Suppr超能文献

减少吸烟方面的社会不平等:证据能否为政策提供依据?一项试点研究。

Reducing social inequalities in smoking: can evidence inform policy? A pilot study.

作者信息

Ogilvie D, Petticrew M

机构信息

MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

出版信息

Tob Control. 2004 Jun;13(2):129-31. doi: 10.1136/tc.2003.003962.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential contribution of evidence from existing systematic reviews of effectiveness to answering the question: what works in reducing social inequalities in smoking?

DATA SOURCE

The Cochrane Library (2002/4).

STUDY SELECTION

Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of community based tobacco control interventions, and all the primary studies included in one of these reviews.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviews and primary studies were assessed for intent to assess the social distribution of intervention effects, information about the social inclusiveness or targeting of interventions, baseline sociodemographic data collected on participants, and estimates of effect size stratified by sociodemographic variables.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Only one review aimed to examine outcomes stratified by sex, age or socioeconomic status, and these aims were only achieved with respect to sex. Sociodemographic data about participants were frequently collected in primary studies, but not used to compare intervention effects between social groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There may be scope for using existing research more effectively to contribute to evidence based policy to reduce social inequalities in smoking-by explicitly seeking stratified outcome data in new systematic reviews, by re-analysing original datasets, and/or by meta-analysis of individual participant data.

摘要

目的

评估现有有效性系统评价的证据对回答以下问题的潜在贡献:在减少吸烟方面的社会不平等中,哪些措施有效?

数据来源

考科蓝图书馆(2002/4)。

研究选择

基于社区的烟草控制干预措施有效性的系统评价,以及其中一项评价所纳入的所有原始研究。

数据提取

对评价和原始研究进行评估,以确定其是否旨在评估干预效果的社会分布、干预措施的社会包容性或针对性信息、收集的参与者基线社会人口学数据,以及按社会人口学变量分层的效应量估计值。

数据综合

只有一项评价旨在按性别、年龄或社会经济地位对结果进行分层,且仅在性别方面实现了这些目标。原始研究中经常收集参与者的社会人口学数据,但未用于比较不同社会群体之间的干预效果。

结论

通过在新的系统评价中明确寻求分层结果数据、重新分析原始数据集和/或对个体参与者数据进行荟萃分析,可能更有效地利用现有研究为基于证据的政策做出贡献,以减少吸烟方面的社会不平等。

相似文献

1
Reducing social inequalities in smoking: can evidence inform policy? A pilot study.
Tob Control. 2004 Jun;13(2):129-31. doi: 10.1136/tc.2003.003962.
3
Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Jan 1;44(1):108-110. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3698. Epub 2017 Dec 8.
4
5
6
[Inequalities in health in Italy].
Epidemiol Prev. 2004 May-Jun;28(3 Suppl):i-ix, 1-161.
7
School-based programmes for preventing smoking.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19(3):CD001293. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001293.pub2.
8
9
School-based programmes for preventing smoking.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(4):CD001293. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001293.

引用本文的文献

1
How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 18;1(1):MR000028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000028.pub3.
2
Do multiple community-based interventions on health promotion tackle health inequalities?
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Sep 10;19(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01271-8.
3
Exploring the equity impact of mobile health-based human immunodeficiency virus interventions: A systematic review of reviews and evidence synthesis.
Digit Health. 2020 Jul 20;6:2055207620942360. doi: 10.1177/2055207620942360. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
4
Equity effects of children's physical activity interventions: a systematic scoping review.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Oct 2;14(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0586-8.
7
How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;2010(12):MR000028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000028.pub2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验