Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2020 Oct;88(10):951-964. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000611.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (ID: CRD42019122315) to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM) to promote smoking abstinence among individuals with substance use disorder or in recovery.
Databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and EBSCO. The primary eligibility criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis were as follows: any study examining the efficacy of CM for smoking cessation that reported smoking abstinence and/or cigarette reductions. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality assessment tool. Publication bias was examined using Egger's regression intercept, the Begg-Mazumdar test, and Tweedie's trim-and-fill approach.
A total of 22 articles were included, and 13 were included in three meta-analyses: abstinence at posttreatment (12 studies), abstinence at follow-up (8 studies), and reduction outcomes at posttreatment (6 studies). CM was superior to comparison arms in smoking abstinence (RR = 2.555; 95% CI [1.730, 3.775]; p < .001) and reduction (SMD = .601; 95% CI [0.372, 0.831]; p < .001) at end-of-treatment. At long-term follow-ups, CM did not show enhanced effects over abstinence beyond those shown in comparison arms (RR = 1.029; 95% CI [0.577, 1.836]; p = .922). Smoking-cessation treatment (all treatments included CM) and smoking abstinence increased the likelihood of abstinence from alcohol and/or illicit drugs. All studies were rated as being of strong or moderate quality, and no marked presence of publication bias was found.
CM for smoking cessation in individuals with substance use disorders performs significantly better than control conditions in reducing smoking at end-of-treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析（注册号：CRD42019122315），以评估应急管理（CM）在促进有物质使用障碍或康复中的个体戒烟方面的有效性证据。
数据库包括 PubMed、PsycINFO、Cochrane 和 EBSCO。纳入我们荟萃分析的主要合格标准如下：任何研究均检查了 CM 对戒烟的疗效，报告了吸烟戒断和/或香烟减少。使用有效公共卫生实践项目质量评估工具评估纳入研究的方法学质量。使用 Egger 回归截距、Begg-Mazumdar 检验和 Tweedie 的 Trim-and-Fill 方法检查发表偏倚。
共纳入 22 篇文章，其中 13 篇纳入三项荟萃分析：治疗后（12 项研究）、随访时（8 项研究）和治疗后即刻的减少结果（6 项研究）的戒烟率。CM 在吸烟戒断方面优于对照组（RR = 2.555；95%CI [1.730, 3.775]；p <.001），在治疗结束时的减少方面（SMD =.601；95%CI [0.372, 0.831]；p <.001）。在长期随访中，CM 在治疗后并未显示出比对照组更好的效果（RR = 1.029；95%CI [0.577, 1.836]；p =.922）。戒烟治疗（所有治疗均包括 CM）和戒烟增加了戒酒和/或非法药物的可能性。所有研究均被评为高质量或中等质量，且未发现明显的发表偏倚。
在减少治疗结束时的吸烟量方面，CM 在有物质使用障碍的个体戒烟方面的效果明显优于对照组。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。
