Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Müezzinler A, Mons U, Gellert C, Schöttker B, Jansen E, Kee F, et al.
    Am J Prev Med, 2015 Nov;49(5):e53-e63.
    PMID: 26188685 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.004
    INTRODUCTION: Smoking is known to be a major cause of death among middle-aged adults, but evidence on its impact and the benefits of smoking cessation among older adults has remained limited. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the influence of smoking and smoking cessation on all-cause mortality in people aged ≥60 years.

    METHODS: Relative mortality and mortality rate advancement periods (RAPs) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models for the population-based prospective cohort studies from Europe and the U.S. (CHANCES [Consortium on Health and Ageing: Network of Cohorts in Europe and the U.S.]), and subsequently pooled by individual participant meta-analysis. Statistical analyses were performed from June 2013 to March 2014.

    RESULTS: A total of 489,056 participants aged ≥60 years at baseline from 22 population-based cohort studies were included. Overall, 99,298 deaths were recorded. Current smokers had 2-fold and former smokers had 1.3-fold increased mortality compared with never smokers. These increases in mortality translated to RAPs of 6.4 (95% CI=4.8, 7.9) and 2.4 (95% CI=1.5, 3.4) years, respectively. A clear positive dose-response relationship was observed between number of currently smoked cigarettes and mortality. For former smokers, excess mortality and RAPs decreased with time since cessation, with RAPs of 3.9 (95% CI=3.0, 4.7), 2.7 (95% CI=1.8, 3.6), and 0.7 (95% CI=0.2, 1.1) for those who had quit <10, 10 to 19, and ≥20 years ago, respectively.

    CONCLUSIONS: Smoking remains as a strong risk factor for premature mortality in older individuals and cessation remains beneficial even at advanced ages. Efforts to support smoking abstinence at all ages should be a public health priority.

  2. Ahluwalia IB, Tripp AL, Dean AK, Mbulo L, Arrazola RA, Twentyman E, et al.
    Am J Prev Med, 2021 03;60(3 Suppl 2):S128-S135.
    PMID: 33663700 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.04.029
    INTRODUCTION: About 80% of the 1.1 billion people who smoke tobacco worldwide reside in low- and middle-income countries. Evidence-based approaches to promote cessation include brief advice from health professionals and referrals through quitlines. This study assesses cessation behaviors and the use of cessation services in the past 12 months among current tobacco smokers in 31 countries who attempted to quit.

    METHODS: Data came from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey, a household-based survey of non-institutionalized adults aged ≥15 years. Surveys were conducted in 31 countries during 2008-2018; sample sizes ranged from 4,250 (Malaysia) to 74,037 (India), and response rates ranged from 64.4% (Ukraine) to 98.5% (Qatar). In 2019, data from the 31 countries were assessed in June 2019, and indicators included self-reported current (daily or less than daily) tobacco smoking, past-year quit attempts, and cessation methods used in the past 12 months.

    RESULTS: Current tobacco smoking prevalence ranged from 3.7% (Ethiopia) to 38.2% (Greece). Overall, an estimated 176.8 million adults from the 31 countries made a quit attempt in the past 12 months, with country-level prevalence ranging from 16.4% (Greece) to 54.7% (Botswana). Most individuals who made a quit attempt did so without assistance (median=74.4%). Other methods were less prevalent, including quitlines (median=0.2%) and counseling (median=7.2%).

    CONCLUSIONS: In the assessed countries, the majority of those who currently smoked tobacco and made a quit attempt did so without assistance; very few reported using quitlines, partly because of the lack of quitlines in some countries. In resource-limited settings, quitlines can play a greater role in helping people quit smoking as part of a comprehensive approach.

  3. Teo CH, Ling CJ, Ng CJ
    Am J Prev Med, 2018 Jan;54(1):133-143.
    PMID: 29254551 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.08.028
    CONTEXT: Globally, uptake of health screening in men remains low and the effectiveness of interventions to promote screening uptake in men is not well established. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions in improving men's uptake of and intention to undergo screening, including interventions using information and communication technology and a male-sensitive approach.

    EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies were sourced from five electronic databases (October 2015), experts, and references of included studies. This study included RCTs or cluster RCTs that recruited men and reported uptake of or intention to undergo screening. Two researchers independently performed study selection, appraisal, and data extraction. The interventions were grouped into those that increase uptake and those that promote informed decision making. They were further sub-analyzed according to types of intervention, male-sensitive, and web- and video-based interventions. The analysis was completed in December 2016.

    EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: This review included 58 studies. Most studies were on prostate cancer (k=31) and HIV (k=11) screening. Most of the studies had low methodologic quality (79.3%) and after excluding them from the analysis, one study found that educational intervention (which was also male-sensitive) was effective in improving men's intention to screen (risk ratio=1.36, 95% CI=1.23, 1.50, k=1) and partner educational intervention increased men's screening uptake (risk ratio=1.77, 95% CI=1.48, 2.12, k=1). Video-based educational interventions reduced prostate cancer screening uptake (risk ratio=0.89, 95%CI=0.80, 0.99, k=1) but web-based interventions did not change men's screening intention or uptake.

    CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need to conduct more robust studies to provide conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of different interventions to improve men's screening behavior.
  4. Petito LC, McCabe ME, Pool LR, Krefman AE, Perak AM, Marino BS, et al.
    Am J Prev Med, 2024 Feb;66(2):216-225.
    PMID: 37751803 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.09.019
    INTRODUCTION: Clinical cardiovascular health is a construct that includes 4 health factors-systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, and body mass index-which together provide an evidence-based, more holistic view of cardiovascular health risk in adults than each component separately. Currently, no pediatric version of this construct exists. This study sought to develop sex-specific charts of clinical cardiovascular health for age to describe current patterns of clinical cardiovascular health throughout childhood.

    METHODS: Data were used from children and adolescents aged 8-19 years in six pooled childhood cohorts (19,261 participants, collected between 1972 and 2010) to create reference standards for fasting glucose and total cholesterol. Using the models for glucose and cholesterol as well as previously published reference standards for body mass index and blood pressure, clinical cardiovascular health charts were developed. All models were estimated using sex-specific random-effects linear regression, and modeling was performed during 2020-2022.

    RESULTS: Models were created to generate charts with smoothed means, percentiles, and standard deviations of clinical cardiovascular health for each year of childhood. For example, a 10-year-old girl with a body mass index of 16 kg/m2 (30th percentile), blood pressure of 100/60 mm Hg (46th/50th), glucose of 80 mg/dL (31st), and total cholesterol of 160 mg/dL (46th) (lower implies better) would have a clinical cardiovascular health percentile of 62 (higher implies better).

    CONCLUSIONS: Clinical cardiovascular health charts based on pediatric data offer a standardized approach to express clinical cardiovascular health as an age- and sex-standardized percentile for clinicians to assess cardiovascular health in childhood to consider preventive approaches at early ages and proactively optimize lifetime trajectories of cardiovascular health.

  5. Mehta PM, Wang MC, Cameron NA, Freaney PM, Perak AM, Shah NS, et al.
    Am J Prev Med, 2023 Dec;65(6):1184-1186.
    PMID: 37552145 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.07.007
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links