Courtney Ryan J, Naicker Sundresan, Shakeshaft Anthony, Clare Philip, Martire Kristy A, Mattick Richard P
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Jun 8;12(6):6403-22. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606403.
Smoking cessation research output should move beyond descriptive research of the health problem to testing interventions that can provide causal data and effective evidence-based solutions. This review examined the number and type of published smoking cessation studies conducted in low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) and disadvantaged population groups.
A systematic database search was conducted for two time periods: 2000-2004 (TP1) and 2008-2012 (TP2). Publications that examined smoking cessation in a low-SES or disadvantaged population were coded by: population of interest; study type (reviews, non-data based publications, data-based publications (descriptive, measurement and intervention research)); and country. Intervention studies were coded in accordance with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data collection checklist and use of biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence was assessed.
278 citations were included. Research output (i.e., all study types) had increased from TP1 27% to TP2 73% (χ²=73.13, p<0.001), however, the proportion of data-based research had not significantly increased from TP1 and TP2: descriptive (TP1=23% vs. TP2=33%) or intervention (TP1=77% vs. TP2=67%). The proportion of intervention studies adopting biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence had significantly decreased from TP1 to TP2 with an increased reliance on self-reported abstinence (TP1=12% vs. TP2=36%).
The current research output is not ideal or optimal to decrease smoking rates. Research institutions, scholars and funding organisations should take heed to review findings when developing future research and policy.
戒烟研究成果应超越对健康问题的描述性研究，转向对能够提供因果数据和有效循证解决方案的干预措施进行测试。本综述考察了在社会经济地位较低（低社会经济地位）和弱势群体中开展的已发表戒烟研究的数量和类型。
对两个时间段进行了系统的数据库检索：2000 - 2004年（时间段1）和2008 - 2012年（时间段2）。对在低社会经济地位或弱势群体中研究戒烟的出版物进行编码，编码依据包括：感兴趣的人群；研究类型（综述、非基于数据的出版物、基于数据的出版物（描述性、测量性和干预性研究））；以及国家。干预性研究按照Cochrane有效实践与护理组织数据收集清单进行编码，并评估了自我报告戒烟的生化验证的使用情况。
纳入了278篇文献。研究成果（即所有研究类型）从时间段1的27%增加到了时间段2的73%（χ² = 73.13，p < 0.001），然而，基于数据的研究比例从时间段1到时间段2并未显著增加：描述性研究（时间段1 = 23%，时间段2 = 33%）或干预性研究（时间段1 = 77%，时间段2 = 67%）。从时间段1到时间段2，采用自我报告戒烟生化验证的干预性研究比例显著下降，对自我报告戒烟的依赖增加（时间段1 = 12%，时间段2 = 36%）。
当前的研究成果对于降低吸烟率而言并不理想或最佳。研究机构、学者和资助组织在开展未来研究和制定政策时应留意本综述的结果。
