Smoking cessation interventions on health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Giuseppe La Torre, Generosa Tiberio, Alessandro Sindoni, Barbara Dorelli, Vittoria Cammalleri
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: PeerJ Inc. 2020-06-01
• Series: PeerJ
• Subjects: Smoking cessation; Interventions; Health-care workers; Systematic review; Meta-analysis
• Online Access: https://peerj.com/articles/9396.pdf

Objective The authors carried out a systematic review and a meta-analysis on smoking cessation interventions on health -care workers to clarify the state of the art interventions and to identify the best one. Materials and Methods This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019130117. The databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched until December 2018. Quality of all studies included in the systematic review was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on cohort or cross-sectional studies and to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were also carried out for cohort studies (quasi-experimental or a before-after studies design) and clinical trials. Results Twenty–four studies have been included in the analysis: four before-after, 13 cross-sectional, three quasi-experimental studies and four clinical trials. Articles were heterogeneous (P for homogeneity <0.01), but they have all shown positive results since they reached the goal of smoking cessation among health-care workers, even if with different proportions. Meta-analysis was performed on 10 studies (six cohort studies and four clinical trials), showing a 21% of success rate from the application of smoking cessation interventions, either pharmacological or behavioral ones. The resulted pooled RR (Risk Ratio) was 1.21 (95% CI [1.06–1.38]), being 24% of success rate from clinical trials (pooled RR 1.244; 95% CI [1.099–1.407]) and 19% of success rate from cohort studies (pooled RR 1.192; 0.996–1.426). However, two studies have confidence intervals which include unity and one study has a wide confidence interval; as a consequence, the meta-analysis for its results depends heavily on one single study. Meta-regression analysis revealed that results were influenced by the number of participants. Conclusion Both policy and pharmaceutical interventions can obtain positive results in quitting smoking among health-care workers. However, as shown by our review, combination approaches can produce better results in terms of cessation percentages and smoking abstinence.