-
Scandinavian Journal of Work,... Jan 2020Objectives Evidence on the effect of smoking on sickness absence could guide workplace smoking cessation interventions and encourage employers to promote smoking... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Objectives Evidence on the effect of smoking on sickness absence could guide workplace smoking cessation interventions and encourage employers to promote smoking cessation among their employees. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize evidence on the association between smoking and sickness absence and determine whether there are differences in this association for study design, methodology, and sample characteristics. Methods We searched for studies that reported on smoking status and sickness absence, used empirical data, were published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last 25 years, and written in English. We conducted pooled analyses in which uni- and multivariate generalized linear regression models were applied. Results After screening 2551 unique records, 46 articles from 43 studies were included, of which 33 studies (with 1 240 723 participants) could be included in the pooled analyses. Smoking was associated with an 31% increase in risk of sickness absence compared to non-smoking (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-39). We did not find statistically significant different effect sizes for study location, gender, age, occupational class, study design, assessment of sickness absence, short- versus long-term sickness absence, and adjustment for relevant confounders. Furthermore, smoking was associated with 2.89 more sickness absence days per year compared to non-smoking (95% CI 2.08-3.70). Conclusions We found robust evidence showing that smoking increases both the risk and number of sickness absence days in working populations, regardless of study location, gender, age, and occupational class. Encouraging smoking cessation at the workplace could therefore be beneficial for employers and employees.
Topics: Absenteeism; Humans; Smoking; Workplace
PubMed: 31478055
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3848 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2021Smoking is a major public health problem. Although physicians have a key role in the fight against smoking, some of them are still smoking. Thus, we aimed to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a major public health problem. Although physicians have a key role in the fight against smoking, some of them are still smoking. Thus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of smoking among physicians.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. The prevalence of smoking among physicians was estimated and stratified, where possible, by specialties, continents, and periods of time. Then, meta-regressions were performed regarding putative influencing factors such as age and sex.
RESULTS
Among 246 studies and 497,081 physicians, the smoking prevalence among physicians was 21% (95CI 20 to 23%). Prevalence of smoking was 25% in medical students, 24% in family practitioners, 18% in surgical specialties, 17% in psychiatrists, 16% in medical specialties, 11% in anesthesiologists, 9% in radiologists, and 8% in pediatricians. Physicians in Europe and Asia had a higher smoking prevalence than in Oceania. The smoking prevalence among physicians has decreased over time. Male physicians had a higher smoking prevalence. Age did not influence smoking prevalence.
CONCLUSION
Prevalence of smoking among physicians is high, around 21%. Family practitioners and medical students have the highest percentage of smokers. All physicians should benefit from targeted preventive strategies.
Topics: Humans; Male; Physicians; Prevalence; Smoking; Students, Medical; Tobacco Smoking
PubMed: 34948936
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413328 -
Public Health May 2023COVID-19 and the implementation of lockdowns have impacted daily lives worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of lockdowns... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
COVID-19 and the implementation of lockdowns have impacted daily lives worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of lockdowns on the smoking and vaping behaviours of adults during the pandemic.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted up to 28 April 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science.
RESULTS
In total, 77 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. In 34 studies, an increase in smoking behaviour was reported for the majority of participants; however, in 21 and 18 studies, 'no change' and 'decrease' in smoking were the predominant responses, respectively. The results from the meta-analysis, which examined the change in the number of cigarettes smoked per day, showed no difference between the pre- and post-lockdown periods: 0.81 weighted mean difference (95% confidence interval, -0.59 to 2.21). Regarding vaping, three of seven studies reported an increase in smoking for the majority of participants, whereas 'no change' and 'decrease' were the predominant answers in the other four studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results show that lockdowns led most participants to increase smoking/vaping, whereas a decrease or cessation of smoking/vaping was only reported in the minority of participants. Attention should be given to the non-communicable diseases that could arise as a result of the increase in smoking/vaping during lockdowns, and further research in this area is needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Vaping; Smoking Cessation; COVID-19; Communicable Disease Control; Smoking; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
PubMed: 37043948
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2023.02.007 -
Schizophrenia Research Aug 2020Patients with schizophrenia display a very high rate of smoking in comparison with the general population. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with schizophrenia display a very high rate of smoking in comparison with the general population. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the association between cognitive performances and smoking status in patients with schizophrenia.
METHODS
This review was registered at PROSPERO, number CRD42019126758. After a systematic search on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, all studies measuring neurocognitive performances in both smoking and nonsmoking patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were included. Original data were extracted. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated with the means and standard deviations extracted using a random-effect model. Cognitive performances were compared between smoking and nonsmoking patients with schizophrenia. Meta-regressions were performed to explore the influence of sociodemographic and clinical variables on SMD.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Chronic smoking in patients with schizophrenia, compared to nonsmoking, was associated with a significant more important impairment in attention (p = 0.02), working memory (p < 0.001), learning (p < 0.001), executive function (EF) reasoning/problem solving (p < 0.001) and speed of processing (p < 0.001), but not in delayed memory, EF abstraction/shifting, EF inhibition and language. The meta-regression analysis found that attention impairment could be influenced by age (p < 0.001) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provides strong evidence that, in patients with schizophrenia, chronic smoking is related to cognitive impairment. This association emphasizes the importance of paying careful attention to both tobacco addiction and cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia.
Topics: Cognition; Humans; Memory, Short-Term; Neuropsychological Tests; Schizophrenia; Smoking
PubMed: 32507373
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2020.03.071 -
The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal :... Sep 2022A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between active maternal smoking and cleft lip and palate etiology. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between active maternal smoking and cleft lip and palate etiology. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to November, 2020. Observational studies of cigarette smoking habits in pregnant women. Outcomes included cleft lip and/or palate, cleft lip ± palate and cleft palate only. Publication bias analyses were performed and the Newcastle Ottawa scales were used to assess study quality. Fixed or random effect models were used in the meta-analysis, dependent on risk of statistical heterogeneity. Forty-five studies were eligible for inclusion of which 11 were cohort and 34 were case-control studies. Sixteen studies were of sufficient standard for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The summary odds ratio for the association between smoking and cleft lip and/or palate was 1.42 (95%CI 1.27-1.59) with a population attributable fraction of 4% (95%CI 3%-5%). There was limited evidence to show a dose-response effect of smoking. This review reports a moderate association between maternal smoking and orofacial cleft but the overall quality of the conventional observational studies included was poor. There is a need for high quality and novel research strategies to further define the role of smoking in the etiology of cleft lip and palate.
Topics: Cigarette Smoking; Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Smoking
PubMed: 34569861
DOI: 10.1177/10556656211040015 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Aug 2021Smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of negative health outcomes. Vaping can be effective for smoking cessation in nonpregnant populations. We conducted a systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of negative health outcomes. Vaping can be effective for smoking cessation in nonpregnant populations. We conducted a systematic review of vaping in pregnancy, covering prevalence, patterns of use, reasons for use, smoking cessation, and health effects.
METHODS
Five academic databases were searched on 17 February 2020. Studies reporting prevalence, patterns, reasons, cessation, or health effects of vaping in pregnancy were included; animal and in vitro studies were excluded. A narrative review was used, with risk of bias assessed using Hoy and colleague's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were identified: 11 survey, 7 qualitative, 3 cohort, and 2 secondary analyses of randomized clinical trials. Prevalence of vaping in pregnancy (four studies) was between 1.2% and 7.0% overall, and <1% among nonsmokers. Twelve studies reported patterns of use, but findings were inconsistent. Twelve of 14 studies asking why pregnant women vaped reported that most vaped to reduce or quit smoking. Mixed findings were reported from six studies on smoking cessation. Of three studies with health-related outcomes, two were underpowered and one reported similar birthweights for babies born to nonsmokers and women who vaped, with both higher (p < .0001) than the birthweight of babies born to smokers.
CONCLUSIONS
There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about prevalence, patterns, and effects of vaping in pregnancy on smoking cessation. The limited literature suggests that vaping in pregnancy has little or no effect on birthweight.
IMPLICATIONS
Smoking causes many negative health outcomes for pregnant women and to babies born to people who smoke. There remains a paucity of research on the effects of vaping in pregnancy. There is, however, the potential for vaping products to reduce the negative health outcomes associated with smoking. More research is needed to develop an evidence base in this area.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Smokers; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Smoking; Vaping
PubMed: 33538828
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntab017 -
The Laryngoscope Jun 2024Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent inflammatory disease of the upper airway. The impact of smoking on CRS has not been clearly established. We aim to clarify... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent inflammatory disease of the upper airway. The impact of smoking on CRS has not been clearly established. We aim to clarify the association between first-hand cigarette smoking and the prevalence and prognoses of CRS.
REVIEW METHODS
PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until May 15, 2022. Three blinded reviewers selected relevant studies, extracted data, and evaluated study bias following a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42022345585). We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the prevalence of smoking in CRS, association between smoking status and CRS, and association of smoking with quality of life (QOL) before and after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). We also performed descriptive analyses of olfactory function, CT scores, and endoscopy scores before and after FESS.
RESULTS
We included 23 cross-sectional studies, 19 cohort studies, two case-control studies, and one prospective clinical trial. The pooled prevalence of ever-smokers was 40% (95% CI = 0.30-0.51) and 33% (95% CI = 0.25-0.43) in patients with and without CRS. Compared to never-smokers, active smokers and past smokers had 1.35 (95% CI = 1.18-1.55) and 1.23 (95% CI = 1.17-1.29) higher odds of having CRS. Among patients with CRS, non-smokers reported higher initial QOL than smokers (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11-0.35), although post-FESS QOL was similar (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.30-0.51). Descriptive analysis found no significant correlations between smoking and post-FESS olfactory function and endoscopy scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Cigarette smoking is associated with higher prevalence and odds of CRS. Clinicians should be aware that smoking predisposes to CRS, but does not negatively impact the rhinologic outcomes of FESS. Laryngoscope, 134:2513-2524, 2024.
Topics: Humans; Sinusitis; Rhinitis; Chronic Disease; Quality of Life; Prevalence; Smoking; Endoscopy; Prognosis; Rhinosinusitis
PubMed: 38112394
DOI: 10.1002/lary.31223 -
The International Journal of... Mar 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and an important cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and an important cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of and risk factors for COPD in SSA. We conducted a protocol-driven systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Global Health, supplemented by a manual search of the abstracts from thoracic conference proceedings from 2017 to 2020. We did a meta-analysis of COPD prevalence and its association with current smoking. We identified 831 titles, of which 27 were eligible for inclusion in the review and meta-analysis. The population prevalence of COPD ranged from 1.7% to 24.8% (pooled prevalence: 8%, 95% CI 6-11). An increased prevalence of COPD was associated with increasing age, smoking and biomass smoke exposure. The pooled odds ratio for the effect of current smoking (vs. never smoked) on COPD was 2.20 (95% CI 1.62-2.99). COPD causes morbidity and mortality in adults in SSA. Smoking is an important risk factor for COPD in SSA, and this exposure needs to be reduced through the combined efforts of clinicians, researchers and policymakers to address this debilitating and preventable lung disease.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Prevalence; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Risk Factors; Smoke; Smoking
PubMed: 35197163
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.21.0394 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its addictive and harmful nature. Waterpipe smoking is influenced by multiple factors, including appealing flavors, marketing, use in social settings, and misperceptions that waterpipe is less harmful or addictive than cigarettes. People who use waterpipes are interested in quitting, but are often unsuccessful at doing so on their own. Therefore, developing and testing waterpipe cessation interventions to help people quit was identified as a priority for global tobacco control efforts. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions for people who smoke waterpipes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Specialized Register from database inception to 29 July 2022, using variant terms and spellings ('waterpipe' or 'narghile' or 'arghile' or 'shisha' or 'goza' or 'narkeela' or 'hookah' or 'hubble bubble'). We searched for trials, published or unpublished, in any language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, or cluster-RCTs of any smoking cessation interventions for people who use waterpipes, of any age or gender. In order to be included, studies had to measure waterpipe abstinence at a three-month follow-up or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from waterpipe use at least three months after baseline. We also collected data on adverse events. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarized as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies, where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I statistic. We summarized secondary outcomes narratively. We used the five GRADE considerations (risk of bias, inconsistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for our primary outcome in four categories high, moderate, low, or very low.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included nine studies, involving 2841 participants. All studies were conducted in adults, and were carried out in Iran, Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, and the USA. Studies were conducted in several settings, including colleges/universities, community healthcare centers, tuberculosis hospitals, and cancer treatment centers, while two studies tested e-health interventions (online web-based educational intervention, text message intervention). Overall, we judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, and six studies at high risk of bias. We pooled data from five studies (1030 participants) that tested intensive face-to-face behavioral interventions compared with brief behavioral intervention (e.g. one behavioral counseling session), usual care (e.g. self-help materials), or no intervention. In our meta-analysis, we included people who used waterpipe exclusively, or with another form of tobacco. Overall, we found low-certainty evidence of a benefit of behavioral support for waterpipe abstinence (RR 3.19 95% CI 2.17 to 4.69; I = 41%; 5 studies, N = 1030). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision and risk of bias. We pooled data from two studies (N = 662 participants) that tested varenicline combined with behavioral intervention compared with placebo combined with behavioral intervention. Although the point estimate favored varenicline, 95% CIs were imprecise, and incorporated the potential for no difference and lower quit rates in the varenicline groups, as well as a benefit as large as that found in cigarette smoking cessation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.24; I = 0%; 2 studies, N = 662; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision. We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of participants experiencing adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44; I = 31%; 2 studies, N = 662). The studies did not report serious adverse events. One study tested the efficacy of seven weeks of bupropion therapy combined with behavioral intervention. There was no clear evidence of benefit for waterpipe cessation when compared with behavioral support alone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41; 1 study, N = 121; very low-certainty evidence), or with self-help (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.00; 1 study, N = 86; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies tested e-health interventions. One study reported higher waterpipe quit rates among participants randomized to either a tailored mobile phone or untailored mobile phone intervention compared with those randomized to no intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.05; 2 studies, N = 319; very low-certainty evidence). Another study reported higher waterpipe abstinence rates following an intensive online educational intervention compared with a brief online educational intervention (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.21; 1 study, N = 70; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that behavioral waterpipe cessation interventions can increase waterpipe quit rates among waterpipe smokers. We found insufficient evidence to assess whether varenicline or bupropion increased waterpipe abstinence; available evidence is compatible with effect sizes similar to those seen for cigarette smoking cessation. Given e-health interventions' potential reach and effectiveness for waterpipe cessation, trials with large samples and long follow-up periods are needed. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence to prevent the risk of detection bias. Finally, there has been limited attention given to high-risk groups for waterpipe smoking, such as youth, young adults, pregnant women, and dual or poly tobacco users. These groups would benefit from targeted studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Humans; Bupropion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline; Water Pipe Smoking
PubMed: 37286509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005549.pub4 -
Cancer Epidemiology Jun 2022Approximately 5% of the population are living with a diagnosis of cancer. Recent improvements in survival following a diagnosis of cancer have led to an increase in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Approximately 5% of the population are living with a diagnosis of cancer. Recent improvements in survival following a diagnosis of cancer have led to an increase in second primary cancers (SPCs) worldwide. Their aetiology remains largely unknown with a large proportion believed to be related to modifiable lifestyle factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data that evaluated an association between cigarette smoking and risk of SPC. Studies were identified by searching Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and Scopus databases through March 2021 using broad search criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to derive pooled relative risks (RRs) for SPC defined a priori as smoking-related based on current evidence (lung, upper aero-digestive tract, stomach, pancreas, colorectum, liver, kidney, ureter, bladder and acute myeloid leukaemia). Eleven cohort studies and ten case-control studies met the eligibility criteria for review. There was marked heterogeneity in methods used in terms of classification and timing of smoking, confounders adjusted for and duration of follow-up across the studies. Nine cohort and seven case-control studies classified smoking habits prior to diagnosis of first cancer while the remaining studies classified post-first cancer smoking habits. In a meta-analysis using six studies, an increased risk of smoking-related SPC was observed for both former (RR=1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.67) and current smoking (RR=2.76; 95% CI 2.29-3.33), compared with never smoking. The pooled RRs changed only slightly when studies which measured post-first cancer smoking were excluded. A two-fold increase in risk was observed for ever smoking compared with never smoking. In conclusion, there was evidence that smoking might increase the risk of SPC in cancer survivors. For better informed cancer survivorship practice guidelines, more studies are needed particularly of post-cancer smoking and for cancers not known to be caused by smoking.
Topics: Cancer Survivors; Cigarette Smoking; Cohort Studies; Humans; Neoplasms; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35430427
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2022.102160