Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of tobacco-cessation interventions delivered perioperatively.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco smoking is associated with a substantially increased risk of perioperative complications. The perioperative period is an opportunity to introduce tobacco-cessation strategies. A previous systematic review provided evidence that perioperative interventions increase short-term abstinence and may reduce postoperative complications. The evidence base has since expanded, with the subsequent publication of numerous randomised studies. This protocol outlines a systematic review examining the impact of perioperative tobacco-cessation interventions on successful abstinence from tobacco smoking, and on the incidence of perioperative complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of the literature will be run across EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco) and PsycInfo (ProQuest), from inception to present, using text words and subject headings. Randomised controlled trials published in English, examining adults in the perioperative period and reporting the outcomes from tobacco-cessation interventions will be included.Abstract screening and data extraction will be performed by five reviewers. Each abstract will be screened by two blinded reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by group consensus. The primary outcome will be point prevalence abstinence from tobacco-use at the time of surgery. Secondary outcomes are prolonged abstinence from tobacco use at 6 months and 12 months, and postoperative complications. Any other reported outcomes will be documented in the descriptive analysis. The review will also describe details of the investigated perioperative tobacco-cessation interventions. If sufficient studies report relevant data, meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes will be undertaken. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. Results will be disseminated by open-access, peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentations. Results will underpin future work to modify perioperative tobacco-cessation interventions to enhance engagement and accessibility, and to develop trials aiming to facilitate abstinence from tobacco-use in patients presenting for surgery.

Determining Gentrification's Relationship to Birth Outcomes in Metropolitan California.

There is inconsistent evidence as to whether gentrification, the increase of affluent residents into low-income neighborhoods, is detrimental to health. To date, there is no systematic evidence on how gentrification may matter for a range of birth outcomes across cities with varying characteristics. We utilize California's Birth Cohort File (2009-2012), Decennial Census data, and the American Community Survey (2008-2012) to investigate the relationship of gentrification to: preterm birth, low birthweight, and small-for-gestational-age across California. We find that socioeconomic gentrification is uniformly associated with better birth outcomes. Notably, however, we find that only places specifically experiencing increases in non-White gentrification had this positive impact. These associations vary somewhat by maternal characteristics and by type of gentrification measure utilized; discrepancies between alternative measurement strategies are explored. This study provides evidence that socioeconomic gentrification is positively related to birth outcomes and the race-ethnic character of gentrification matters, emphasizing the continued need to examine how gentrification may impact a range of health and social outcomes.

Behind closed doors: Protective social behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The success of personal non-pharmaceutical interventions as a public health strategy requires a high level of compliance from individuals in private social settings. Strategies to increase compliance in these hard-to-reach settings depend upon a comprehensive understanding of the patterns and predictors of protective social behavior. Social cognitive models of protective behavior emphasize the contribution of individual-level factors while social-ecological models emphasize the contribution of environmental factors. This study draws on 28 waves of survey data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America survey to measure patterns of adherence to two protective social behaviors-private social-distancing behavior and private masking behavior-during the COVID-19 pandemic and to assess the role individual and environmental factors play in predicting adherence. Results show that patterns of adherence fall into three categories marked by high, moderate, and low levels of adherence, with just under half of respondents exhibiting a high level of adherence. Health beliefs emerge as the single strongest predictor of adherence. All other environmental and individual-level predictors have relatively poor predictive power or primarily indirect effects.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Should I Stay or Should I Go? A Qualitative Exploration of Stigma and Other Factors Influencing Opioid Agonist Treatment Journeys.

(1) The harm-reduction benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-established; however, the UK government's emphasis on "recovery" may be contributing to a high proportion of people leaving treatment and low retention rates. We wanted to develop a rich and nuanced understanding of the factors that might influence the treatment journeys of people who use OAT. (2) We explored factors at each level of the socioecological system and considered the ways these interact to influence treatment journeys in OAT. We carried out semi-structured interviews with people who use OAT (n = 12) and service providers (n = 13) and analysed data using reflexive thematic analysis. (3) We developed three themes representing participant perceptions of treatment journeys in OAT. These were: (1) The System is Broken; (2) Power Struggles; and (3) Filling the Void. (4) Conclusions: The data suggest that prioritisation of treatment retention is important to preserve the harm-reduction benefits of OAT. Stigma is a systemic issue which presents multiple barriers to people who use OAT living fulfilling lives. There is an urgent need to develop targeted interventions to address stigma towards people who use OAT.

Analysis of the UK Government's 10-Year Drugs Strategy-a resource for practitioners and policymakers.

In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put 'people, health and human rights at the centre'. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

Do Sheriff-Coroners Underreport Officer-Involved Homicides?

Introduction: In the United States, each state sets its own standards for its death investigation system. These may require independent medical examiners and coroners or allow for the sheriff to assume the role of coroner. Motivated by the well-established fact that counts of officer-involved homicides in official data sets grossly undercount the number of these incidents, we examine the possibility that different death investigation systems may lead to different death classification outcomes. Methods: To examine the potential differences in officer-involved homicide underreporting by presence of sheriff-coroner and violent death type (gunshot, intentional use of force, pursuit, or other vehicle accident), we compare ratios of incidents from both the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Reports and the restricted Multiple-Cause of Death files from the National Vital Statistics System to the Fatal Encounters data across coroner contexts in California between 2000 and 2018; we quantify differences descriptively and examine bivariate tests of means. Results: We find significantly greater underreporting of officer-involved deaths in sheriff-coroner counties in both official data sets for all incidents compared with non-sheriff-coroner counties, independently of the period considered. These underreporting differences in the National Vital Statistics System are robust to restricting to gunshot and intentional use of force deaths, the type of incident expected to be less prone to misclassification in that data set. Conclusions: Officer-involved death underreporting in sheriff-coroner counties necessitates further scrutiny. Disparities in officer-involved death reporting suggest political pressure may play a role in classifying deaths.

Who is accessing community lateral flow device testing and why? Characteristics and motivations of individuals participating in COVID-19 community testing in two English local authority areas.

BACKGROUND: Antigen testing using lateral flow devices (LFDs) plays an important role in the management of the novel coronavirus pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) by rapidly identifying individuals who are asymptomatically carrying high levels of the virus. By January 2021, LFD community testing sites were set up across English local authority areas to support the management and containment of regional COVID-19 cases, initially targeting essential workers unable to work from home during the national lockdown. This study aimed to examine the characteristics and motivations of individuals accessing community LFD testing across two local authority areas (LAAs) in the South West of England. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a service evaluation from December 22nd 2020 until March 15th 2021 for two LAAs. Demographic and postcode data were collected from an online test appointment booking platform and the National Health Service testing service online system, with data accessed from Public Health England. An online survey was sent to individuals who made a testing appointment at an LAA1 site using the online booking platform, consisting of 12 questions to collect data on individual's motivations for and experiences of testing. RESULTS: Data were available for individuals who completed 12,516 tests in LAA1 and 12,327 tests in LAA2. Most individuals who engaged with testing were female, working age, white, and worked as early years or education staff, health and social care staff, and supermarket or food production staff. 1249 individuals completed the survey with 60% of respondents reported getting tested for work-related reasons. Individuals first heard about LFD testing through various channels including work, media, and word of mouth, and decided to get tested based on the ease and convenience of testing, workplace communications, and to identify asymptomatic cases to help stop the spread. Most tests were completed by individuals living in less deprived areas based on national deciles of deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: While national and local COVID-19 testing strategies have evolved, community and personal LFD testing remains a crucial pillar of the testing strategy. Future studies should collect quantitative and qualitative data from residents to most effectively shape testing offers based on the needs and preferences of their population.

Influence of Perceived Adolescent Vaccination Desire on Parent Decision for Adolescent COVID-19 Vaccination.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of adolescents' desire for COVID-19 vaccination on their parents' vaccination decision for their adolescent. METHODS: We surveyed an internet-based panel of 1,051 parents of 1,519 adolescents aged 11-18 years from February to March 2021 about their adolescent's desire for COVID-19 vaccination and whether they consider this desire in their vaccination decision for the adolescent. We used multivariable Poisson regression to assess associations with parent-stated likelihood of adolescent vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 58.3% of parents reported that they and their adolescents had the same vaccination desire; similarly, 58.3% considered their adolescent's desire in their vaccination decision. These latter parents were more likely to vaccinate their adolescent than parents who did not consider their adolescent's desire (adjusted risk ratio = 1.25 [95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.50]). DISCUSSION: Most parents considered their adolescent's desire for COVID-19 vaccination. These parents were more likely to state that they will have their adolescent receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

School-Age Children's Wellbeing and School-Related Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures may have disrupted school-related supports and services important to children's wellbeing. However, we lack national data about US children's wellbeing and family priorities for school-related services. We sought to determine 1) children's social-emotional wellbeing and 2) needs and priorities for school-based services in the 2021-2022 school year among a US sample of parents of school-aged children. METHODS: In June 2021, we surveyed 1504 parents of children enrolling in grades K-12 in the 2021-2022 school year participating in the Understanding America Study, a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of families completing regular internet-based surveys (Response rate to this survey was 79.2%). Parents completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and reported their needs for school-related services regarding "support getting healthcare", "mental wellness support", "food, housing, legal or transportation support", and "learning supports and enrichment." Weighted regressions examined associations among wellbeing, needs, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter of children had deficits in hyperactivity (26.1%), one-third in peer problems (32.6%), and 40% in prosocial areas. Most parents (83.5%) reported a school-related need, with 77% reporting learning supports and enrichment needs and 57% reporting mental wellness needs. The highest priority needs were for tutoring, socialization, increased instructional time, coping with stress, and physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: US school children have high social-emotional and school-related needs. Investments in schools are urgently needed, particularly for learning supports and mental wellness, to meet the high demand for services and parents' priorities to support child health and wellbeing.

Using primary care databases for addiction research: An introduction and overview of strengths and weaknesses.

Primary care databases extract and combine routine data from the electronic patient records of various participating practices on a regular basis. These databases can be used for innovative and relevant addiction research, but such use requires a thorough understanding of how data were originally collected and how they need to be processed and statistically analysed to produce sound scientific evidence. The aims of this paper are therefore to (1) make a case for why primary care databases should be considered more frequently for addiction research; (2) provide an overview of how primary care databases are constructed; (3) highlight important methodological and statistical strengths and weaknesses of using primary care databases for research; and (4) give practical advice about how a researcher can get access to databases. Three major primary care databases from the UK serve as examples: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), and QResearch.

Assessing Data Completeness, Quality, and Representativeness of Justifiable Homicides in the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports: A Research Note.

Introduction: The most widely used data set for studying police homicides-the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation-is collected from a voluntary sample. Materials and Methods: Using a journalist-curated database of police-related deaths, we find the SHR police homicide data to be substantially incomplete. This is due to both non-reporting and substantial under-reporting by agencies. Further, our inquiry discloses a pattern of error in identifying "victims" and "offenders" in the data, and finds that investigating agencies are often incorrectly listed as the responsible agency, which seriously jeopardizes police department-level analyses. Finally, there is evidence of sample bias such that the SHR data system is not representative of all police departments, nor is it representative of large police departments. Conclusions: We conclude that the SHR data is of dubious value for assessing correlates of police homicides in the United States, as all analyses using it will reflect these widespread biases and significant undercounts. Analysis of SHR data for these purposes should cease.

Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety. METHOD: Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e-cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow-up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta-regression to explore covariates. RESULTS: We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34-3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27-14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second-best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04-1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. DESIGN: Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. SETTING: Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. INTERVENTIONS: Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. RESULTS: Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. LIMITATIONS: Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. FUTURE WORK: Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cigarette smoking is one of the main causes of early death both in the UK and worldwide. Three medicines, varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy, are licensed in the UK to help people stop smoking. E-cigarettes can also be used as a stop smoking aid. We combined information from previous studies, including clinical trials, to determine which product was the safest, most effective and best value for money for the NHS. We compared treatments that were given alone as well as treatments that were combined with others, such as combination nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with bupropion and bupropion combined with nicotine replacement therapy. The last three combined treatments are not currently licensed in the UK for smoking cessation. We also compared different treatment doses (low, high and standard doses). We found that most treatments were more effective than placebo in helping people to quit smoking. One of the combination treatments (varenicline at standard dose combined with nicotine replacement therapy at standard dose) was the most effective at getting people to quit smoking, followed by e-cigarette at low dose, varenicline at standard dose combined with bupropion at standard dose, and e-cigarette at high dose. We also found that smokers with higher tobacco dependence and smokers treated with counselling alongside medicines achieved a higher proportion of continuous quitting. We also found evidence that the standard dose of bupropion was associated with an increased risk of serious side effects compared with placebo. There was inconclusive evidence that any of the treatments increased the risk of major cardiovascular side effects. There was some evidence that smokers who received a standard dose of varenicline had an increased risk of major neurological and psychiatric side effects compared with those receiving a standard dose of bupropion. E-cigarette at low dose, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard and varenicline standard plus bupropion standard were the best value for money interventions, but further clinical trials comparing treatments against each other are needed to increase confidence in these findings.

COVID-19 vaccines and mental distress.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought about large increases in mental distress. The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is expected to significantly reduce health risks, improve economic and social outcomes, with potential benefits to mental health. PURPOSE: To examine short-term changes in mental distress following the receipt of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Participants included 8,003 adults from the address-based sampled, nationally representative Understanding America Study (UAS), surveyed at regular intervals between March 10, 2020, and March 31, 2021 who completed at least two waves of the survey. Respondents answered questions about COVID-19 vaccine status and self-reported mental distress as measured with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). Fixed-effects regression models were used to identify the change in PHQ-4 scores and categorical indicators of mental distress resulting from the application of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: People who were vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 reported decreased mental distress levels in the surveys conducted after receiving the first dose. The fixed-effects estimates show an average effect of receiving the vaccine equivalent to 4% of the standard deviation of PHQ-4 scores (p-value<0.01), a reduction in 1 percentage point (4% reduction from the baseline level) in the probability of being at least mildly depressed, and of 0.7 percentage points (15% reduction from the baseline level) in the probability of being severely depressed (p-value = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Getting the first dose of COVID-19 resulted in significant improvements in mental health, beyond improvements already achieved since mental distress peaked in the spring of 2020.

Parents' Intentions and Perceptions About COVID-19 Vaccination for Their Children: Results From a National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the degree to which US parents are likely to have their children get coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and identify parental concerns about the vaccines. METHODS: In February 2021 to March 2021, we surveyed parent members of a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of ∼9000 adults regarding their intent to have their children receive a COVID-19 vaccination, perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines for children, and trust in sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children. We used descriptive and multivariate analyses to evaluate parent-stated likelihood of having their children get a COVID-19 vaccine and to assess the association between likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination and child age, parent demographics, and parental perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Altogether, 1745 parents responded (87% of eligible parents, 3759 children). Likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination was as follows: very likely (28%), somewhat likely (18%), somewhat unlikely (9%), very unlikely (33%), and unsure (12%). The stated likelihood of child vaccination was greater among parents of older children (P < .001) as well as among parents who had a bachelor's degree or higher education (P < .001), had already received or were likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (P < .001), or had Democratic affiliation (P < .001); variations existed by race and ethnicity (P = .04). Parental concerns centered around vaccine safety and side effects. A key trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children was the child's doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half of US participants report that they are likely to have their child receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Pediatric health care providers have a major role in promoting and giving COVID-19 vaccination for children.

The role of trust in the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine: Results from a national survey.

High acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is instrumental to ending the pandemic. Vaccine acceptance by subgroups of the population depends on their trust in COVID-19 vaccines. We surveyed a probability-based internet panel of 7832 adults from December 23, 2020-January 19, 2021 about their likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and the following domains of trust: an individual's generalized trust, trust in COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy and safety, trust in the governmental approval process and general vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines, trust in their physician about COVID-19, and trust in other sources about COVID-19. We included identified at-risk subgroups: healthcare workers, older adults (65-74-year-olds and ≥ 75-year-olds), frontline essential workers, other essential workers, and individuals with high-risk chronic conditions. Of 5979 respondents, only 57.4% said they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More hesitant respondents (p < 0.05) included: women, young adults (18-49 years), Blacks, individuals with lower education, those with lower income, and individuals without high-risk chronic conditions. Lack of trust in the vaccine approval and development processes explained most of the demographic variation in stated vaccination likelihood, while other domains of trust explained less variation. We conclude that hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines is high overall and among at-risk subgroups, and hesitancy is strongly tied to trust in the vaccine approval and development processes. Building trust is critical to ending the pandemic.

Likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination by subgroups across the US: post-election trends and disparities.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately impacted older individuals, those with lower educational attainment, and Black and Hispanic populations, yet vaccine hesitancy remains prevalent. Because widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is critical to end the pandemic, addressing vaccine hesitancy is an important public health priority. Between April 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, we have repeatedly surveyed a nationally representative online panel of adults and have tracked their stated likelihood of getting COVID-19 vaccinations. We present new evidence that in recent months disparities in self-reported likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination have narrowed by race/ethnicity, with an increasing proportion of Black individuals and Hispanic individuals indicating that they are likely to get a vaccine. At the same time, younger adults have progressively become less likely than older adults to state they will get a COVID-19 vaccine. Most vaccine-hesitant individuals are concerned about both vaccine efficacy and safety and do not trust the vaccine development or vaccine approval process. We conclude that outreach efforts to minority populations may be achieving their objectives in raising confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, but special outreach efforts are needed to address both vaccine hesitancy among younger adults and mistrust in the vaccine development and approval process.