Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that children's decisions to smoke are influenced by family and friends. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members to strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We also searched unpublished material, and the reference lists of key articles. We performed both free-text Internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and we hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We also consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was performed in July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and family members to deter the use of tobacco. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed them for methodological quality. The studies were too limited in number and quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs of family interventions to prevent smoking. We identified five RCTs in Category 1 (minimal risk of bias on all counts); nine in Category 2 (a risk of bias in one or more areas); and five in Category 3 (risks of bias in design and execution such that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the study).Considering the fourteen Category 1 and 2 studies together: (1) four of the nine that tested a family intervention against a control group had significant positive effects, but one showed significant negative effects; (2) one of the five RCTs that tested a family intervention against a school intervention had significant positive effects; (3) none of the six that compared the incremental effects of a family plus a school programme to a school programme alone had significant positive effects; (4) the one RCT that tested a family tobacco intervention against a family non-tobacco safety intervention showed no effects; and (5) the one trial that used general risk reduction interventions found the group which received the parent and teen interventions had less smoking than the one that received only the teen intervention (there was no tobacco intervention but tobacco outcomes were measured). For the included trials the amount of implementer training and the fidelity of implementation are related to positive outcomes, but the number of sessions is not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some well-executed RCTs show family interventions may prevent adolescent smoking, but RCTs which were less well executed had mostly neutral or negative results. There is thus a need for well-designed and executed RCTs in this area.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Review)

Background There is evidence that family and friends influence children's decisions to smoke. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help families stop children starting smoking. Search methods We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL unpublished material, and key articles' reference lists. We performed free-text internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was 3 April 2014. There were no date or language limitations. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and families to deter tobacco use. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. Data collection and analysis We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data for each RCT and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Main results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The interventions were very heterogeneous in the components of the family intervention, the other risk behaviours targeted alongside tobacco, the age of children at baseline and the length of follow-up. Two interventions were tested by two RCTs, one was tested by three RCTs and the remaining 20 distinct interventions were tested only by one RCT. Twenty-three interventions were tested in the USA, two in Europe, one in Australia and one in India. The control conditions fell into two main groups: no intervention or usual care; or school-based interventions provided to all participants. These two groups of studies were considered separately. Most studies had a judgement of 'unclear' for at least one risk of bias criteria, so the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. Although there was heterogeneity between studies there was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity in the results. We were unable to extract data from all studies in a format that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence family-based interventions had a positive impact on preventing smoking when compared to a no intervention control. Nine studies (4810 participants) reporting smoking uptake amongst baseline non-smokers could be pooled, but eight studies with about 5000 participants could not be pooled because of insufficient data. The pooled estimate detected a significant reduction in smoking behaviour in the intervention arms (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.84). Most of these studies used intensive interventions. Estimates for the medium and low intensity subgroups were similar but confidence intervals were wide. Two studies in which some of the 4487 participants already had smoking experience at baseline did not detect evidence of effect (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17). Eight RCTs compared a combined family plus school intervention to a school intervention only. Of the three studies with data, two RCTS with outcomes for 2301 baseline never smokers detected evidence of an effect (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and one study with data for 1096 participants not restricted to never users at baseline also detected a benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94). The other five studies with about 18,500 participants did not report data in a format allowing meta-analysis. One RCT also compared a family intervention to a school 'good behaviour' intervention and did not detect a difference between the two types of programme (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.38, n = 388). No studies identified any adverse effects of intervention. Authors' conclusions There is moderate quality evidence to suggest that family-based interventions can have a positive effect on preventing children and adolescents from starting to smoke. There were more studies of high intensity programmes compared to a control group receiving no intervention, than there were for other compairsons. The evidence is therefore strongest for high intensity programmes used independently of school interventions. Programmes typically addressed family functioning, and were introduced when children were between 11 and 14 years old. Based on this moderate quality evidence a family intervention might reduce uptake or experimentation with smoking by between 16 and 32%. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because effect estimates could not include data from all studies. Our interpretation is that the common feature of the effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting (which is usually defined as showing strong interest in and care for the adolescent, often with rule setting). This is different from authoritarian parenting (do as I say) or neglectful or unsupervised parenting.

Best practice for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease through an equity lens : a review

Background: Despite declining rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in developed countries, lower socioeconomic groups continue to experience a greater burden of the disease. There are now many evidence-based treatments and prevention strategies for the management of CVD and it is essential that their impact on the more disadvantaged group is understood if socioeconomic inequalities in CVD are to be reduced. Aims: To determine whether key interventions for CVD prevention and treatment are effective among lower socioeconomic groups, to describe barriers to their effectiveness and the potential or actual impact of these interventions on the socioeconomic gradient in CVD. Methods: Interventions were selected from four stages of the CVD continuum. These included smoking reduction strategies, absolute risk assessment, cardiac rehabilitation, secondary prevention medications, and heart failure self-management programmes. Electronic searches were conducted using terms for each intervention combined with terms for socioeconomic status (SES). Results: Only limited evidence was found for the effectiveness of the selected interventions among lower SES groups and there was little exploration of socioeconomic-related barriers to their uptake. Some broad themes and key messages were identified. In the majority of findings examined, it was clear that the underlying material, social and environmental factors associated with disadvantage are a significant barrier to the effectiveness of interventions. Conclusion: Opportunities to reduce socioeconomic inequalities occur at all stages of the CVD continuum. Despite this, current treatment and prevention strategies may be contributing to the widening socioeconomic-CVD gradient. Further research into the impact of best-practice interventions for CVD upon lower SES groups is required.

Cultural challenges to secondary prevention: Implications for Saudi women

Like other highly developed countries, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are major health problems in Saudi Arabia. The aetiology of cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden within the Saudi population is similar to Western countries with atherosclerosis, hypertension, ischemic heart disease and diabetes highly prevalent with the main risk factors being smoking, obesity and inactivity. There are differences between Saudi men and women in epidemiology, risk factors and health service provision for CHD. These sex and gender based factors are important in considering the health and well-being of Saudi women. Currently, there is limited focus on the cardiovascular health of Saudi women. The aim of this paper is to examine culturally specific issues for Saudi women and the implications for secondary prevention.

The HealthyTexts study : A randomized controlled trial to improve skin cancer prevention behaviors among young people

Several randomized trials have found behavior change programs delivered via text messaging to be efficacious to improve preventive health behaviors such as physical activity and stopping smoking; however few have assessed its value in skin cancer prevention or early detection. The HealthyTexts study enrolled 678 participants 18–42 years, and assigned them to receive 21 text messages about skin cancer prevention, skin self-examination or physical activity(attention control) over the course of one year. Baseline data have been collected and outcomes will be assessed at three months and twelve months post intervention. The trial aims to increase the mean overall sun protection habits index score from 2.3 to 2.7 with a standard deviation of 0.5 (effect size of 0.5) and the proportion of people who conduct a whole-body skin self-examination by an absolute 10%. This paper describes the study design and participants' baseline characteristics. In addition, participants' goals for their health, and strategies they apply to achieve those goals are summarized.

Estimating the burden of disease attributable to smoking in South Africa in 2000

Objectives To quantify the burden of disease attributable to smoking in South Africa for 2000. Design The absolute difference between observed lung cancer death rate and the level in non-smokers, adjusted for occupational and indoor exposure to lung carcinogens, was used to estimate the proportion of lung cancer deaths attributable to smoking and the smoking impact ratio (SIR). The SIR was substituted for smoking prevalence in the attributable fraction formula for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cancers to allow for the long lag between exposure and outcome. Assuming a shorter lag between exposure and disease, the current prevalence of smoking was used to estimate the population-attributable fractions (PAF) for the other outcomes. Relative risks (RR) from the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS-II) were used to calculate PAF. Setting South Africa. Outcome measures Deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to lung and other cancers, COPD, cardiovascular conditions, respiratory tuberculosis, and other respiratory and medical conditions. Results Smoking caused between 41 632 and 46 656 deaths in South Africa, accounting for 8.0 - 9.0% of deaths and 3.7 - 4.3% of DALYs in 2000. Smoking ranked third (after unsafe sex/sexually transmitted disease and high blood pressure) in terms of mortality among 17 risk factors evaluated. Three times as many males as females died from smoking. Lung cancer had the largest attributable fraction due to smoking. However, cardiovascular diseases accounted for the largest proportion of deaths attributed to smoking. Conclusion Cigarette smoking accounts for a large burden of preventable disease in South Africa. While the government has taken bold legislative action to discourage tobacco use since 1994, it still remains a major public health priority.

Mortality attributable to smoking in Vietnamese men in 2008

Objective Smoking prevalence among Vietnamese men is among the highest in the world. Our aim was to provide estimates of tobacco attributable mortality to support tobacco control policies. Method We used the Peto–Lopez method using lung cancer mortality to derive a Smoking Impact Ratio (SIR) as a marker of cumulative exposure to smoking. SIRs were applied to relative risks from the Cancer Prevention Study, Phase II. Prevalence-based and hybrid methods, using the SIR for cancers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and smoking prevalence for all other outcomes, were used in sensitivity analyses. Results When lung cancer was used to measure cumulative smoking exposure, 28% (95% uncertainty interval 24–31%) of all adult male deaths (> 35 years) in Vietnam in 2008 were attributable to smoking. Lower estimates resulted from prevalence-based methods [24% (95% uncertainty interval 21–26%)] with the hybrid method yielding intermediate estimates [26% (95% uncertainty interval 23–28%)]. Conclusion Despite uncertainty in these estimates of attributable mortality, tobacco smoking is already a major risk factor for death in Vietnamese men. Given the high current prevalence of smoking, this has important implications not only for preventing the uptake of tobacco but also for immediate action to adopt and enforce stronger tobacco control measures.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents: Evidence and implications for public health

- P -General population, nonsmoking children (aged 5 to 12) and adolescents (aged 13 to 18) with their parents - I -Interventions with children and family members intended to deter tobacco use. Any components to change parenting behaviour, parental or sibling smoking behaviour, or family communication and interaction. - C -Usual practice, or a program of no family intervention - O -Smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline.