Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in primary healthcare settings to promote continuous smoking cessation in adults: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present review is to evaluate multicomponent/complex primary care (PC) interventions for their effectiveness in continuous smoking abstinence by adult smokers. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials was undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: Selected studies met the following criteria: evaluated effects of a multicomponent/complex intervention (with 2 or more intervention components) in achieving at least 6-month abstinence in adult smokers who visited a PC, biochemical confirmation of abstinence, intention-to-treat analysis and results published in English/Spanish. METHODS: We followed PRISMA statement to report the review. We searched the following data sources: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus (from inception to February 2014), 3 key journals and a tobacco research bulletin. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists were used to evaluate methodological quality. Data selection, evaluation and extraction were done independently, using a paired review approach. Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions in the studies included, a meta-analysis was not conducted. RESULTS: Of 1147 references identified, 9 studies were selected (10,204 participants, up to 48 months of follow-up, acceptable methodological quality). Methodologies used were mainly individual or group sessions, telephone conversations, brochures or quit-smoking kits, medications and economic incentives for doctors and no-cost medications for smokers. Complex interventions achieved long-term continuous abstinence ranging from 7% to 40%. Behavioural interventions were effective and had a dose-response effect. Both nicotine replacement and bupropion therapy were safe and effective, with no observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent/complex interventions in PC are effective and safe, appearing to achieve greater long-term continuous smoking cessation than usual care and counselling alone. Selected studies were heterogeneous and some had significant losses to follow-up. Our results show that smoking interventions should include more than one component and a strong follow-up of the patient to maximise results.

Continued smoking abstinence in diabetic patients in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled multicenter study.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of an intensive smoking cessation intervention based on the transtheoretical model of change (TTM) in diabetic smokers attending primary care. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled clinical trial was designed in which the unit of randomization (intervention vs. usual care) was the primary care team. An intensive, individualized intervention using motivational interview and therapies and medications adapted to the patient's stage of change was delivered. The duration of the study was 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 722 people with diabetes who were smokers (345 in the intervention group and 377 in the control group) completed the study. After 1 year, continued abstinence was recorded in 90 (26.1%) patients in the intervention group and in 67 (17.8%) controls (p=0.007). In patients with smoking abstinence, there was a higher percentage in the precontemplation and contemplation stages at baseline in the intervention group than in controls (21.2% vs. 13.7%, p=0.024). When the precontemplation stage was taken as reference (OR=1.0), preparation/action stage at baseline showed a protective effect, decreasing 3.41 times odds of continuing smoking (OR=0.293 95% CI 0.179-0.479, p<0.001). Contemplation stage at baseline also showed a protective effect, decreasing the odds of continuing smoking (OR=0.518, 95% CI 0.318-0.845, p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: An intensive intervention adapted to the individual stage of change delivered in primary care was feasible and effective, with a smoking cessation rate of 26.1% after 1 year.