Smoking cessation interventions for U.S. adults with disabilities: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: People with disabilities disproportionately use tobacco products. However, little is known about cessation interventions tailored for people with disabilities. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of smoking cessation interventions for adults with disabilities. METHODS: Six electronic databases (Cochrane, CINAHL Plus [EBSCOhost], Embase [Ovid], Medline [Ovid], PsycINFO [Ovid], and Web of Science) were searched to identify eligible interventions for people with disabilities (e.g., vision, hearing, mobility, communication, cognition, self-care) through July 2023. Two independent coders evaluated the records and extracted data from studies that met inclusion criteria. Qualitative synthesis was conducted on the included studies in 2023. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and one nonrandomized study met the inclusion criteria. Both studies used mindfulness-based procedures to reduce cigarette use in adults with mild intellectual disability. The outcome was defined as self-reported cigarette use at follow-up, which ranged from 1 year to 3 years. Limited information was provided on how the interventions were tailored to meet the unique needs of people with disabilities in either study. CONCLUSION: Two interventions conducted in adults with mild intellectual disability showed promising results using mindfulness-based procedures; however, the studies did not address barriers reported by people with disabilities, nor tailor the interventions to meet the needs of the target population. Research is needed to address tobacco use disparities among people with a range of disabilities. Current cessation interventions would be enhanced by integrating disability identifiers alongside other demographic information in future studies and reporting subgroup analyses in adults with disabilities.

Smoking cessation interventions for US adults with disabilities: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: People with disabilities have a higher prevalence of cigarette smoking than people without disabilities. However, little information exists on smoking cessation interventions tailored to address the unique needs of people with disabilities. This paper describes a systematic review protocol to identify and evaluate tobacco smoking cessation interventions designed to improve outcomes for people with disabilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of the literature using the procedures outlined by Cochrane. We will search four electronic databases (CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid)) with no date restriction to identify tobacco cessation interventions tailored to meet the needs of people with disabilities. We will extract data and assess risk of bias using the RoB2 and ROBINS-I for included studies using Covidence systematic review software. Quantitative and qualitative syntheses will summarise key study characteristics and outcomes with text, tables and forest plots; a meta-analysis will be conducted, if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as there are no primary data associated with the study. Data will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022337434.

A literature review on prevalence of gender differences and intersections with other vulnerabilities to tobacco use in the United States, 2004-2014.

This report describes results from a systematic literature review examining gender differences in U.S. prevalence rates of current use of tobacco and nicotine delivery products and how they intersect with other vulnerabilities to tobacco use. We searched PubMed on gender differences in tobacco use across the years 2004-2014. For inclusion, reports had to be in English, in a peer-reviewed journal or federal government report, report prevalence rates for current use of a tobacco product in males and females, and use a U.S. nationally representative sample. Prevalence rates were generally higher in males than in females across all products. This pattern remained stable despite changes over time in overall prevalence rates. Gender differences generally were robust when intersecting with other vulnerabilities, although decreases in the magnitude of gender differences were noted among younger and older users, and among educational levels and race/ethnic groups associated with the highest or lowest prevalence rates. Overall, these results document a pervasive association of gender with vulnerability to tobacco use that acts additively with other vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities should be considered whenever formulating tobacco control and regulatory policies.