The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta-analysis

Ajla Mujcic; Matthijs Blankers; Jeroen Bommelé; Brigitte Boon; Anne H. Berman; Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw; Margriet van Laar; Rutger Engels

doi:10.1002/pon.5261

The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta-analysis

Ajla Mujcic^*, Matthijs Blankers, Jeroen Bommelé, Brigitte Boon, Anne H. Berman, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, Margriet van Laar, Rutger Engels

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P =.007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	49-60
Number of pages	12
Journal	Psycho-Oncology
Volume	29
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5261
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors thank Lauren Law for the assistance with the study selection and data extraction. The current study is supported by grant no. TBOS2014?7169 from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). The sponsor has no role in the design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data nor in writing the article or the decision to submit for publication.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1002/pon.5261

Cite this

@article{163445e2fc7844d085ed4231fd5993d4,

title = "The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta-analysis",

abstract = "Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P =.007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.",

author = "Ajla Mujcic and Matthijs Blankers and Jeroen Bommel{\'e} and Brigitte Boon and Berman, {Anne H.} and {Verdonck-de Leeuw}, {Irma M.} and {van Laar}, Margriet and Rutger Engels",

note = "Funding Information: The authors thank Lauren Law for the assistance with the study selection and data extraction. The current study is supported by grant no. TBOS2014?7169 from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). The sponsor has no role in the design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data nor in writing the article or the decision to submit for publication. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.",

year = "2020",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1002/pon.5261",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "49--60",

journal = "Psycho-Oncology",

issn = "1057-9249",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Mujcic, Ajla

AU - Blankers, Matthijs

AU - Bommelé, Jeroen

AU - Boon, Brigitte

AU - Berman, Anne H.

AU - Verdonck-de Leeuw, Irma M.

AU - van Laar, Margriet

AU - Engels, Rutger

N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank Lauren Law for the assistance with the study selection and data extraction. The current study is supported by grant no. TBOS2014?7169 from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). The sponsor has no role in the design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data nor in writing the article or the decision to submit for publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2020, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/1/1

Y1 - 2020/1/1

N2 - Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P =.007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.

AB - Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P =.007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076906563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pon.5261

DO - 10.1002/pon.5261

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31663182

AN - SCOPUS:85076906563

VL - 29

SP - 49

EP - 60

JO - Psycho-Oncology

JF - Psycho-Oncology

SN - 1057-9249

IS - 1

ER -

The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this