current juncture of rising medical expenditures. Under these circumstances, community pharmacies have been identified as accessible venues to receive preventive services. This umbrella review aims to examine existing evidence on the impact of community pharmacist-provided preventive services on clinical, utilization, and economic outcomes in the United States (US). We included systematic reviews, narrative reviews and meta-analyses published in English between January 2007 and October 2017. Of 2742 references identified by our search strategy, a total of 13 research syntheses met our inclusion criteria. Included reviews showed that community pharmacists are effective at increasing immunization rates, supporting smoking cessation, managing hormonal contraception therapies, and identifying patients at high risk for certain diseases. Moreover, evidence suggests that community pharmacies are especially well-positioned for the provision of preventive services due to their convenient location and extended hours of operation. There is general agreement on the positive impact of community pharmacists in increasing access to preventive health, particularly among patients who otherwise would not be reached by other healthcare providers. The provision of preventive services at US community pharmacies is feasible and effective, and has potential for improving patient outcomes and health system efficiency. However, high-quality evidence is still lacking. As the healthcare landscape shifts towards a value-based framework, it will be important to conduct robust studies that further evaluate the impact of community pharmacist-provided preventive services on utilization and economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of primary health care relevant interventions to prevent and treat tobacco smoking in school-aged children and adolescents. METHODS: This systematic review considered studies included in a prior review. We adapted and updated the search to April 2015. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate; data extraction and quality assessments were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Meta-analyses and pre-specified sub-group analyses were performed when possible. PROSPERO #CRD42015019051. RESULTS: After screening 2118 records, we included nine randomized controlled trials. The mostly moderate quality evidence suggested targeted behavioural interventions can prevent smoking and assist with cessation. Meta-analysis showed intervention participants were 18% less likely to report having initiated smoking at the end of intervention relative to controls (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.72, 0.94); absolute effect 1.92% for smoking initiation, NNT 52 (95% CI 33, 161). For cessation, meta-analysis showed intervention participants were 34% more likely to report having quit smoking at the end of intervention relative to controls (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05, 1.69); absolute effect 7.98% for cessation, NNT 13 (95% CI 6, 77). Treatment harms were not mentioned in the literature and no data were available to assess long-term effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Primary care relevant behavioural interventions improve smoking outcomes for children and youth. The evidence on key components is limited by heterogeneity in methodology and intervention strategy. Future trials should target tailored prevention or treatment approaches, establish uniform definition and measurement of smoking, isolate optimal intervention components, and include long-term follow-up