Carson Kristin V, Brinn Malcolm P, Labiszewski Nadina A, Peters Matthew, Chang Anne B, Veale Antony, Esterman Adrian J, Smith Brian J
Clinical Practice Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;2012(8):CD009325. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009325.pub2.
Tobacco use in Indigenous populations (people who have inhabited a country for thousands of years) is often double that in the non-Indigenous population. Addiction to nicotine usually begins during early adolescence and young people who reach the age of 18 as non-smokers are unlikely to become smokers thereafter. Indigenous youth in particular commence smoking at an early age, and a disproportionate burden of substance-related morbidity and mortality exists as a result.
To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programmes to prevent tobacco use initiation or progression to regular smoking amongst young Indigenous populations and to summarise these approaches for future prevention programmes and research.
The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register was searched in November 2011, with additional searches run in MEDLINE. Online clinical trial databases and publication references were also searched for potential studies.
We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials aiming to prevent tobacco use initiation or progression from experimentation to regular tobacco use in Indigenous youth. Interventions could include school-based initiatives, mass media, multi-component community level interventions, family-based programmes or public policy.
Data pertaining to methodology, participants, interventions and outcomes were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, whilst information on risk of bias was extracted independently by a combination of two reviewers. Studies were assessed by qualitative narrative synthesis, as insufficient data were available to conduct a meta-analysis. The review process was examined by an Indigenous (Aboriginal) Australian for applicability, acceptability and content.
Two studies met all of the eligibility criteria for inclusion within the review and a third was identified as ongoing. The two included studies employed multi-component community-based interventions tailored to the specific cultural aspects of the population and were based in Native American populations (1505 subjects in total). No difference was observed in weekly smoking at 42 months follow-up in the one study assessing this outcome (skills-community group versus control: risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; skills-only group versus control: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05). For smokeless tobacco use, no difference was found between the skills-community arm and the control group at 42 weeks (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30), though a significant difference was observed between the skills-only arm and the control group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85). Whilst the second study found positive changes for tobacco use in the intervention arm at post test (p < 0.05), this was not maintained at six month follow-up (change score -0.11 for intervention and 0.07 for control). Both studies were rated as high or unclear risk of bias in seven or more domains (out of a total of 10).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, a conclusion cannot be drawn as to the efficacy of tobacco prevention initiatives tailored for Indigenous youth. This review highlights the paucity of data and the need for more research in this area. Smoking prevalence in Indigenous youth is twice that of the non-Indigenous population, with tobacco experimentation commencing at an early age. As such, a significant health disparity exists where Indigenous populations, a minority, are over-represented in the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Methodologically rigorous trials are needed to investigate interventions aimed at preventing the uptake of tobacco use amongst Indigenous youth and to assist in bridging the gap between tobacco-related health disparities in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.
原住民(在一个国家居住了数千年的人群)的烟草使用率通常是非原住民的两倍。尼古丁成瘾通常始于青春期早期,18岁时仍不吸烟的年轻人此后不太可能成为吸烟者。尤其是原住民青年吸烟年龄较早,因此与物质相关的发病率和死亡率负担过重。
评估干预项目在预防年轻原住民开始使用烟草或发展为经常吸烟方面的有效性,并总结这些方法,以供未来的预防项目和研究参考。
2011年11月检索了Cochrane烟草成瘾小组专业注册库,并在MEDLINE中进行了额外检索。还检索了在线临床试验数据库和出版物参考文献以查找潜在研究。
我们纳入了旨在预防原住民青年开始使用烟草或从尝试吸烟发展为经常使用烟草的随机对照试验和非随机对照试验。干预措施可包括学校倡议、大众媒体、多成分社区层面干预、家庭项目或公共政策。
一名评审员提取与方法、参与者、干预措施和结果相关的数据,另一名评审员进行核对,同时由两名评审员结合独立提取关于偏倚风险的信息。由于数据不足无法进行荟萃分析,因此通过定性叙述性综合对研究进行评估。一名澳大利亚原住民对评审过程的适用性、可接受性和内容进行了审查。
两项研究符合纳入本综述的所有资格标准,第三项研究正在进行中。纳入的两项研究采用了针对该人群特定文化方面的多成分社区干预措施,研究对象为美国原住民(总共1505名受试者)。在一项评估该结果的研究中,42个月随访时每周吸烟情况未观察到差异(技能-社区组与对照组:风险比[RR]0.95,95%置信区间0.78至1.14;仅技能组与对照组:RR 0.86,95%置信区间0.71至1.05)。对于无烟烟草使用,42周时技能-社区组与对照组之间未发现差异(RR 0.93,95%置信区间0.67至1.30),尽管仅技能组与对照组之间观察到显著差异(RR 0.57,95%置信区间0.39至0.85)。虽然第二项研究发现干预组在测试后烟草使用有积极变化(p<0.05),但在六个月随访时未维持这一变化(干预组变化分数为-0.11,对照组为0.07)。两项研究在七个或更多领域(总共10个领域)的偏倚风险被评为高或不清楚。
基于现有证据,无法就针对原住民青年的烟草预防举措的有效性得出结论。本综述突出了数据的匮乏以及该领域更多研究的必要性。原住民青年的吸烟率是非原住民的两倍,且吸烟尝试始于早年。因此,存在显著的健康差距,作为少数群体的原住民在与吸烟相关的发病率和死亡率负担中占比过高。需要进行方法严谨的试验来研究旨在预防原住民青年吸烟的干预措施,并有助于弥合原住民和非原住民之间与烟草相关的健康差距。