MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systemically searched PubMed and CENTRAL up to September 2019. We searched for published interventional studies on smoking cessation interventions using the usual care that complemented with CHWs as compared to the usual or standard care alone. Our primary outcome was abstinence of smoking. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias.
RESULT: We identified 2794 articles, of which only five studies were included. A total of 3513 smokers with 41 CHWs were included in the studies. The intervention duration range from 6 weeks to 30 months. The studies used behavioral intervention or a combination of behavioral intervention and pharmacological treatment. Overall, the smoking cessation intervention that incorporated involvement of CHWs had higher smoking cessation rates [OR 1.95, 95% CI (1.35, 2.83)]. Significant smoking cessation rates were seen in two studies.
CONCLUSION: Higher smoking cessation rates were seen in the interventions that combined the usual care with interventions by CHWs as compared to the usual care alone. However, there were insufficient studies to prove the effectiveness. In addition, there was high heterogeneity in terms of interventions and participants in the current studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised control study with a two-group, single-blind design and baseline evaluation was selected. Social media sites were used to advertise for participants, who were then admitted after meeting the requirements. Participants who met the eligibility requirements were randomly split into two groups. Each group received a total of three sessions of online therapy (MT or CT), once every two weeks, as well as one phone call per week as reinforcement. At the beginning and end of the intervention, participants completed questionnaires (1st week and 5th week). Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) statistical analysis was used to analyse all the variables.
RESULTS: The MT group experienced a statistically significant decrease in cigarette consumption (β: -3.50, 95% Wald CI: - 4.62, -2.39) compared to the CT group over time. Furthermore, the MT group demonstrated significant improvements in their scores for the AAQ-2, anxiety, stress, depression and mindfulness compared to the CT group.
CONCLUSION: Online MT is more successful at assisting smokers in lowering their daily cigarette intake and supporting their mental health during the smoking cessation process. Further longitudinal comparisons of the effectiveness of online MT should be undertaken using online platforms in future studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of carbon monoxide measurement feedback and the standard brief motivation adopted to encourage the smoker to quit.
METHODS: A single-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted at ten tertiary colleges in Selangor. The study recruited young adult smokers at the precontemplation and contemplation stages. The subjects in the control group received a standard brief motivational strategy. On the other hand, the intervention group received additional carbon monoxide measurement and a motivational feedback module. A follow up was conducted at the first, third and sixth month to measure changes in smoking cessation stage. Subsequently, the secondary outcomes of a mean number of cigarette consumption and quit smoking attempt were analysed. A total of 160 subjects were required to detect the expected difference of 17% in primary outcomes between the groups. This study utilised Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) to handle the clustering effects.
CONCLUSION: Biomedical risk assessment feedback mechanism by using carbon monoxide is a promising aid to motivate the smoker to quit. This mechanism is a relatively easy, quick and non-invasive technique. Thus, it can be utilised as a reinforcement relating to the harmful effect of smoking. Besides, it can also increase the smokers' selfefficacy and decisional balance to adopt behavioural changes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomised control trial was conducted on smokers in a factory. A total of 163 participants were recruited and randomised into control and intervention groups using a table of random numbers. The intervention group received a ten-minute brief physician counselling session to quit smoking. Stages of smoking behaviour were measured in both groups using a translated and validated questionnaire at baseline, one month and three months post intervention.
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in smoking behaviour at one-month post intervention (p=0.024, intention to treat analysis; OR=2.525; CI=1.109-5.747). This was not significant at three-month post intervention (p=0.946, intention to treat analysis; OR=1.026; 95% CI=0.486-2.168).
CONCLUSIONS: A session of brief physician counselling was effective in improving smokers' behaviour at workplace, but the effect was not sustained.