“那电子烟呢?”探讨卫生专业人员在提供戒烟支持时遇到的促进因素和障碍——范围审查。

IF 3.4 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lincan Caroline Tan, Larisa Ariadne Justine Barnes, Jo Longman, Megan Passey
{"title":"“那电子烟呢?”探讨卫生专业人员在提供戒烟支持时遇到的促进因素和障碍——范围审查。","authors":"Lincan Caroline Tan, Larisa Ariadne Justine Barnes, Jo Longman, Megan Passey","doi":"10.1071/PU24013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives and importance of study To summarise current evidence on the facilitators and barriers to offering vaping cessation support from the perspective of health professionals (HPs) with client-facing roles. Study type A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Methods Six databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2003 and 2024. All articles were screened by two reviewers independently, based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction and analyses were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results A total of 10,992 articles were screened; 21 publications met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted were mapped to the TDF (12 of the 14 domains were used). Barriers were more commonly reported than facilitators and included lack of knowledge, lack of training and competing priorities; the most commonly reported facilitators were HPs' sense of responsibility and willingness to provide e-cigarette cessation support. Most of the studies included were from the US and employed quantitative surveys. Most of the studies screened focused on the utility of e-cigarettes as cessation aids for combustible tobacco smoking, highlighting a gap in the interventional evidence on e-cigarette cessation. Conclusions More primary qualitative studies, including in Australia, are needed to understand the complexities of offering vaping cessation support. Although a range of HPs were represented in the review, further studies could analyse allied HPs' views separately from medical professionals' views.</p>","PeriodicalId":45898,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research & Practice","volume":"35 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'What about vaping?' Exploring the facilitators and barriers experienced by health professionals in offering vaping cessation support - a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Lincan Caroline Tan, Larisa Ariadne Justine Barnes, Jo Longman, Megan Passey\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/PU24013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objectives and importance of study To summarise current evidence on the facilitators and barriers to offering vaping cessation support from the perspective of health professionals (HPs) with client-facing roles. Study type A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Methods Six databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2003 and 2024. All articles were screened by two reviewers independently, based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction and analyses were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results A total of 10,992 articles were screened; 21 publications met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted were mapped to the TDF (12 of the 14 domains were used). Barriers were more commonly reported than facilitators and included lack of knowledge, lack of training and competing priorities; the most commonly reported facilitators were HPs' sense of responsibility and willingness to provide e-cigarette cessation support. Most of the studies included were from the US and employed quantitative surveys. Most of the studies screened focused on the utility of e-cigarettes as cessation aids for combustible tobacco smoking, highlighting a gap in the interventional evidence on e-cigarette cessation. Conclusions More primary qualitative studies, including in Australia, are needed to understand the complexities of offering vaping cessation support. Although a range of HPs were represented in the review, further studies could analyse allied HPs' views separately from medical professionals' views.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Research & Practice\",\"volume\":\"35 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/PU24013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/PU24013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从面向客户的卫生专业人员(HPs)的角度,总结目前关于提供戒烟支持的促进因素和障碍的证据。按照乔安娜布里格斯研究所的方法进行研究A型范围审查。方法检索2003 - 2024年6个数据库中发表的相关英文同行评议文章。所有文章均由两位独立的审稿人根据预先指定的资格标准进行筛选。数据提取和分析由理论领域框架(TDF)提供信息。结果共筛选10992篇文献;21篇出版物符合纳入标准。提取的数据被映射到TDF(使用了14个域中的12个)。报告的障碍比促进因素更常见,包括缺乏知识、缺乏培训和相互竞争的优先事项;最常见的促进因素是惠普的责任感和提供电子烟戒烟支持的意愿。纳入的大多数研究来自美国,采用了定量调查。筛选的大多数研究都集中在电子烟作为可燃烟草吸烟戒烟辅助工具的效用上,突出了电子烟戒烟干预证据的空白。需要进行更多的初步定性研究,包括在澳大利亚进行的研究,以了解提供戒烟支持的复杂性。虽然一系列的卫生保健人员在审查中有代表,但进一步的研究可以将卫生保健人员的观点与医疗专业人员的观点分开分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'What about vaping?' Exploring the facilitators and barriers experienced by health professionals in offering vaping cessation support - a scoping review.

Objectives and importance of study To summarise current evidence on the facilitators and barriers to offering vaping cessation support from the perspective of health professionals (HPs) with client-facing roles. Study type A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Methods Six databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2003 and 2024. All articles were screened by two reviewers independently, based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction and analyses were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results A total of 10,992 articles were screened; 21 publications met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted were mapped to the TDF (12 of the 14 domains were used). Barriers were more commonly reported than facilitators and included lack of knowledge, lack of training and competing priorities; the most commonly reported facilitators were HPs' sense of responsibility and willingness to provide e-cigarette cessation support. Most of the studies included were from the US and employed quantitative surveys. Most of the studies screened focused on the utility of e-cigarettes as cessation aids for combustible tobacco smoking, highlighting a gap in the interventional evidence on e-cigarette cessation. Conclusions More primary qualitative studies, including in Australia, are needed to understand the complexities of offering vaping cessation support. Although a range of HPs were represented in the review, further studies could analyse allied HPs' views separately from medical professionals' views.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Research & Practice
Public Health Research & Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Research & Practice is an open-access, quarterly, online journal with a strong focus on the connection between research, policy and practice. It publishes innovative, high-quality papers that inform public health policy and practice, paying particular attention to innovations, data and perspectives from policy and practice. The journal is published by the Sax Institute, a national leader in promoting the use of research evidence in health policy. Formerly known as The NSW Public Health Bulletin, the journal has a long history. It was published by the NSW Ministry of Health for nearly a quarter of a century. Responsibility for its publication transferred to the Sax Institute in 2014, and the journal receives guidance from an expert editorial board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信