Effectiveness of multidisciplinary early rehabilitation in reducing behaviour-related risk factors

Identifying contexts and mechanisms in multiple behavior change interventions affecting smoking cessation success: a rapid realist review

Background

Smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable chronic disease-related morbidity and mortality, excess healthcare expenditure, and lost work productivity. Tobacco users are disproportionately more likely to be engaging in other modifiable risk behaviours such as excess alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and poor diet. While hundreds of interventions addressing the clustering of smoking and other modifiable risk behaviours have been conducted worldwide, there is insufficient information available about the context and mechanisms in these interventions that promote successful smoking cessation. The aim of this rapid realist review was to identify possible contexts and mechanisms used in multiple health behaviour change interventions (targeting tobacco and two or more additional risk behaviours) that are associated with improving smoking cessation outcome.

Methods

This realist review method incorporated the following steps: (1) clarifying the scope, (2) searching for relevant evidence, (3) relevance confirmation, data extraction, and quality assessment, (4) data analysis and synthesis.

Results

Of the 20,423 articles screened, 138 articles were included in this realist review. Following Michie et al.’s behavior change model (the COM-B model), capability, opportunity, and motivation were used to identify the mechanisms of behaviour change. Universally, increasing opportunities (i.e. factors that lie outside the individual that prompt the behaviour or make it possible) for participants to engage in healthy behaviours was associated with smoking cessation success. However, increasing participant’s capability or motivation to make a behaviour change was only successful within certain contexts.

Conclusion

In order to address multiple health behaviours and assist individuals in quitting smoking, public health promotion interventions need to shift away from ‘individualistic epidemiology’ and invest resources into modifying factors that are external from the individual (i.e. creating a supportive environment).

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017064430

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise, whether cardiovascular-type exercise or resistance exercise, may help people to give up smoking, particularly by reducing cigarette withdrawal symptoms and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared with a smoking cessation intervention alone or other non-exercise intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies, using the term 'exercise' or 'physical activity' in the title, abstract or keywords. The date of the most recent search was May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme alone or another non-exercise control group. Trials were required to recruit smokers wishing to quit or recent quitters, to assess abstinence as an outcome and have follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison, as either smoking cessation or relapse prevention. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible trials with a total of 7279 adult participants randomised. Two studies focused on relapse prevention among smokers who had recently stopped smoking, and the remaining 22 studies were concerned with smoking cessation for smokers who wished to quit. Eleven studies were with women only and one with men only. Most studies recruited fairly inactive people. Most of the trials employed supervised, group-based cardiovascular-type exercise supplemented by a home-based exercise programme and combined with a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme. The comparator in most cases was a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme alone. Overall, we judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, 11 at high risk of bias, and 11 at unclear risk of bias. Among the 21 studies analysed, we found low-certainty evidence, limited by potential publication bias and by imprecision, comparing the effect of exercise plus smoking cessation support with smoking cessation support alone on smoking cessation outcomes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.22; I² = 0%; 6607 participants). We excluded one study from this analysis as smoking abstinence rates for the study groups were not reported. There was no evidence of subgroup differences according to the type of exercise promoted; the subgroups considered were: cardiovascular-type exercise alone (17 studies), resistance training alone (one study), combined cardiovascular-type and resistance exercise (one study) and type of exercise not specified (two studies). The results were not significantly altered when we excluded trials with high risk of bias, or those with special populations, or those where smoking cessation intervention support was not matched between the intervention and control arms. Among the two relapse prevention studies, we found very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that adding exercise to relapse prevention did not improve long-term abstinence compared with relapse prevention alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; I² = 0%; 453 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that adding exercise to smoking cessation support improves abstinence compared with support alone, but the evidence is insufficient to assess whether there is a modest benefit. Estimates of treatment effect were of low or very low certainty, because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and publication bias. Consequently, future trials may change these conclusions.

Outpatient rehabilitation as an intervention to improve employees' physical capacity

BACKGROUND

The aging of the workforce poses new challenges for maintaining work ability. Because of limited information on the effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation performed in traditional inpatient programs, extended interest in outpatient rehabilitation has risen in the past few years.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effects of a new outpatient rehabilitation program where every participant defined their own goals to improve work ability by the aid of a goal-oriented multi-professional team. This report will focus on the employees' physical capacity during a nine-month program.

METHODS

A total of 605 municipal employees from different production areas of the City of Tampere took part in the outpatient rehabilitation program, implemented by the occupational health unit. Groups of 12 employees participated in eight one-day sessions at intervals of two to three weeks; the final follow-up was 9 months from the beginning. Submaximal aerobic capacity was tested by a calibrated cycle ergometer with a commercial program (Aino Fitware pro, Helsinki, Finland). Musculoskeletal tests assessed muscle strength, balance and mobility.

RESULTS

During the 9-month follow-up of the rehabilitation program, the employees' physical capacity was improved. The follow-up test scores from a total of 329 employees were significantly higher in the submaximal aerobic capacity test (p < 0.001). Other tests were also improved, such as standing on one foot (p = 0.001), back side bending flexibility test (p < 0.001), dynamic sit up (p = 0.001), upper extremity right (p < 0.001), and knee bending (p = 0.029). About 40% of the participants did not have an adequate health situation to take part in physical capacity tests; however they took part in the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The new outpatient rehabilitation program organized by the occupational health unit had a positive influence on employees' physical capacity during a nine-month follow up.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2014, and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus in May 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme (which we considered the control in this review). Studies were required to recruit smokers or recent quitters and have a follow-up of six months or more. Studies that did not meet the full inclusion criteria because they only assessed the acute effects of exercise on smoking behaviour, or because the outcome was smoking reduction, are summarised but not formally included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences between studies in the characteristics of the interventions used we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis. We assessed risk of selection and attrition bias using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 trials with a total of 5,870 participants. The largest study was an internet trial with 2,318 participants, and eight trials had fewer than 30 people in each treatment arm. Studies varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes offered. Only one included study was judged to be at low risk of bias across all domains assessed. Four studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow-up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow-up. Another study reported significantly higher abstinence rates at six month follow-up for a combined exercise and smoking cessation programme compared with brief smoking cessation advice. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow-up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow-up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only two of the 20 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation in the long term. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which may not have been sufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions in terms of both exercise intensity and intensity of support being provided, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.