-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Inhalation; Chewing Gum; Female; Humans; Male; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention; Tablets; Time Factors; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 29852054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub5 -
Western Journal of Nursing Research Apr 2019There is heated debate surrounding policy reform granting full state-level nurse practitioner (NP) scope of practice (SOP) in all U.S. states. NP SOP policy is argued to...
There is heated debate surrounding policy reform granting full state-level nurse practitioner (NP) scope of practice (SOP) in all U.S. states. NP SOP policy is argued to impact access to care; however, a synthesis of empirical studies assessing this relationship has yet to be performed. Our study fills this critical gap by systematically reviewing studies that examine this relationship. We apply Aday and Andersen's Access Framework to operationalize access to care. We also use this framework to map components of access to care that may relate to NP SOP through concepts identified in this review. Our findings suggest that full state-level NP SOP policy is associated with increases in various components of access to care, but additional work is needed to evaluate causality and underlying mechanisms behind this policy's effect on access. This work is necessary to align research, practice, and policy efforts surrounding NP SOP with healthcare accessibility.
Topics: Health Policy; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Nurse Practitioners; Nurse's Role; Policy Making; State Government
PubMed: 30136613
DOI: 10.1177/0193945918795168 -
Dietary Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Risk: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.Circulation Jan 2020The elimination of specific dietary cholesterol target recommendations in recent guidelines has raised questions about its role with respect to cardiovascular disease.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The elimination of specific dietary cholesterol target recommendations in recent guidelines has raised questions about its role with respect to cardiovascular disease. This advisory was developed after a review of human studies on the relationship of dietary cholesterol with blood lipids, lipoproteins, and cardiovascular disease risk to address questions about the relevance of dietary cholesterol guidance for heart health. Evidence from observational studies conducted in several countries generally does not indicate a significant association with cardiovascular disease risk. Although meta-analyses of intervention studies differ in their findings, most associate intakes of cholesterol that exceed current average levels with elevated total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. Dietary guidance should focus on healthy dietary patterns (eg, Mediterranean-style and DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension]-style diets) that are inherently relatively low in cholesterol with typical levels similar to the current US intake. These patterns emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat or fat-free dairy products, lean protein sources, nuts, seeds, and liquid vegetable oils. A recommendation that gives a specific dietary cholesterol target within the context of food-based advice is challenging for clinicians and consumers to implement; hence, guidance focused on dietary patterns is more likely to improve diet quality and to promote cardiovascular health.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, Dietary; Diet, Western; Humans; Nutrition Policy; Recommended Dietary Allowances
PubMed: 31838890
DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743 -
Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Jan 2019Unsustainable growth in healthcare expenditure demands effective cost-containment policies. We review policy effectiveness using total payer expenditure as primary...
Unsustainable growth in healthcare expenditure demands effective cost-containment policies. We review policy effectiveness using total payer expenditure as primary outcome measure. We included all OECD member states from 1970 onward. After a rigorous quality appraisal, we included 43 original studies and 18 systematic reviews that cover 341 studies. Policies most often evaluated were payment reforms (10 studies), managed care (8 studies) and cost sharing (6 studies). Despite the importance of this topic, for many widely-used policies very limited evidence is available on their effectiveness in containing healthcare costs. We found no evidence for 21 of 41 major groups of cost-containment policies. Furthermore, many evaluations displayed a high risk of bias. Therefore, policies should be more routinely and rigorously evaluated after implementation. The available high-quality evidence suggests that the cost curve may best be bent using a combination of cost sharing, managed care competition, reference pricing, generic substitution and tort reform.
Topics: Cost Control; Health Care Costs; Health Policy; Humans
PubMed: 30429060
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.10.015 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2021The 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee conducted a systematic review of existing research on diet and health to inform the current Dietary Guidelines for...
IMPORTANCE
The 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee conducted a systematic review of existing research on diet and health to inform the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The committee answered this public health question: what is the association between dietary patterns consumed and all-cause mortality (ACM)?
OBJECTIVE
To ascertain the association between dietary patterns consumed and ACM.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Guided by an analytical framework and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria developed by the committee, the US Department of Agriculture's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase and dual-screened the results to identify articles that were published between January 1, 2000, and October 4, 2019. These studies evaluated dietary patterns and ACM in participants aged 2 years and older. The NESR team extracted data from and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Committee members synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence supporting the conclusion statements.
FINDINGS
A total of 1 randomized clinical trial and 152 observational studies were included in the review. Studies enrolled adults and older adults (aged 17-84 years at baseline) from 28 countries with high or very high Human Development Index; 53 studies originated from the US. Most studies were well designed, used rigorous methods, and had low or moderate risks of bias. Precision, directness, and generalizability were demonstrated across the body of evidence. Results across studies were highly consistent. Evidence suggested that dietary patterns in adults and older adults that involved higher consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, whole grains, unsaturated vegetable oils, fish, and lean meat or poultry (when meat was included) were associated with a decreased risk of ACM. These healthy patterns were also relatively low in red and processed meat, high-fat dairy, and refined carbohydrates or sweets. Some of these dietary patterns also included intake of alcoholic beverages in moderation. Results based on additional analyses with confounding factors generally confirmed the robustness of main findings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, consuming a nutrient-dense dietary pattern was associated with reduced risk of death from all causes.
Topics: Cause of Death; Diet; Diet, Healthy; Humans; Nutrition Policy; United States
PubMed: 34463743
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22277 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34693994
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011556.pub2 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Apr 2017Whether transgender people should be able to compete in sport in accordance with their gender identity is a widely contested question within the literature and among... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Whether transgender people should be able to compete in sport in accordance with their gender identity is a widely contested question within the literature and among sport organisations, fellow competitors and spectators. Owing to concerns surrounding transgender people (especially transgender female individuals) having an athletic advantage, several sport organisations place restrictions on transgender competitors (e.g. must have undergone gender-confirming surgery). In addition, some transgender people who engage in sport, both competitively and for leisure, report discrimination and victimisation.
OBJECTIVE
To the authors' knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the literature pertaining to sport participation or competitive sport policies in transgender people. Therefore, this review aimed to address this gap in the literature.
METHOD
Eight research articles and 31 sport policies were reviewed.
RESULTS
In relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport's policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence based.
CONCLUSION
Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.
Topics: Exercise; Female; Health Policy; Humans; Male; Sports; Transgender Persons
PubMed: 27699698
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y -
Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences Jun 2018Recent evidence indicates that reproductive-age people have inadequate fertility awareness (FA) concerning fertility, infertility risk factors, and consequences of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Recent evidence indicates that reproductive-age people have inadequate fertility awareness (FA) concerning fertility, infertility risk factors, and consequences of delaying childbearing. However, no study has tried to summarize these studies and to clarify the variables associated with FA, namely the role of gender, age, education, and reproductive status on FA.
METHODS
A literature search up to February 2017 was conducted using the EBSCO, Web of Science, Scielo, and Scopus electronic databases with combinations of keywords and MeSH terms (e.g. 'awareness' OR 'health knowledge, attitudes, practice' AND 'fertility'; 'fertile period'; 'assisted reprod*').
RESULTS
Seventy-one articles met the eligibility criteria and were included. The main results showed that participants report low-to-moderate FA. Higher levels of FA were shown by women, highly educated individuals, people who reported difficulties with conceiving, and those who had planned their pregnancies. Having or desiring to have children was not related to FA level. An inconsistent association between study participant age and FA was observed, with some studies indicating that older participants had higher FA, but others found an opposite result or did not find any association.
CONCLUSION
The current findings suggest that interventions to increase FA are warranted, especially those targeting men, people with low education, and in family planning settings. Interventions and campaigns should be customized to meet individuals' needs regarding FA. Because of the high heterogeneity regarding the assessment of FA, these conclusions must be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Age Factors; Female; Fertility; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Policy; Humans; Infertility; Male; Patient Education as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29957086
DOI: 10.1080/03009734.2018.1480186 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2019This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.
UNLABELLED
This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.
DESCRIPTION
Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences. A set of recommendations on red meat and processed meat consumption was developed on the basis of 5 de novo systematic reviews that considered all of these issues.
METHODS
The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
None. (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017074074; PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018088854).
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Diet; Humans; Meat Products; Neoplasms; Nutrition Policy; Red Meat
PubMed: 31569235
DOI: 10.7326/M19-1621 -
Lancet (London, England) Jun 2022Over the past two decades, global health diplomacy, foreign policy for health, and global health policy have changed substantially. Diplomacy is a constitutive part of... (Review)
Review
Over the past two decades, global health diplomacy, foreign policy for health, and global health policy have changed substantially. Diplomacy is a constitutive part of the system of global health governance. COVID-19 hit the world when multilateral cooperation was subject to major challenges, and global health has since become integral to geopolitics. The importance of global health diplomacy, especially at WHO, in keeping countries jointly committed to improving health for everyone, has once again been shown. Through a systematic review, this Series paper explores how international relations concepts and theories have been applied to better understand the role of power in shaping positions, negotiations, and outcomes in global health diplomacy. We apply an international relations perspective to reflect on the effect that those concepts and theories have had on global health diplomacy over the past two decades. This Series paper argues that a more central role of international relations concepts and theories in analysing global health diplomacy would help develop a more nuanced understanding of global health policy making. However, the world has changed to an extent that was not envisioned in academic discourse. This shift calls for new international relations concepts and theories to inform global health diplomacy.
Topics: COVID-19; Diplomacy; Global Health; Humans; Policy Making; Public Policy
PubMed: 35594877
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00583-9