1
|
Vila-Farinas A, Pérez-Rios M, Montes-Martinez A, Ruano-Ravina A, Forray A, Rey-Brandariz J, Candal-Pedreira C, Fernández E, Casal-Acción B, Varela-Lema L. Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among pregnant women: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav 2024; 148:107854. [PMID: 37683574 DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2023] [Revised: 08/08/2023] [Accepted: 09/01/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To carry out a systematic review of systematic reviews with an update of the existing evidence relating to a broad range of smoking cessation interventions, including psycho-social, digital and pharmacologic interventions, for pregnant women. DATA-SOURCES Search was conducted in March 2022 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane in two stages: 1) a search of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published from January 2012 through January 2022; 2) an update of those that fulfilled eligibility criteria reproducing the primary search strategy. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological, digital, and psychosocial interventions in aged 18 years and over who were daily smokers, and compared these with routine care, less intense interventions or placebo. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS Data from eligible studies were manually extracted by two authors and reviewed by a third. The quality of the reviews was evaluated using the AMSTAR scale, and risk of bias was measured with the Rob-2 tool and GRADE level of evidence. RESULTS The meta-analysis included 63 RCTs (n = 19849 women). The interventions found to be effective were: financial incentives (RR:1.77; 95%CI:1.21-2.58), counseling (RR:1.27; 95%CI:1.13-1.43) and long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR:1.53; 95%CI:1.16-2.01). Short-term NRT, bupropion, digital interventions, feedback, social support, and exercise showed no effectiveness. The GRADE level of evidence was moderate-to-high for all interventions, with the exception of long-term NRT. CONCLUSIONS Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are the most effective for pregnant women. The moderator analysis suggests that pregnant women of low socioeconomic status might benefit less from smoking cessation interventions than women of a high socioeconomic status. These women are usually heavier smokers that live in pro-smoking environments and could require more intensive and targeted interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Vila-Farinas
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - M Pérez-Rios
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Respiratory Diseases (CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias/CibeRes), Madrid, Spain.
| | - A Montes-Martinez
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Respiratory Diseases (CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias/CibeRes), Madrid, Spain
| | - A Ruano-Ravina
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Respiratory Diseases (CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias/CibeRes), Madrid, Spain
| | - Ariadna Forray
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - J Rey-Brandariz
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - C Candal-Pedreira
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain
| | - E Fernández
- Tobacco Control Unit, WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control, Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO), Barcelona, Spain; Tobacco Control Research Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Barcelona, Spain; School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; CIBER of Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain
| | - B Casal-Acción
- Galician Agency for Health Knowledge Management (avalia-t; ACIS), Santiago de Compsotela, Spain
| | - L Varela-Lema
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Respiratory Diseases (CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias/CibeRes), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|