Silagy C, Stead L F
Monash Institute of Public Health, Monash Medical Centre, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(2):CD000165. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000165.
Health care professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.
The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease specific and all cause mortality.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Date of the most recent searches: October 2000.
Randomized trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided.
We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomization and completeness of followup. The main outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up and mortality. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model.
We identified thirty four trials, conducted between 1972 and 1999, including over 27,000 smokers. In some trials, subjects were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics. Pooled data from 16 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) revealed a small but significant increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.45 to 1.98). This equates to an absolute difference in the cessation rate of about 2.5%. There was insufficient evidence, from indirect comparisons, to establish a significant difference in the effectiveness of physician advice according to the intensity of the intervention, the amount of follow-up provided, and whether or not various aids were used at the time of the consultation in addition to providing advice. However, direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.68). Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. It found no statistically significant differences in death rates at twenty years follow-up.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Additional manoeuvres appear to have only a small effect, though more intensive interventions are marginally more effective than minimal interventions.
医疗保健专业人员经常建议患者通过戒烟来改善健康状况。此类建议可能较为简短,或是更强化干预措施的一部分。
本综述的目的是评估医生建议在促进戒烟方面的有效性;比较医生的最低限度干预与更强化干预;评估各种辅助建议在促进戒烟方面的有效性,并确定戒烟建议对特定疾病和全因死亡率的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane烟草成瘾小组试验注册库和Cochrane对照试验注册库。最近一次检索日期为2000年10月。
来自执业医生的戒烟建议的随机试验,其中在首次提供建议后至少六个月评估戒烟情况。
我们对给出建议的环境、给出的建议类型(最低限度或强化)、是否使用了辅助建议、结局指标、随机化方法以及随访完整性进行了重复数据提取。主要结局指标是至少六个月随访后的戒烟情况和死亡率。我们在每个试验中使用了最严格的戒烟定义,并在可行的情况下使用了经生化验证的比率。失访的受试者被视为吸烟者。在可能的情况下,使用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。
我们确定了1972年至1999年间进行的34项试验,包括超过27000名吸烟者。在一些试验中,受试者存在特定疾病(胸部疾病、糖尿病、缺血性心脏病)风险,但大多数来自未经过筛选的人群。提供建议最常见的环境是初级保健。其他环境包括医院病房和门诊诊所,以及工业诊所。来自16项简短建议与无建议(或常规护理)试验的汇总数据显示,戒烟几率有小幅但显著的增加(优势比1.69,95%置信区间1.45至1.98)。这相当于戒烟率的绝对差异约为2.5%。根据间接比较,没有足够的证据来确定根据干预强度、提供的随访量以及除提供建议外咨询时是否使用各种辅助手段,医生建议的有效性存在显著差异。然而,强化建议与最低限度建议的直接比较显示强化建议有小幅优势(优势比1.44,95%置信区间1.23至1.68)。只有一项研究确定了吸烟建议对死亡率的影响。它发现在20年随访时死亡率没有统计学上的显著差异。
简单建议对戒烟率有小幅影响。额外的策略似乎只有小幅影响,尽管更强化的干预措施比最低限度干预措施略微更有效。