21世纪自助戒烟计划的有效性:系统回顾。

IF 0.7
Journal of addictions nursing Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-28 DOI:10.1097/JAN.0000000000000629
Laure Fillette, Isabelle Varescon
{"title":"21世纪自助戒烟计划的有效性:系统回顾。","authors":"Laure Fillette, Isabelle Varescon","doi":"10.1097/JAN.0000000000000629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the diversity of self-help smoking cessation programs, the effects of those programs on smoking and the factors involved in their efficacy remain unclear, with contradictory results.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this review was to systematically analyze literature from 2000 to 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of various self-help smoking cessation programs including a follow-up at 6 months postintervention and to identify if any specific type of material proved to be more effective than others.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses method, 17 studies were included in this review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest that programs actively involving users are the most effective ones. While technological self-help smoking cessation programs are prevalent, they do not inherently surpass traditional print-based methods in effectiveness. Technology alone does not necessarily enhance smoking cessation outcomes. The findings also highlight specific limitations associated with assessing the effectiveness of interventions: numerous studies primarily compare various intervention types, often lacking a suitable control condition, and frequently involve numerous confounding variables. Additionally, most interventions lack a clearly defined timeline, impeding a precise assessment of real-time effects. Finally, the results raise questions about the duration of protocols: 6 months may not always be adequate to observe the progression of an individual's nicotine addiction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study considers the factors involved in the effectiveness of self-help smoking cessation programs, provides insight into the existing limitations of current research and suggests potential avenues for future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":94062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of addictions nursing","volume":" ","pages":"198-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Self-Help Smoking Cessation Programs in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Laure Fillette, Isabelle Varescon\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JAN.0000000000000629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the diversity of self-help smoking cessation programs, the effects of those programs on smoking and the factors involved in their efficacy remain unclear, with contradictory results.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this review was to systematically analyze literature from 2000 to 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of various self-help smoking cessation programs including a follow-up at 6 months postintervention and to identify if any specific type of material proved to be more effective than others.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses method, 17 studies were included in this review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest that programs actively involving users are the most effective ones. While technological self-help smoking cessation programs are prevalent, they do not inherently surpass traditional print-based methods in effectiveness. Technology alone does not necessarily enhance smoking cessation outcomes. The findings also highlight specific limitations associated with assessing the effectiveness of interventions: numerous studies primarily compare various intervention types, often lacking a suitable control condition, and frequently involve numerous confounding variables. Additionally, most interventions lack a clearly defined timeline, impeding a precise assessment of real-time effects. Finally, the results raise questions about the duration of protocols: 6 months may not always be adequate to observe the progression of an individual's nicotine addiction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study considers the factors involved in the effectiveness of self-help smoking cessation programs, provides insight into the existing limitations of current research and suggests potential avenues for future studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of addictions nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"198-220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of addictions nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000629\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of addictions nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于自助戒烟计划的多样性,这些计划对吸烟的影响及其疗效所涉及的因素尚不清楚,结果相互矛盾。目的:本综述的目的是系统分析2000年至2023年的文献,以评估各种自助戒烟计划的有效性,包括干预后6个月的随访,并确定是否有任何特定类型的材料被证明比其他材料更有效。方法:采用系统评价首选报告项目和荟萃分析方法,纳入17项研究。结果:结果表明,用户积极参与是最有效的方案。虽然技术自助戒烟计划很普遍,但它们在有效性上并没有超越传统的基于印刷品的方法。技术本身并不一定能提高戒烟效果。研究结果还强调了与评估干预措施有效性相关的特定局限性:许多研究主要比较不同的干预类型,往往缺乏合适的控制条件,并且经常涉及许多混杂变量。此外,大多数干预措施缺乏明确的时间表,阻碍了对实时效果的精确评估。最后,研究结果提出了有关治疗方案持续时间的问题:6个月可能并不总是足以观察个人尼古丁成瘾的进展。结论:本研究考虑了影响自助戒烟计划有效性的因素,对现有研究的局限性提供了见解,并为未来的研究提出了潜在的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of Self-Help Smoking Cessation Programs in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review.

Background: Due to the diversity of self-help smoking cessation programs, the effects of those programs on smoking and the factors involved in their efficacy remain unclear, with contradictory results.

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to systematically analyze literature from 2000 to 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of various self-help smoking cessation programs including a follow-up at 6 months postintervention and to identify if any specific type of material proved to be more effective than others.

Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses method, 17 studies were included in this review.

Results: Results suggest that programs actively involving users are the most effective ones. While technological self-help smoking cessation programs are prevalent, they do not inherently surpass traditional print-based methods in effectiveness. Technology alone does not necessarily enhance smoking cessation outcomes. The findings also highlight specific limitations associated with assessing the effectiveness of interventions: numerous studies primarily compare various intervention types, often lacking a suitable control condition, and frequently involve numerous confounding variables. Additionally, most interventions lack a clearly defined timeline, impeding a precise assessment of real-time effects. Finally, the results raise questions about the duration of protocols: 6 months may not always be adequate to observe the progression of an individual's nicotine addiction.

Conclusions: This study considers the factors involved in the effectiveness of self-help smoking cessation programs, provides insight into the existing limitations of current research and suggests potential avenues for future studies.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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