Ying Li, Lei Gao, Yaqing Chao, Jianhua Wang, Tianci Qin, Xiaohua Zhou, Xiaoan Chen, Lingyu Hou, linlin Lu
{"title":"戒烟干预措施的效果:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Ying Li, Lei Gao, Yaqing Chao, Jianhua Wang, Tianci Qin, Xiaohua Zhou, Xiaoan Chen, Lingyu Hou, linlin Lu","doi":"10.1111/adb.13376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty-four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self-help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short-term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7289,"journal":{"name":"Addiction Biology","volume":"29 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Ying Li, Lei Gao, Yaqing Chao, Jianhua Wang, Tianci Qin, Xiaohua Zhou, Xiaoan Chen, Lingyu Hou, linlin Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/adb.13376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty-four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self-help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short-term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Addiction Biology\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Addiction Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/adb.13376\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction Biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/adb.13376","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
为了评估不同干预措施对戒烟的影响,我们进行了一项包括随机对照试验(RCT)在内的网络荟萃分析(NMA)。根据纳入和排除标准,从 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 等在线数据库中收集了相关研究。符合条件的研究在 NMA 中进行了进一步研究,以比较 14 种干预措施对戒烟的影响。NMA 共研究了 34 项研究,包括 14 种干预措施和 28 733 名参与者。结果显示,健康教育(HE;几率比([OR] = 200.29,95% CI [1.62,24 794.61]))、其他干预(OI;OR = 29.79,95% CI [1.07,882.17])和多模式干预(MUIs;OR = 100.16,95% CI [2.06,4867.24])优于自助材料(SHM)。与戒烟或戒烟 APP(QA)相比,HE(OR = 243.31,95% CI [1.39,42531.33])、MUI(OR = 121.67,95% CI [1.64,9004.86])和经济激励(FI;OR = 14.09,95% CI [1.21,164.31])对戒烟率有积极影响。排名结果显示,HE(83.6%)和MI(69.6%)对戒烟的短期效果更好。HE和MUI的戒烟效果高于SHM和QA。FI的戒烟效果优于QA。此外,HE和MI更有可能成为最佳的戒烟干预措施。
Effects of interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty-four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self-help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short-term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions.
期刊介绍:
Addiction Biology is focused on neuroscience contributions and it aims to advance our understanding of the action of drugs of abuse and addictive processes. Papers are accepted in both animal experimentation or clinical research. The content is geared towards behavioral, molecular, genetic, biochemical, neuro-biological and pharmacology aspects of these fields.
Addiction Biology includes peer-reviewed original research reports and reviews.
Addiction Biology is published on behalf of the Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other Drugs (SSA). Members of the Society for the Study of Addiction receive the Journal as part of their annual membership subscription.