Supplementary file 1a: PRISMA-E 2012 CHECKLIST
Checklist of Items for Reporting Equity-Focused Systematic Reviews
Section
Item
TITLE
Title
1
Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. Identify equity as a
focus of the review, if relevant, using the term equity.
1
ABSTRACT
Structured summary
2
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data
sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and
synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings;
systematic review registration number. State research question(s) related to health
equity.
2
2A
Present results of health equity analyses (e.g., subgroup analyses or meta-regression).
2
2B
Describe extent and limits of applicability to disadvantaged populations of interest.
2
3
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Describe
assumptions about mechanism(s) by which the intervention is assumed to have an
impact on health equity.
3,4
3A
Provide the logic model/analytical framework, if done, to show the pathways through
which the intervention is assumed to affect health equity and how it was developed.
n/a
4
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to
participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Describe how disadvantage was defined if used as criterion in the review (e.g., for
selecting studies, conducting analyses, or judging applicability).
4,5,6
4A
State the research questions being addressed with reference to health equity
4
5
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address),
4
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Objectives
METHODS
Protocol and
Standard PRISMA item
Extension for Equity-Focused Reviews
Page #
1
Checklist of Items for Reporting Equity-Focused Systematic Reviews
Section
Item
registration
Eligibility criteria
Standard PRISMA item
Extension for Equity-Focused Reviews
and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Page #
6
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report
characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for
eligibility, giving rationale. Describe the rationale for including particular study
designs related to equity research questions.
4,5,6
6A
Describe the rationale for including the outcomes (e.g., how these are relevant to
reducing inequity).
4
Information sources
7
Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with
study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Describe information sources (e.g., health, non-health, and grey literature sources) that
were searched that are of specific relevance to address the equity questions of the
review.
4,5,6
Search
8
Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits
used, such that it could be repeated.Describe the broad search strategy and terms used
to address equity questions of the review.
Supplemen
tary file 1a
Study selection
9
State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic
review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
4,5,6,
figure 2
Data collection
process
10
Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in
duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
6
Data items
11
List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources)
and any assumptions and simplifications made. List and define data items related to
equity, where such data were sought (e.g., using PROGRESS-Plus or other criteria,
context).
6
Risk of bias in
individual studies
12
Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including
specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this
information is to be used in any data synthesis.
6,
supplement
ary file 1f
Summary measures
13
State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
6
2
Checklist of Items for Reporting Equity-Focused Systematic Reviews
Section
Item
Standard PRISMA item
Extension for Equity-Focused Reviews
Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done,
including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2) for each meta-analysis.Describe methods of
synthesizing findings on health inequities (e.g., presenting both relative and absolute
differences between groups).
Page #
Synthesis of results
14
Risk of bias across
studies
15
Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g.,
publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
6
Additional analyses
16
Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, metaregression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.Describe methods of
additional synthesis approaches related to equity questions, if done, indicating which
were pre-specified
n/a
RESULTS
Study selection
17
Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review,
with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
7, figure 1
Study
characteristics
18
For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size,
PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.Present the population
characteristics that relate to the equity questions across the relevant PROGRESS-Plus
or other factors of interest.
7,8,
supplement
ary file 1g
Risk of bias within
studies
19
Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level
assessment (see Item 12).
7,
Supplemen
tary file 1f
Results of
individual studies
20
For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple
summary data for each intervention group and (b) effect estimates and confidence
intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
7-12
Synthesis of results
21
Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and
measures of consistency.Present the results of synthesizing findings on inequities (see
14).
7-12, table
2,
supplement
ary file 1g
5,6
3
Checklist of Items for Reporting Equity-Focused Systematic Reviews
Section
Item
Risk of bias across
studies
22
Additional analysis
23
Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses,
meta-regression) (see Item 16).Give the results of additional synthesis approaches
related to equity objectives, if done, (see 16).
DISCUSSION
Summary of
evidence
24
Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome;
consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., health care providers, users, and policy makers).
7-12
Limitations
25
Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review level (e.g.,
incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
13
Conclusions
26
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and
implications for future research.Present extent and limits of applicability to disadvantaged
populations of interest and describe the evidence and logic underlying those judgments.
13,14
26A
Provide implications for research, practice, or policy related to equity where relevant (e.g.,
types of research needed to address unanswered questions).
13,14
27
Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of
data); role of funders for the systematic review.
14
FUNDING
Funding
Standard PRISMA item
Extension for Equity-Focused Reviews
Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).
Page #
7,
Supplemen
tary file 1f
n/a
4
Supplementary file 1b: searches
Electronic searches
Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R)
1946 to May 04 2012, search date 09/05/2012; also Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to January
week 3, 2013, search date 23/01/2013; also Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to September Week 3
2013, search date 01/10/2013.
1. smoking/
2. smoking cessation/
3. tobacco/
4. "Tobacco Use Disorder"/
5. nicotine/
6. tobacco, smokeless/
7. tobacco use, cessation/
8. (smokers or smoker).ti,ab.
9. cigar$.mp.
10. smoking.ti,ab.
11. or/1-10
12. smoking cessation/
13. tobacco use, cessation/
14. tobacco use, cessation products/
15. smoking/pc
16. smoking/dt
17. smoking/th
18. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (ban or bans or prohibit$ or restrict$
or discourage$)).ti,ab.
19. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (workplace or work place or work
site or worksite)).ti,ab.
20. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (public place$ or public space$ or
public area$ or office$ or school$ or institution$)).ti,ab.
21. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (legislat$ or government$ or
authorit$ or law or laws or bylaw$ or byelaw$ or bye law$ or regulation$)).ti,ab.
22. ((tobacco free or smoke free) adj3 (hospital or inpatient or outpatient or
institution$)).ti,ab.
23. ((tobacco-free or smoke-free) adj3 (facilit$ or zone$ or area$ or site$ or place$ or
environment$ or air)).ti,ab.
24. ((tobacco or smok$ or cigarette$) adj3 (campaign$ or advertis$ or advertiz$)).ti,ab.
25. ((billboard$ or advertis$ or advertiz$ or sale or sales or sponsor$) adj3 (restrict$ or limit$
or ban or bans or prohibit$)).ti,ab.
26. (tobacco control adj3 (program$ or initiative$ or policy or policies or intervention$ or
activity or activities or framework)).ti,ab.
27. ((smok$ or tobacco) adj (policy or policies or program$)).ti,ab.
28. ((retailer$ or vendor$) adj3 (educat$ or surveillance$ or prosecut$ or legislat$)).ti,ab.
29. test purchas$.ti,ab.
30. voluntary agreement$.ti,ab.
31. health warning$.ti,ab.
5
32. ((tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (tax or taxes or taxation or excise or duty free or duty paid or
customs)).ti,ab.
33. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (packaging or packet$)).ti,ab.
34. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (marketing or marketed)).ti,ab.
35. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (price$ or pricing)).ti,ab.
36. point of sale.ti,ab.
37. vending machine$.ti,ab.
38. (trade adj (restrict$ or agreement$)).ti,ab.
39. (contraband$ or smuggl$ or bootleg$ or cross border shopping).ti,ab.
40. (tobacco control act or clean air or clean indoor air).ti,ab.
41. ((reduce$ or prevent$) adj3 (environmental tobacco smoke or passive smok$ or
secondhand smok$ or second hand smok$ or SHS)).ti,ab.
42. ((population level or population based or population orientated or population oriented)
adj3 (intervention$ or prevention or policy or policies or program$ or project$)).ti,ab.
43. (community adj3 (intervention$ or prevention or policy or policies or program$ or
project$)).ti,ab.
44. ((sale or sales or retail$ or purchas$) adj3 (minors or teenage$ or underage$ or underage$ or child$)).ti,ab.
45. (youth access adj3 restrict$).ti,ab.
46. (smoking cessation or cessation support).ti,ab.
47. (smokefree or smoke-free or smoke free).ti,ab.
48. ((stop$ or quit$ or reduc$ or give up or giving up) adj3 (cigarette$ or tobacco or
smoking)).ti,ab.
49. quit attempt$.ti,ab.
50. tobacco quit.ti,ab.
51. quit rate$.ti,ab.
52. (quitline$ or quit line$ or quit-line$).ti,ab.
53. ((smok$ or tobacco or nicotine or cigarette$) adj2 (abstinence or cessation)).ti,ab.
54. or/12-53
55. (socioeconomic or socio economic or socio-economic).ti,ab.
56. inequalit$.ti,ab.
57. depriv$.ti,ab.
58. disadvantage$.ti,ab.
59. educat$.ti,ab.
60. (social adj (class$ or group$ or grade$ or context$ or status)).ti,ab.
61. (employ$ or unemploy$).ti,ab.
62. income.ti,ab.
63. poverty.ti,ab.
64. SES.ti,ab.
65. demographic$.ti,ab.
66. (uninsur$ or insur$).ti,ab.
67. minorit$.ti,ab.
68. poor.ti,ab.
69. affluen$.ti,ab.
70. equity.ti,ab.
71. (underserved or under served or under-served).ti,ab.
72. occupation$.ti,ab.
73. (work site or worksite or work-site).ti,ab.
74. (work place or workplace or work-place).ti,ab.
6
75. (work force or workforce or work-force).ti,ab.
76. (high risk or high-risk or at risk).ti,ab.
77. (marginalised or marginalized).ti,ab.
78. (social$ adj (disadvant$ or exclusion or excluded or depriv$)).ti,ab.
79. exp socioeconomic factors/
80. exp public assistance/
81. exp social welfare/
82. vulnerable populations/
83. or/55-82
84. 11 and 54
85. 83 and 84
86. limit 85 to (abstracts and english language and yr="1990 -Current")
Embase; Excerpta Medica Database Guide, 1980 to 2012 Week 18, search date 09/05/2012;
also 1980 to 2013 week 3, search date 23/01/2013; also Embase 1980 to 2013 Week 39,
search date 01/10/2013.
1. smoking/
2. smoking cessation/
3. tobacco/
4. nicotine/
5. tobacco, smokeless/
6. "smoking and smoking related phenomena"/
7. cigarette smoking/
8. cigarette smoke/
9. tobacco smoke/
10. (smokers or smoker).ti,ab.
11. cigar$.mp.
12. smoking.ti,ab.
13. or/1-12
14. smoking cessation program/
15. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (ban or bans or prohibit$ or restrict$
or discourage$)).ti,ab.
16. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (workplace or work place or work
site or worksite)).ti,ab.
17. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (public place$ or public space$ or
public area$ or office$ or school$ or institution$)).ti,ab.
18. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (legislat$ or government$ or
authorit$ or law or laws or bylaw$ or byelaw$ or bye law$ or regulation$)).ti,ab.
19. ((tobacco free or smoke free) adj3 (hospital or inpatient or outpatient or
institution$)).ti,ab.
20. ((tobacco-free or smoke-free) adj3 (facilit$ or zone$ or area$ or site$ or place$ or
environment$ or air)).ti,ab.
21. ((tobacco or smok$ or cigarette$) adj3 (campaign$ or advertis$ or advertiz$)).ti,ab.
22. ((billboard$ or advertis$ or advertiz$ or sale or sales or sponsor$) adj3 (restrict$ or limit$
or ban or bans or prohibit$)).ti,ab.
23. (tobacco control adj3 (program$ or initiative$ or policy or policies or intervention$ or
activity or activities or framework)).ti,ab.
7
24. ((smok$ or tobacco) adj (policy or policies or program$)).ti,ab.
25. ((retailer$ or vendor$) adj3 (educat$ or surveillance$ or prosecut$ or legislat$)).ti,ab.
26. test purchas$.ti,ab.
27. voluntary agreement$.ti,ab.
28. health warning$.ti,ab.
29. ((tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (tax or taxes or taxation or excise or duty free or duty paid or
customs)).ti,ab.
30. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (packaging or packet$)).ti,ab.
31. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (marketing or marketed)).ti,ab.
32. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (price$ or pricing)).ti,ab.
33. point of sale.ti,ab.
34. vending machine$.ti,ab.
35. (trade adj (restrict$ or agreement$)).ti,ab.
36. (contraband$ or smuggl$ or bootleg$ or cross border shopping).ti,ab.
37. (tobacco control act or clean air or clean indoor air).ti,ab.
38. ((reduce$ or prevent$) adj3 (environmental tobacco smoke or passive smok$ or
secondhand smok$ or second hand smok$ or SHS)).ti,ab.
39. ((population level or population based or population orientated or population oriented)
adj3 (intervention$ or prevention or policy or policies or program$ or project$)).ti,ab.
40. (community adj3 (intervention$ or prevention or policy or policies or program$ or
project$)).ti,ab.
41. ((sale or sales or retail$ or purchas$) adj3 (minors or teenage$ or underage$ or underage$ or child$)).ti,ab.
42. (youth access adj3 restrict$).ti,ab.
43. (smoking cessation or cessation support).ti,ab.
44. (smokefree or smoke-free or smoke free).ti,ab.
45. ((stop$ or quit$ or reduc$ or give up or giving up) adj2 (cigarette$ or tobacco or
smoking)).ti,ab.
46. tobacco quit.ti,ab.
47. quit attempt$.ti,ab.
48. quit rate$.ti,ab.
49. (quit line$ or quitline$ or quit-line$).ti,ab.
50. ((smok$ or tobacco or nicotine or cigarette$) adj2 (abstinence or cessation)).ti,ab.
51. or/14-50
52. (socioeconomic or socio economic or socio-economic).ti,ab.
53. inequalit$.ti,ab.
54. depriv$.ti,ab.
55. disadvantage$.ti,ab.
56. educat$.ti,ab.
57. (social adj (class$ or group$ or grade$ or context$ or status)).ti,ab.
58. (employ$ or unemploy$).ti,ab.
59. income.ti,ab.
60. poverty.ti,ab.
61. SES.ti,ab.
62. demographic$.ti,ab.
63. (uninsur$ or insur$).ti,ab.
64. minorit$.ti,ab.
65. poor.ti,ab.
66. affluen$.ti,ab.
8
67. equity.ti,ab.
68. (underserved or under served or under-served).ti,ab.
69. occupation$.ti,ab.
70. (work site or worksite or work-site).ti,ab.
71. (work place or workplace or work-place).ti,ab.
72. (work force or workforce or work-force).ti,ab.
73. (high risk or high-risk or at risk).ti,ab.
74. (marginalised or marginalized).ti,ab.
75. (social$ adj (disadvant$ or exclusion or excluded or depriv$)).ti,ab.
76. exp socioeconomics/
77. public assistance/
78. welfare, social/
79. exp social status/
80. social security/
81. vulnerable population/
82. or/52-81
83. 13 and 51
84. 82 and 83
85. limit 84 to (abstracts and english language and yr="1990 -Current")
PsycInfo (OVID) 1987 to May Week 1 2012, search date 10/05/2012; also 1987 to January
week 3 2013, search date 23/01/2013; also PsycINFO 1806 to September Week 4 2013,
search date 01/10/2013.
1. exp tobacco smoking/
2. exp smoking cessation/
3. nicotine/
4. tobacco, smokeless/
5. (smokers or smoker).ti,ab.
6. tobacco.ti,ab.
7. nicotine.ti,ab.
8. cigar$.mp.
9. smoking.ti,ab.
10. or/1-9
11. exp smoking cessation/
12. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (ban or bans or prohibit$ or restrict$
or discourage$)).ti,ab.
13. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (workplace or work place or work
site or worksite)).ti,ab.
14. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (public place$ or public space$ or
public area$ or office$ or school$ or institution$)).ti,ab.
15. ((smok$ or anti smok$ or tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (legislat$ or government$ or
authorit$ or law or laws or bylaw$ or byelaw$ or bye law$ or regulation$)).ti,ab.
16. ((tobacco free or smoke free) adj3 (hospital or inpatient or outpatient or
institution$)).ti,ab.
17. ((tobacco-free or smoke-free) adj3 (facilit$ or zone$ or area$ or site$ or place$ or
environment$ or air)).ti,ab.
18. ((tobacco or smok$ or cigarette$) adj3 (campaign$ or advertis$ or advertiz$)).ti,ab.
9
19. ((billboard$ or advertis$ or advertiz$ or sale or sales or sponsor$) adj3 (restrict$ or limit$
or ban or bans or prohibit$)).ti,ab.
20. (tobacco control adj3 (program$ or initiative$ or policy or policies or intervention$ or
activity or activities or framework)).ti,ab.
21. ((smok$ or tobacco) adj (policy or policies or program$)).ti,ab.
22. ((retailer$ or vendor$) adj3 (educat$ or surveillance$ or prosecut$ or legislat$)).ti,ab.
23. test purchas$.ti,ab.
24. voluntary agreement$.ti,ab.
25. health warning$.ti,ab.
26. ((tobacco or cigarette$) adj3 (tax or taxes or taxation or excise or duty free or duty paid or
customs)).ti,ab.
27. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (packaging or packet$)).ti,ab.
28. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (marketing or marketed)).ti,ab.
29. ((cigarette$ or tobacco) adj3 (price$ or pricing)).ti,ab.
30. point of sale.ti,ab.
31. vending machine$.ti,ab.
32. (trade adj (restrict$ or agreement$)).ti,ab.
33. (contraband$ or smuggl$ or bootleg$ or cross border shopping).ti,ab.
34. (tobacco control act or clean air or clean indoor air).ti,ab.
35. ((reduce$ or prevent$) adj3 (environmental tobacco smoke or passive smok$ or
secondhand smok$ or second hand smok$ or SHS)).ti,ab.
36. ((population level or population based or population orientated or population oriented)
adj3 (intervention$ or prevention or policy or policies or program$ or project$)).ti,ab.
37. (community adj3 (intervention$ or prevention or policy or policies or program$ or
project$)).ti,ab.
38. ((sale or sales or retail$ or purchas$) adj3 (minors or teenage$ or underage$ or underage$ or child$)).ti,ab.
39. (youth access adj3 restrict$).ti,ab.
40. (smoking cessation or cessation support).ti,ab.
41. (smokefree or smoke-free or smoke free).ti,ab.
42. ((stop$ or quit$ or reduc$ or give up or giving up) adj3 (cigarette$ or tobacco or
smoking)).ti,ab.
43. quit attempt$.ti,ab.
44. tobacco quit.ti,ab.
45. quit rate$.ti,ab.
46. (quitline$ or quit line$ or quit-line$).ti,ab.
47. ((smok$ or tobacco or nicotine or cigarette$) adj2 (abstinence or cessation)).ti,ab.
48. or/11-47
49. (socioeconomic or socio economic or socio-economic).ti,ab.
50. inequalit$.ti,ab.
51. depriv$.ti,ab.
52. disadvantage$.ti,ab.
53. educat$.ti,ab.
54. (social adj (class$ or group$ or grade$ or context$ or status)).ti,ab.
55. (employ$ or unemploy$).ti,ab.
56. income.ti,ab.
57. poverty.ti,ab.
58. SES.ti,ab.
59. demographic$.ti,ab.
10
60. (uninsur$ or insur$).ti,ab.
61. minorit$.ti,ab.
62. poor.ti,ab.
63. affluen$.ti,ab.
64. equity.ti,ab.
65. (underserved or under served or under-served).ti,ab.
66. occupation$.ti,ab.
67. (work site or worksite or work-site).ti,ab.
68. (work place or workplace or work-place).ti,ab.
69. (work force or workforce or work-force).ti,ab.
70. (high risk or high-risk or at risk).ti,ab.
71. (marginalised or marginalized).ti,ab.
72. (social$ adj (disadvant$ or exclusion or excluded or depriv$)).ti,ab.
73. exp socioeconomic status/
74. poverty/
75. disadvantaged/
76. or/49-75
77. 10 and 48
78. 76 and 77
79. limit 78 to (english language and abstracts and yr="1990 - 2012")
Cochrane Library 2012 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of
Reviews of Effects; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Health Technology
Assessment Database), search date 10/05/12; also January 2012 to December 2012, search
date 29/04/13; also January 2013 to December 2013, search date 01/10/2013.
#1
MeSH descriptor Smoking, this term only
#2
MeSH descriptor Tobacco Use Cessation explode all trees
#3
MeSH descriptor Tobacco explode all trees
#4
MeSH descriptor Tobacco Use Disorder, this term only
#5
MeSH descriptor Nicotine, this term only
#6
(smoking or smokers or smoker or tobacco or cigar* or nicotine)
#7
(#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6)
#8
(smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (ban or bans or prohibit*
restrict* or discourage*)
#9
(smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (workplace or work place
worksite)
#10 (smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (public next place*)
#11 (smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (public next space)
#12 (smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (public next area*)
#13 (smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (office* or school*
institution*)
#14 (smok* or anti-smok* or tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (legislat* or government*
authorit* or law or laws or bylaw* or byelaw* or bye-law* or regulation*)
#15 (tobacco-free or smoke-free) near3 (hospital* or inpatient* or outpatient*
institution*)
#16 (tobacco-free or smoke-free) near3 (facility* or zone* or area* or site* or place*
environment* or air)
or
or
or
or
or
or
11
#17 (tobacco or smok* or cigarette*) near3 (campaign* or advertis* or advertiz*)
#18 (billboard* or advertis* or advertiz* or sale or sales or sponsor*) near3 (restrict* or
limit* or ban or bans or prohibit*)
#19 (tobacco next control) near3 (program* or initiative* or policy or policies or
intervention* or activity or activities or framework)
#20 (smok* or tobacco) next (policy or policies or program*)
#21 (retailer* or vendor*) near3 (educat* or surveillance or prosecut* or legslat*)
#22 test next purchas* in All Fields or (voluntary next agreement*)
#23 (sale or sales or retail* or purchas*) near3 (minors or teenage* or underage* or underage* or child*)
#24 (youth near3 access) near3 restrict*
#25 health next warning*
#26 (tobacco or cigarette*) near3 (tax or taxes or taxation or excise or duty-free or dutypaid or customs)
#27 (cigarette* or tobacco) near3 (packaging or packet*)
#28 (cigarette* or tobacco) near3 (marketing or marketed)
#29 (cigarette* or tobacco) near3 (price* or pricing)
#30 "point of sale"
#31 vending next machine*
#32 trade near3 (restrict* or agreement*)
#33 contraband* or smuggl* or bootleg* or (cross-border next shopping)
#34 "tobacco control act" or "clean air" or "clean indoor air"
#35 reduce* near3 "environmental tobacco smoke" or (passive next smok*) or
(secondhand next smok*) or (second next hand next smok*) or SHS
#36 prevent* near3 "environmental tobacco smoke" or (passive next smok*) or
(secondhand next smok*) or (second next hand next smok*) or SHS
#37 (population next level) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies or
program* or project*)
#38 (population next based) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies or
program* or project*)
#39 (population next orientated) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies or
program* or project*)
#40 (community next level) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies or
program* or project*)
#41 (community next based) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies or
program* or project*)
#42 (community next orientated) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies
or program* or project*)
#43 (community next oriented) near3 (intervention* or prevention or policy or policies or
program* or project*)
#44 smoking next cessation or cessation next support
#45 smokefree or smoke-free or smoke next free
#46 (stop* or quit* or reduc* or give next up or giving next up) near3 (cigarette* or
tobacco or smoking)
#47 quit next attempt*
#48 tobacco next quit
#49 quit next rate*
#50 quitline* or quit-line* or quit next line*
#51 (smok* or tobacco or nicotine or cigarette*) near2 (abstinence or cessation)
12
#52 (#8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR
#18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR
#29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 OR #36 OR #37 OR #38 OR #39 OR
#40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #45 OR #46 OR #47 OR #48 OR #49 OR #50 OR
#51)
#53 socioeconomic or socio next economic or socio-economic
#54 inequalit*
#55 depriv*
#56 disadvantage*
#57 educat*
#58 social next (class* or group* or grade* or context* or status)
#59 employ* or unemploy*
#60 income
#61 poverty
#62 SES
#63 demographic*
#64 insur* or uninsur*
#65 minorit*
#66 poor
#67 affluen*
#68 equity
#69 underserved or under next served or under-served
#70 occupation*
#71 work next site or worksite or work-site
#72 work next place or workplace or work-place
#73 work next force or workforce or work-force
#74 high next risk or high-risk or at next risk
#75 marginalised or marginalized
#76 social* next (disadvant* or exclusion or excluded or depriv*)
#77 MeSH descriptor Socioeconomic Factors explode all trees
#78 MeSH descriptor Public Assistance, this term only
#79 MeSH descriptor Social Welfare, this term only
#80 MeSH descriptor Vulnerable Populations, this term only
#81 (#53 OR #54 OR #55 OR #56 OR #57 OR #58 OR #59 OR #60 OR #61 OR #62 OR
#63 OR #64 OR #65 OR #66 OR #67 OR #68 OR #69 OR #70 OR #71 OR #72 OR #73 OR
#74 OR #75 OR #76 OR #77 OR #78 OR #79 OR #80)
#82 (#7 AND #52)
#83 (#81 and #82), from 1990 to 2012
Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings
Citation Index (Science, and Social Science & Humanities), in Web of Science hosted on ISI
Web of Knowledge, search date 10/05/12; also 1st May 2012 to 31st December 2012, search
date 29/04/13; also 1st January 2013 to 1st October 2013.
(TS=(smoking or smokers or smoker or tobacco or cigar* or nicotine) AND TS=(abstinence
or cessation or quit*) AND TS=(socioeconomic or socio economic or socio-economic)) AND
Language=(English), Timespan=1990-2012
BIOSIS Previews hosted on ISI Web of Knowledge, search date 10/05/12
13
(TS=(smoking or smokers or smoker or tobacco or cigar* or nicotine) AND TS=(abstinence
or cessation or quit*) AND TS=(socioeconomic or socio economic or socio-economic)) AND
Language=(English), Timespan=1990-2012; also January 2012 to December 2012, search
date 29/04/13; also Timespan = 2013, search date 01/10/2013.
CINAHL Plus (EBSCO host) search date 10/05/12; also 1st May 2012 to 31st December 2012,
search date 29/04/13, also 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2013, search date 01/10/2013.
S8 S5 AND S9, Limiters - Published Date from: 19900101-20121231
S9 S6 OR S7 OR S8
S8 TX social* W1 (disadvantage* or exclusion or excluded or depriv*)
S7 TX social W1 (class* or group* or grade* or context* or status)
S6 (MH "Socioeconomic Factors") OR "SOCIOECONOMIC" OR (MH "Poverty") OR
"POVERTY" OR "EQUITY"
S5 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4
S4 TX (stop* or quit* or reduc* or give up or giving up) W3 (cigarette* or tobacco or
smoking)
S3 TX Smoking W1 cessation
S2 (MH "Tobacco, Smokeless") OR (MH "Tobacco Abuse Control (Saba CCC)") OR (MH
"Risk Control: Tobacco Use (Iowa NOC)") OR (MH "Passive Smoking")
S1 (MH "Smoking Cessation Programs") OR (MH "Smoking Cessation") OR (MH "Smoking
Cessation Assistance (Iowa NIC)")
ERIC (EBSCO Host) search date 11/05/12; also 1st May 2012 to 31st December 2012, search
date 29/04/13, also 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2013, search date 01/10/2013.
S10 S8 and S9
S9 S4 or S5 or S6 or S7
S8 S1 or S2 or S3
S7 AB Socioeconomic OR AB Poverty OR AB equity
S6 ((DE "Socioeconomic Background" OR DE "Socioeconomic Influences" OR DE
"Socioeconomic Status") OR (DE "Poverty")) AND (DE "Disadvantaged Environment" OR
DE "Economically Disadvantaged" OR DE "Socioeconomic Influences")
S5 TX social* W1 (disadvantage* or exclusion or excluded or depriv*)
S4 TX social W1 (class* or group* or grade* or context* or status)
S3 TX (stop* or quit* or reduc* or give up or giving up) W3 (cigarette* or tobacco or
smoking)
S2 TX Smoking W1 cessation
S1 DE SMOKING
Handsearching:
1. Addiction 2012 volume 107 issues 1 to 8 (August 2012) and Early View, search date
31/7/12; also ‘Accepted Articles’, ‘Early View’, search date 14/2/13 and 2012 volume
107 issues 12 and S2, volume 108 issues 1 to 2 search date 18/2/13. Volume 108
issues 10 and 11, ‘Accepted Articles’ and ‘Early View’, search date 01/10/13.
14
2. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2012, volume 14, issues 1 to 6, search date 30/7/12;
also 2013 volume 15 issues 1 to 3 and ‘Advance Access’ search date 18/2/13. Volume
15 issues 10 and 11 and ‘Advance Access’, search date 01/10/13.
3. Social Science and Medicine 2012, volume 74 issues 1 to 12, volume 75 issues 1 to 7,
articles ‘in press’ search date 31/7/12; also 2013 volumes 74 to 82 ‘in progress’, and
‘articles in press’, search date 18/2/13. Volumes 94 to 99 ‘in progress’ and ‘articles n
press’, search date 01/1013.
4. Tobacco Control 2012, volume 21, issues 1 to 4, ‘online first’ search date 31/7/12;
also volume 21 issue 6, volume 22 issues 1 to 2 and ‘online first’, search date 18/2/13.
Volume 22 issues 5 and 6, and ‘online first’ search date 01/10/13.
15
Supplementary file 1c. WHO European countries and other stage 4 countries
(source: http://www.euro.who.int/en/home)
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
16
Tajikistan
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Uzbekistan
17
Supplementary file 1d: Included studies
Bauld L, Chesterman J, Judge K, Pound E, Coleman T, English Evaluation of Smoking Cessation
Services (EESCS). Impact of UK National Health Service smoking cessation services: variations
in outcomes in England. Tobacco Control 2003; 12(3):296-301.
Bauld L, Judge K, Platt S. Assessing the impact of smoking cessation services on reducing health
inequalities in England: observational study. Tobacco Control 2007; 16(6):400-404.
Bauld L, Chesterman J, Ferguson J, Judge K. A comparison of the effectiveness of group-based
and pharmacy-led smoking cessation treatment in Glasgow. Addiction 2009; 104(2):308-316.
Bauld L, Ferguson J, McEwen A, Hiscock R. Evaluation of a drop-in rolling-group model of
support to stop smoking. Addiction 2012.
Bernard P, Ninot G, Guillaume S, Fond G, Courtet P, Christine PM et al. Physical activity as a
protective factor in relapse following smoking cessation in participants with a depressive disorder.
American Journal on Addictions 2012; 21(4):348-355.
Brown J, Michie S, Geraghty AWA, Miller S, Yardley L, Gardner B et al. A pilot study of
StopAdvisor: A theory-based interactive internet-based smoking cessation intervention aimed
across the social spectrum. Addictive Behaviors 2012; 37(12):1365-1370.
Cosnes J, Beaugerie L, Carbonnel F, Gendre JP. Smoking cessation and the course of Crohn's
disease: an intervention study. Gastroenterology 2001; 120(5):1093-1099.
De Vries H, Bakker M, Mullen PD, van BG. The effects of smoking cessation counseling by
midwives on Dutch pregnant women and their partners. Patient Education and Counseling 2006;
63:177-187.
De Vries H, Kenward MG, Free CJ. Preventing Smoking Relapse Using Text Messages: Analysis
of Data From the txt2stop Trial. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2012; Advance Access published
April 19, 2012
Edwards R, McElduff P, Jenner D, Heller RF, Langley J. Smoking, smoking cessation, and use of
smoking cessation aids and support services in South Derbyshire, England. Public Health 2007;
121(5):321-332.
Ferguson J, Bauld L, Chesterman J, Judge K. The English smoking treatment services: one-year
outcomes. Addiction 2005; 100 (Suppl 2): 59-69.
Fernandez E, Schiaffino A, Borrell C, Benach J, Ariza C, Ramon JM et al. Social class, education,
and smoking cessation: Long-term follow-up of patients treated at a smoking cessation unit.
Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2006; 8(1):29-36.
Galbraith L, Hecht G (Information Services Division, Scotland). NHS Smoking Cessation Service
Statistics (Scotland) 1st January to 31st December 2011. 1-40. 2012. Scottish Public Health
Observatory.
18
Hiscock R, Judge K, Bauld L. Social inequalities in quitting smoking: what factors mediate the
relationship between socioeconomic position and smoking cessation? Journal of Public Health
2011; 33(1):39-47.
Hiscock R, Murray S, Brose LS, McEwen A, Bee JL, Dobbie F, et al. Behavioural therapy for
smoking cessation: The effectiveness of different intervention types for disadvantaged and
affluent smokers. Addictive Behaviors 2013;38(11):2787-2796.
Johnstone E, Hey K, Drury M, Roberts S, Welch S, Walton R et al. Zyban for smoking cessation
in a general practice setting: the response to an invitation to make a quit attempt. Addiction
Biology 2004; 9(3-4):227-232.
Judge K, Bauld L, Chesterman J, Ferguson J. The English smoking treatment services: short-term
outcomes. Addiction 2005; 100 (Suppl 2):46-58.
Low A, Unsworth L, Low A, Miller I. Avoiding the danger that stop smoking services may
exacerbate health inequalities: building equity into performance assessment. BMC Public Health
2007; 7:198.
Lowey H, Lowey HH. Smoking cessation services are reducing inequalities. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 2003; 57(8).
Mason D, Gilbert H, Sutton S. Effectiveness of web-based tailored smoking cessation advice
reports (iQuit): a randomized trial. Addiction 2012;107, 2183-2190.
McEwen A, West R. Do implementation issues influence the effectiveness of medications? The
case of nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion in UK Stop Smoking Services. BMC Public
Health 2009; 9:28.
Neumann T, Rasmussen M, Ghith N, Heitman BL, Tonnesen H. The Gold Standard Programme:
smoking cessation interventions for disadvantaged smokers are effective in a real-life setting.
Tobacco Control 2012; TC Online First, published on June 16, 2012 as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol2011-050194.
Owen L. Impact of a telephone helpline for smokers who called during a mass media campaign.
Tobacco Control 2000; 9(2):148-154.
Pisinger C, Glumer C, Toft U, von Huth SL, Aadahl M, Borch-Johnsen K et al. High risk strategy
in smoking cessation is feasible on a population-based level. The Inter99 study. Preventive
Medicine 2008; 46(6):579-584.
Polanska K, Hanke W, Sobala W, Lowe JB. Efficacy and effectiveness of the smoking cessation
program for pregnant women. International Journal of Occupational Medicine & Environmental
Health 2004; 17(3):369-377.
Sperber AD, Goren-Lerer M, Peleg A, Friger M. Smoking cessation support groups in Israel: a
long-term follow-up. Israel Medical Association Journal: Imaj 2000; 2(5):356-360.
van der Aalst CM, de Koning HJ, Van den Bergh KAM, Willemsen MC, van Klaveren RJ. The
effectiveness of a computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention for participants in lung cancer
screening: A randomised controlled trial. Lung Cancer 2012; 76(2):204-210.
19
Wisniewska M, Kowalska A, Szpak A. Factors influencing the maintenance of nicotine
abstinence among the habitants of the region of Lodz and Kalisz in the years 1996-2003. Roczniki
Akademii Medycznej W Bialymstoku 2005; 50(Suppl 1):238-240.
Yilmaz G, Karacan C, Yoney A, Yilmaz T. Brief intervention on maternal smoking: a randomized
controlled trial. Child: Care, Health & Development 2006; 32(1):73-79.
20
Supplementary file 1e: Excluded studies
Reason for Reference
exclusion
Abstract
Araujo AB, Miyasato GS, Levy DE, McKinlay JB. The influence of health policy on
only
smoking rates: A natural experiment. American Journal of Epidemiology Conference:
3rd North American Congress of Epidemiology Montreal, QC Canada Conference
Start: 20110621 Conference End: 20110624 Conference Publication: (var pagings)
2011; 173(pp S104):01.
Judit BJ, Simon E, Lukacs M, Csapo E. Psychosocial factors influencing smoking
cessation in patients with coronary artery disease. European Journal of
Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Conference: EuroPRevent 2011
Geneva Switzerland Conference Start: 20110414 Conference End: 20110416
Conference Publication: (var pagings) 2011; 18(1 SUPPL.#1):April.
Ling AC, Elward DD, Barry S. A retrospective cohort study of the long term
effectiveness of smoking cessation counselling. Thorax Conference: British Thoracic
Society Winter Meeting 2011 London United Kingdom Conference Start: 20111207
Conference End: 20111209 Conference Publication: (var pagings) 2011; 66(pp A116A117):December.
Mcgorrian CM, Lonergan M, Kelleher CC, Daly L, Fitzpatrick P. Tobacco smoking,
quit attempts and recidivism: Always ask your patient. Findings from the Heartwatch
programme in the Republic of Ireland. European Heart Journal Conference: European
Society of Cardiology, ESC Congress 2011 Paris France Conference Start: 20110827
Conference End: 20110831 Conference Publication: (var pagings) 2011; 32(pp
378):August.
Vogiatzis I, Pantzartzidou A, Pittas S, Kotsani A. Smoking habits after an acute
coronary syndrome in a Greek population. European Journal of Cardiovascular
Prevention and Rehabilitation Conference: EuroPRevent 2011 Geneva Switzerland
Conference Start: 20110414 Conference End: 20110416 Conference Publication: (var
pagings) 2011; 18(1 SUPPL.#1):April.
Voulgari C, Stathi C, Kokkinos A, Makrilakis K, Katsilambros N, Tentolouris N. The
impact of smoking cessation on metabolic factors in newly diagnosed patients with
type 2 diabetes: A one-year prospective study. Diabetologia Conference: 46th Annual
Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, EASD 2010
Stockholm Sweden Conference Start: 20100920 Conference End: 20100924
Conference Publication: (var pagings) 2010; 53(pp S497):September.
Pre-1995
Powell DR. A guided self-help smoking cessation intervention with white-collar and
blue-collar employees. AM J HEALTH PROMOT 1993;7(5):325-326.
Windsor RA. The dissemination of smoking cessation methods for pregnant women:
Achieving the Year 2000 objectives. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 1993; .83(2):173-178.
NonAhijevych K, Yerardi R, Nedilsky N. Descriptive outcomes of the American Lung
European
Association of Ohio hypnotherapy smoking cessation program. International Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 2000; .48(4).
Akkaya A, Ozturk O, Cobanoglu H, Bircan HA, Simsek S, Sahin U. Evaluation of
patients followed up in a cigarette cessation clinic. Respirology 2006; 11(3):311-316.
An LC, Schillo BA, Saul JE, Wendling AH, Klatt CM, Berg CJ et al. Utilization of
smoking cessation informational, interactive, and online community resources as
predictors of abstinence: cohort study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;
10(5):e55.
Andoh J, Verhulst S, Ganesh M, Hopkins-Price P, Edson B, Sood A. Sex- and racerelated differences among smokers using a national helpline are not explained by
socioeconomic status. Journal of the National Medical Association 2008; 100(2):200207.
21
Bains N, Pickett W, Laundry B, Mercredy D. Predictors of smoking cessation in an
incentive-based community intervention. Chronic Diseases in Canada 2000;
21(2):54-61.
Bialous SA, Sarna L, Wells M, Elashoff D, Wewers ME, Froelicher ES.
Characteristics of nurses who used the Internet-based nurses QuitNet for smoking
cessation. Public Health Nursing 2009; 26(4):329-338.
Biazzo LL, Froshaug DB, Harwell TS, Beck HN, Haugland C, Campbell SL et al.
Characteristics and abstinence outcomes among tobacco quitline enrollees using
varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy. NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2010;
12(6):567-573.
Bjornson W, Rand C, Connett JE, Lindgren P, Nides M, Pope F et al. Gender
differences in smoking cessation after 3 years in the Lung Health Study. AM J
PUBLIC HEALTH 1995; 85(2):223-230.
Borrelli B, Hogan JW, Bock B, Pinto B, Roberts M, Marcus B. Predictors of quitting
and dropout among women in a clinic-based smoking cessation program. PSYCHOL
ADDICT BEHAV 2002; 16(1):22-27.
Bover MT, Foulds J, Steinberg MB, Richardson D, Marcella SW. Waking at night to
smoke as a marker for tobacco dependence: patient characteristics and relationship to
treatment outcome. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2008; 62(2):182-190.
Bovet P, Perret F, Cornuz J, Quilindo J, Paccaud F. Improved smoking cessation in
smokers given ultrasound photographs of their own atherosclerotic plaques. PREV
MED 2002; 34:215-220.
Brown J, Parr W, Bates M. Evaluation of a smoking cessation programme that uses
behaviour modification. New Zealand Medical Journal 1999; 112(1098):399-402.
Businelle MS, Kendzor DE, Reitzel LR, Costello TJ, Cofta-Woerpel L, Li Y et al.
Mechanisms linking socioeconomic status to smoking cessation: a structural equation
modeling approach. HEALTH PSYCHOL 2010; 29(3):262-273.
Carlson LE, Taenzer P, Koopmans J, Casebeer A. Predictive value of aspects of the
Transtheoretical Model on smoking cessation in a community-based, large-group
cognitive behavioral program. ADDICT BEHAV 2003; 28(4):725-740.
Cui Y, Wen W, Moriarty CJ, Levine RS. Risk factors and their effects on the
dynamic process of smoking relapse among veteran smokers. Behaviour Research &
Therapy 2006; 44(7):967-981.
Cummings KM, Fix BV, Celestino P, Hyland A, Mahoney M, Ossip DJ et al. Does
the number of free nicotine patches given to smokers calling a quitline influence quit
rates: results from a quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health 2010; 10:181.
Czarnecki KD, Goranson C, Ellis JA, Vichinsky LE, Coady MH, Perl SB. Using
geographic information system analyses to monitor large-scale distribution of
nicotine replacement therapy in New York City. PREV MED 2010; 50(5-6):288-296.
D'Angelo ME, Reid RD, Brown KS, Pipe AL. Gender differences in predictors for
long-term smoking cessation following physician advice and nicotine replacement
therapy. Canadian Journal of Public Health Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique
2001; 92(6):418-422.
de Azevedo RCS, Fernandes RF. Factors relating to failure to quit smoking: A
prospective cohort study. Sao Paulo Medical Journal 2011; 129(6):December.
Deprey M, McAfee T, Bush T, McClure JB, Zbikowski S, Mahoney L. Using free
patches to improve reach of the Oregon Quit Line. J PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGE
PRACT 2009; 15(5):401-408.
El-Bastawissi AY, McAfee T, Zbikowski SM, Hollis J, Stark M, Wassum K et al.
The uninsured and Medicaid Oregon tobacco user experience in a real world, phone
based cessation programme. Tobacco Control 2003; 12(1):March.
Emmons KM, Puleo E, Mertens A, Gritz ER, Diller L, Li FP. Long-term smoking
cessation outcomes among childhood cancer survivors in the Partnership for Health
22
Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009; 27(1):52-60.
Ershoff DH, Quinn VP, Boyd NR, Stern J, Gregory M, Wirtschafter D. The Kaiser
Permanente prenatal smoking-cessation trial: when more isn't better, what is enough?
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1999; 17(3):161-168.
Foulds J, Gandhi KK, Steinberg MB, Richardson DL, Williams JM, Burke MV et al.
Factors associated with quitting smoking at a tobacco dependence treatment clinic.
AM J HEALTH BEHAV 2006; 30(4):400-412.
Friedman DB, Williams AN, Levine BD. Compliance and efficacy of cardiac
rehabilitation and risk factor modification in the medically indigent. American
Journal of Cardiology 1997; 79(3):281-285.
Garvey AJ, Kinnunen T, Nordstrom BL, Utman CH, Doherty K, Rosner B et al.
Effects of nicotine gum dose by level of nicotine dependence. NICOTINE
TOBACCO RES 2000; 2(1):53-63.
Hahn EJ, Rayens MK, Warnick TA, Chirila C, Rasnake RT, Paul TP et al. A
controlled trial of a Quit and Win contest. AM J HEALTH PROMOT 2005;
20(2):117-126.
Hawk LW, Jr., Higbee C, Hyland A, Alford T, O'Connor R, Cummings KM.
Concurrent quit & win and nicotine replacement therapy voucher giveaway
programs: participant characteristics and predictors of smoking abstinence. J
PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGE PRACT 2006; 12(1):52-59.
Hiscock R, Pearce J, Barnett R, Moon G, Daley V. Do smoking cessation
programmes influence geographical inequalities in health? An evaluation of the
impact of the PEGS programme in Christchurch, New Zealand. Tobacco Control
2009; 18(5):371-376.
Hood N, Ferketich A, Paskett E, Wewers M. Treatment adherence in a lay health
adviser intervention to treat tobacco dependence. Health Education Research 2013
Feb;28(1):72-82.
Kaufman A, Augustson E, Davis K, Finney Rutten LJ. Awareness and use of tobacco
quitlines: evidence from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Journal of
Health Communication 2010; 15:Suppl-78.
Kendzor DE, Reitzel LR, Mazas CA, Cofta-Woerpel LM, Cao Y, Ji L et al.
Individual- and area-level unemployment influence smoking cessation among
African Americans participating in a randomized clinical trial. Social Science and
Medicine 2012; 74(9):May.
Khan N, Anderson JR, Du J, Tinker D, Bachyrycz AM, Namdar D. Smoking
cessation and its predictors: Results from a community-based pharmacy tobacco
cessation program in New Mexico. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2012;
46(9):20120901.
Maher JE, Rohde K, Dent CW, Stark MJ, Pizacani B, Boysun MJ et al. Is a statewide
tobacco quitline an appropriate service for specific populations? Tobacco Control
2007; 16:Suppl-70.
Miller N, Frieden TR, Liu SY, Matte TD, Mostashari F, Deitcher DR et al.
Effectiveness of a large-scale distribution programme of free nicotine patches: a
prospective evaluation. Lancet 2005; 365(9474):1849-1854.
Murray RP, Connett JE, Rand CS, Pan W, Anthonisen NR. Persistence of the effect
of the Lung Health Study (LHS) smoking intervention over eleven years. PREV
MED 2002; 35(4):314-319.
Nides MA, Rakos RF, Gonzales D, Murray RP, Tashkin DP, Bjornson-Benson WM
et al. Predictors of initial smoking cessation and relapse through the first 2 years of
the Lung Health Study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 1995; 63(1):6069.
Nollen NL, Mayo MS, Sanderson CL, Okuyemi KS, Choi WS, Kaur H et al.
Predictors of quitting among African American light smokers enrolled in a
23
randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2006;
21(6):590-595.
Piper ME, Cook JW, Schlam TR, Jorenby DE, Smith SS, Bolt DM et al. Gender,
race, and education differences in abstinence rates among participants in two
randomized smoking cessation trials. NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2010; 12(6):647657.
Reid MS, Jiang H, Fallon B, Sonne S, Rinaldi P, Turrigiano E et al. Smoking
cessation treatment among patients in community-based substance abuse
rehabilitation programs: exploring predictors of outcome as clues toward treatment
improvement. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse 2011; 37(5):472-478.
Reitzel LR, Businelle MS, Kendzor DE, Li Y, Cao Y, Castro Y et al. Subjective
social status predicts long-term smoking abstinence. BMC Public Health 2011;
11:135.
Reitzel LR, Mazas CA, Cofta-Woerpel L, Li Y, Cao Y, Businelle MS et al.
Subjective social status affects smoking abstinence during acute withdrawal through
affective mediators. Addiction 2010; 105(5):928-936.
Rodgers A, Corbett T, Bramley D, Riddell T, Wills M, Lin RB et al. Do u smoke
after txt? Results of a randomised trial of smoking cessation using mobile phone text
messaging. Tobacco Control 2005; 14(4):255-261.
Rosal MC, Ockene JK, Ma Y, Hebert JR, Ockene IS, Merriam P et al. Coronary
Artery Smoking Intervention Study (CASIS): 5-year follow-up. HEALTH
PSYCHOL 1998; 17(5):476-478.
Schnoll RA, Martinez E, Langer C, Miyamoto C, Leone F. Predictors of smoking
cessation among cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation program. Acta
Oncologica 2011; 50(5):678-684.
Schnoll RA, Wang H, Miller SM, Babb JS, Cornfeld MJ, Tofani SH et al. Change in
worksite smoking behavior following cancer risk feedback: a pilot study. AM J
HEALTH BEHAV 2005; 29(3):215-227.
Sheffer C, Stitzer M, Landes R, Brackman SL, Munn T, Moore P. Socioeconomic
Disparities in Community-Based Treatment of Tobacco Dependence
830. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 2012; 102(3):e8-e16.
Sheffer C, Stitzer M, Landes R, Brackman SL, Munn T. In-person and telephone
treatment of tobacco dependence: a comparison of treatment outcomes and
participant characteristics. Am J Public Health 2013 Aug;103(8):e74-e82.
Sheffer CE, Stitzer M, Payne TJ, Applegate BW, Bourne D, Wheeler JG. Treatment
for tobacco dependence for rural, lower-income smokers: outcomes, predictors, and
measurement considerations. AM J HEALTH PROMOT 2009; 23(5):328-338.
Shuster GF, III, Utz SW, Merwin E. Implementation and outcomes of a communitybased self-help smoking cessation program. Journal of Community Health Nursing
1996; 13(3):187-198.
Stanton WR, Lowe JB, Moffatt J, Del Mar CB. Randomised control trial of a
smoking cessation intervention directed at men whose partners are pregnant. PREV
MED 2004; 38(1):6-9.
Steinberg MB, Bover MT, Richardson DL, Schmelzer AC, Williams JM, Foulds J.
Abstinence and psychological distress in co-morbid smokers using various
pharmacotherapies. DRUG ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE 2011; 114(1):77-81.
Steinberg MB, Foulds J, Richardson DL, Burke MV, Shah P. Pharmacotherapy and
smoking cessation at a tobacco dependence clinic. PREV MED 2006; 42(2):114-119.
Strecher VJ, McClure J, Alexander G, Chakraborty B, Nair V, Konkel J et al. The
role of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008; 10(5):e36.
Swan GE, Jack LM, Javitz HS, McAfee T, McClure JB. Predictors of 12-month
outcome in smokers who received bupropion sustained-release for smoking cessation.
24
CNS Drugs 2008; 22(3):239-256.
Velicer WF, Redding CA, Sun X, Prochaska JO. Demographic variables, smoking
variables, and outcome across five studies. HEALTH PSYCHOL 2007; 26(3):278287.
Vijayaraghavan M. Outcomes research in review. Socioeconomic disparities in
community-based
treatment
of
tobacco
dependence
529. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management 2012; 19(3):106-108.
Wall MA, Severson HH, Andrews JA, Lichtenstein E, Zoref L. Pediatric office-based
smoking intervention: impact on maternal smoking and relapse. Pediatrics 1995;
96(4:Pt 1):t-8.
Whembolua G-L, Davis JT, Reitzel LR, Guo H, Thomas JL, Goldade KR et al.
Subjective social status predicts smoking abstinence among light smokers. American
Journal of Health Behavior 2012; 36(5):September.
Willett JG, Hood NE, Burns EK, Swetlick JL, Wilson SM, Lang DA et al. Clinical
faxed referrals to a tobacco quitline: reach, enrollment, and participant characteristics.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009; 36(4):337-340.
Wilson N, Weerasekera D, Borland R, Edwards R, Bullen C, Li J. Use of a national
quitline and variation in use by smoker characteristics: ITC Project New Zealand.
NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2010; 12:Suppl-84.
Wilson N, Weerasekera D, Hoek J, Li J, Edwards R. Increased smoker recognition of
a national quitline number following introduction of improved pack warnings: ITC
Project New Zealand. NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2010; 12:Suppl-7.
Yoon JH, Higgins ST, Heil SH, Sugarbaker RJ, Thomas CS, Badger GJ. Delay
discounting predicts postpartum relapse to cigarette smoking among pregnant
women. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology 2007; 15(2):176-186.
NonAn LC, Betzner A, Schillo B, Luxenberg MG, Christenson M, Wendling A et al. The
European
comparative effectiveness of clinic, work-site, phone, and Web-based tobacco
studies plus treatment programs. NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2010; 12(10):989-996.
excluded on
at least one
other
criterion
Avidano Britton GR, Brinthaupt J, Stehle JM, James GD. The effectiveness of a
nurse-managed perinatal smoking cessation program implemented in a rural county.
NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2006; 8(1):13-28.
Bailey SR, Hammer SA, Bryson SW, Schatzberg AF, Killen JD. Using treatment
process data to predict maintained smoking abstinence. AM J HEALTH BEHAV
2010; 34(6):801-810.
Balanda KP, Lowe JB, O'Connor-Fleming ML. Comparison of two self-help smoking
cessation booklets. Tobacco Control 1999; 8(1):57-61.
Balmford J, Borland R, Benda P. Patterns of use of an automated interactive
personalized coaching program for smoking cessation. Journal of Medical Internet
Research 2008; 10(5):e54.
Bardach NS, Wang JJ, De Leon SF, Shih SC, Boscardin WJ, Goldman LE, et al.
Effect of pay-for-performance incentives on quality of care in small practices with
electronic health records: a randomized trial. JAMA 2013 Sep 11;310(10):1051-9.
Bombard JM, Farr SL, Dietz PM, Tong VT, Zhang L, Rabius V. Telephone smoking
cessation quitline use among pregnant and non-pregnant women. Maternal and child
health journal 17[6], 989-995. 2013.
Browning KK, Ferketich AK, Salsberry PJ, Wewers ME. Socioeconomic disparity in
provider-delivered assistance to quit smoking. NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2008;
10(1):55-61.
Burgess DJ, Fu SS, Noorbaloochi S, Clothier BA, Ricards J, Widome R et al.
25
Employment, gender, and smoking cessation outcomes in low-income smokers using
nicotine replacement therapy. NICOTINE TOBACCO RES 2009; 11(12):1439-1447.
Burris JL, Wahlquist AE, Carpenter MJ. Characteristics of cigarette smokers who
want to quit now versus quit later. Addictive Behaviors 2013;38(6):June.
Carlini BH, McDaniel AM, Weaver MT, Kauffman RM, Cerutti B, Stratton RM et al.
Reaching out, inviting back: using Interactive voice response (IVR) technology to
recycle relapsed smokers back to Quitline treatment--a randomized controlled trial.
BMC public health 2012; 12:507
Carlson LE, Taenzer P, Koopmans J, Bultz BD. Eight-year follow-up of a
community-based large group behavioral smoking cessation intervention. ADDICT
BEHAV 2000; 25(5):725-741.
Chan RHM, Gordon NF, Chong A, Alter DA. Influence of Socioeconomic Status on
Lifestyle Behavior Modifications Among Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction.
American Journal of Cardiology 2008; 102(12):1583-1588.
Chin DL, Hong O, Gillen M, Bates MN, Okechukwu CA. Occupational factors and
smoking cessation among unionized building trades workers. Workplace Health and
Safety 2012; 60(10):October.
Cokkinides VE, Ward E, Jemal A, Thun MJ. Under-use of smoking-cessation
treatments: results from the National Health Interview Survey, 2000. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005; 28(1):119-122.
Cokkinides VE, Halpern MT, Barbeau EM, Ward E, Thun MJ. Racial and ethnic
disparities in smoking-cessation interventions: analysis of the 2005 National Health
Interview Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008; 34(5):404-412.
Cooper TV, DeBon MW, Stockton M, Klesges RC, Steenbergh TA, SherrillMittleman D et al. Correlates of adherence with transdermal nicotine. ADDICT
BEHAV 2004; 29(8):1565-1578.
Czarnecki KD, Vichinsky LE, Ellis JA, Perl SB. Media campaign effectiveness in
promoting a smoking-cessation program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
2010; 38(3:Suppl):Suppl-42.
Danaher BG, Lichtenstein E, McKay HG, Seeley JR. Use of non-assigned smoking
cessation programs among participants of a Web-based randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 2009; 11(2):e26.
El-Mohandes AA, El-Khorazaty MN, Kiely M, Gantz MG. Smoking cessation and
relapse among pregnant African-American smokers in Washington, DC. MATERN
CHILD HEALTH J 2011; 15:Suppl-105.
Ginde AA, Sullivan AF, Bernstein SL, Camargo J, Boudreaux ED. Predictors of
successful telephone contact after emergency department-based recruitment into a
multicenter smoking cessation cohort study. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
2013;14(3):May.
Hennrikus DJ, Jeffery RW, Lando HA. The smoking cessation process: longitudinal
observations in a working population. PREV MED 1995; 24(3):235-244.
Houston TK, Scarinci IC, Person SD, Greene PG. Patient smoking cessation advice
by health care providers: the role of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health. AM
J PUBLIC HEALTH 2005; 95(6):1056-1061.
Japuntich SJ, Leventhal AM, Piper ME, Bolt DM, Roberts LJ, Fiore MC et al.
Smoker characteristics and smoking-cessation milestones. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 2011; 40(3):286-294.
Joyce GF, Niaura R, Maglione M, Mongoven J, Larson-Rotter C, Coan J et al. The
effectiveness of covering smoking cessation services for medicare beneficiaries.
Health Services Research 2008; 43(6):2106-2123.
Katz DA, Tang F, Faseru B, Horwitz PA, Jones P, Spertus J. Prevalence and
correlates of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in hospitalized smokers with acute
myocardial infarction. American Heart Journal 2011; 162(1):74-80.
26
Keller PA, Christiansen B, Kim SY, Piper ME, Redmond L, Adsit R et al. Increasing
consumer demand among Medicaid enrollees for tobacco dependence treatment: the
Wisconsin "Medicaid covers it" campaign. AM J HEALTH PROMOT 2011;
25(6):392-395.
Kendzor DE, Businelle MS, Costello TJ, Castro Y, Reitzel LR, Cofta-Woerpel LM et
al. Financial strain and smoking cessation among racially/ethnically diverse smokers.
AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 2010; 100(4):702-706.
King A, Sanchez-Johnsen L, Van OS, Cao D, Matthews A. A pilot community-based
intensive smoking cessation intervention in African Americans: feasibility,
acceptability and early outcome indicators. Journal of the National Medical
Association 2008; 100(2):208-217.
Landon BE, Zaslavsky AM, Bernard SL, Cioffi MJ, Cleary PD. Comparison of
performance of traditional Medicare vs Medicare managed care. JAMA 2004;
291(14):1744-1752.
Love SJ, Sheffer CE, Bursac Z, Prewitt TE, Krukowski RA, West DS. Offer of a
weight management program to overweight and obese weight-concerned smokers
improves tobacco dependence treatment outcomes. American Journal on Addictions
2011; 20(1):1-8.
Manfredi C, Cho YI, Crittenden KS, Dolecek TA. A path model of smoking cessation
in women smokers of low socio-economic status. HEALTH EDUC RES 2007;
22(5):747-756.
Matthews AK, Li C-C, Kuhns LM, Tasker TB, Cesario JA. Results from a
community-based smoking cessation treatment program for LGBT smokers. Journal
of Environmental and Public Health 2013; Article ID 984508.
McClure JB, Riggs K, St JJ, Catz SL. [More] evidence to support oral health
promotion services targeted to smokers calling tobacco quitlines in the United States.
BMC Public Health 2013;13:336.
Murphy JM, Mahoney MC, Hyland AJ, Higbee C, Cummings KM. Disparity in the
use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among Medicaid and general population
smokers. J PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGE PRACT 2005; 11(4):341-345.
Ortiz AP, Diaz-Toro EC, Calo WA, Correa-Fernandez V, Cases A, Santos-Ortiz MC
et al. Characteristics of smokers accessing the Puerto Rico Quitline. Puerto Rico
Health Sciences Journal 2008; 27(3):213-219.
Park ER, Quinn VP, Chang Y, Regan S, Loudin B, Cummins S et al. Recruiting
pregnant smokers into a clinical trial: using a network-model managed care
organization versus community-based practices. PREV MED 2007; 44(3):223-229.
Parrish DE, von SK, Velasquez MM, Cochran J, Sampson M, Mullen PD.
Characteristics and factors associated with the risk of a nicotine exposed pregnancy:
expanding the CHOICES preconception counseling model to tobacco. Maternal &
Child Health Journal 2012; 16(6):1224-1231.
Philbrick AM, Newkirk EN, Farris KB, McDanel DL, Horner KE. Effect of a
pharmacist managed smoking cessation clinic on quit rates. Pharmacy Practice 2009;
7(3):2009.
Redmond LA, Adsit R, Kobinsky KH, Theobald W, Fiore MC. A decade of
experience promoting the clinical treatment of tobacco dependence in Wisconsin.
WMJ 2010; 109(2):71-78.
Rigotti NA, Bitton A, Kelley JK, Hoeppner BB, Levy DE, Mort E. Offering
population-based tobacco treatment in a healthcare setting: a randomized controlled
trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011; 41(5):498-503.
Royce JM, Ashford A, Resnicow K, Freeman HP, Caesar AA, Orlandi MA.
Physician- and nurse-assisted smoking cessation in Harlem. Journal of the National
Medical Association 1995; 87(4):291-300.
Sadasivam RS, Kinney RL, Delaughter K, Rao SR, Williams JH, Coley HL, et al.
27
Who participates in Web-assisted tobacco interventions? The Quit-Primo and
National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Hi-Quit studies. J Med Internet
Res 2013;15(5): 10-20.
Saul JE, Lien R, Schillo B, Kavanaugh A, Wendling A, Luxenberg M et al.
Outcomes and cost-effectiveness of two nicotine replacement treatment delivery
models for a tobacco quitline. International Journal of Environmental Research &
Public Health [Electronic Resource] 2011; 8(5):1547-1559.
Sippel JM, Osborne ML, Bjornson W, Goldberg B, Buist AS. Smoking cessation in
primary care clinics. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1999; 14(11):670-676.
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Walsh RA, Wiggers J, Duncan SL, Knight J. Predictors of
abstinence among smokers recruited actively to quitline support. Addiction 108[1],
181-185. 2013.
Vine MM, Latycheva O, Fenton NE, Hampson C, Haynes M, Elliott SJ. Assessing a
population-based approach to asthma and COPD education: The PLATE program.
Journal of Asthma and Allergy Educators 2013;4(2):2013.
Whelan AM, Cooke CA, Sketris IS. The impact of socioeconomic and demographic
factors on the utilization of smoking cessation medications in patients hospitalized
with cardiovascular disease in Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy &
Therapeutics 2005; 30(2):165-171.
Xu H, Wen LM, Rissel C, Baur LA. Smoking status and factors associated with
smoking of first-time mothers during pregnancy and postpartum: Findings from the
Healthy Beginnings Trial. [References]. Maternal and child health journal 17[6],
1151-1157. 2013.
Not
an Alves E, Azevedo A, Correia S, Barros H. Long-term maintenance of smoking
individualcessation in pregnancy: An analysis of the birth cohort generation XXI. Nicotine and
level
Tobacco Research 2013;15(9):September.
intervention
or policy to
reduce adult
smoking
Buck D, Morgan A. Smoking and quitting with the aid of nicotine replacement
therapies in the English adult population. Results from the Health Education
Monitoring Survey 1995. EUR J PUBLIC HEALTH 2001; 11(2):211-217.
Collins SE, Eck S, Torchalla I, Schroter M, Batra A. Validity of the timeline
followback among treatment-seeking smokers in Germany. DRUG ALCOHOL
DEPENDENCE 2009; 105(1-2):164-167.
Harmer C, Memon A. Factors associated with smoking relapse in the postpartum
period: An analysis of the child health surveillance system data in southeast England.
Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2013;15(5):May.
Kotz D, West R. Explaining the social gradient in smoking cessation: it's not in the
trying, but in the succeeding. Tobacco Control 2009; 18(1):43-46.
Le Faou, Baha M, Rodon N, Lagrue G, Menard J. Trends in the profile of smokers
registered in a national database from 2001 to 2006: Changes in smoking habits.
Public Health 2009; 123(1):January.
Lyratzopoulos G, Heller RF, Hanily M, Lewis PS. Deprivation status and mid-term
change in blood pressure, total cholesterol and smoking status in middle life: a cohort
study. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 2007;
14(6):844-850.
Millett C, Gray J, Saxena S, Netuveli G, Majeed A. Impact of a pay-for-performance
incentive on support for smoking cessation and on smoking prevalence among people
with diabetes. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal 2007; 176(12):17051710.
Pisinger C, Vestbo J, Borch-Johnsen K, Jorgensen T. Smoking cessation intervention
28
in a large randomised population-based study. The Inter99 study. PREV MED 2005;
40(3):285-292.
Raw M, McNeill A, Coleman T. Lessons from the English smoking treatment
services. Addiction 2005; 100:Suppl-91.
Ryckman KA. What predicts a successful smoking cessation attempt? The Journal of
family practice 2006; .55(9).
Schook RM, Postmus BB, van den Berg RM, Sutedja TG, Man de FS, Smit EF et al.
The finding of premalignant lesions is not associated with smoking cessation in
chemoprevention study volunteers. Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official
Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2010;
5(8):1240-1245.
Uzun S, Kara B, Yokusoglu M, Arslan F, Yilmaz MB, Karaeren H. The assessment
of adherence of hypertensive individuals to treatment and lifestyle change
recommendations. Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi 2009; 9(2):102-109.
Wilson A, Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Coleman T, Britton J, Barrett S. Smoking
cessation treatment in primary care: prospective cohort study. Tobacco Control 2005;
14(4):242-246.
Does
not Aubin HJ, Lebargy F, Berlin I, Bidaut-Mazel C, Chemali-Hudry J, Lagrue G.
report quit Efficacy of bupropion and predictors of successful outcome in a sample of French
outcome for smokers: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Addiction 2004; 99(9):1206-1218.
high vs. low
socioeconomic
group
Brose LS, West R, Stapleton JA. Comparison of the effectiveness of varenicline and
combination nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation in clinical practice.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2013 Mar;88(3):226-33.
Brouwer W, Oenema A, Raat H, Crutzen R, de NJ, de Vries NK et al. Characteristics
of visitors and revisitors to an Internet-delivered computer-tailored lifestyle
intervention implemented for use by the general public. HEALTH EDUC RES 2010;
25(4):585-595.
Chesterman J, Judge K, Bauld L, Ferguson J. How effective are the English smoking
treatment services in reaching disadvantaged smokers? Addiction 2005; 100:Suppl45.
Douglas L, Szatkowski L. Socioeconomic variations in access to smoking cessation
interventions in UK primary care: insights using the Mosaic classification in a large
dataset of primary care records. BMC Public Health 2013;13:546.
Gapp O, Schweikert B, Meisinger C, Holle R. Disease management programmes for
patients with coronary heart disease--an empirical study of German programmes.
Health Policy 2008; 88(2-3):176-185.
Gilbert H, Leurent B, Sutton S, Morris R, Alexis-Garsee C, Nazareth I. Factors
predicting recruitment to a UK wide primary care smoking cessation study (the
ESCAPE trial). Family Practice 2012; 29(1):cmr030.
Gilbert HM, Sutton SR, Leurent B, Alexis-Garsee C, Morris RW, Nazareth I.
Characteristics of a population-wide sample of smokers recruited proactively for the
ESCAPE trial. Public Health 2012; 126(4):April.
Gilbert H, Sutton S, Sutherland G. Who calls QUIT? The characteristics of smokers
seeking advice via a telephone helpline compared with smokers attending a clinic and
those in the general population. Public Health 2005; 119(10):933-939.
Godfrey C, Parrott S, Coleman T, Pound E. The cost-effectiveness of the English
smoking treatment services: evidence from practice. Addiction 2005; 100:Suppl-83.
Iliceto P, Fino E, Pasquariello S, D'Angelo Di Paola ME, Enea D. Predictors of
success in smoking cessation among Italian adults motivated to quit. Journal of
29
Substance Abuse Treatment 2013 May;44(5):534-40.
Lowry RJ, Hardy S, Jordan C, Wayman G. Using social marketing to increase
recruitment of pregnant smokers to smoking cessation service: a success story. Public
Health 2004; 118(4):239-243.
McDermott MS, Beard E, Brose LS, West R, McEwen A. Factors associated with
differences in quit rates between "specialist" and "community" stop-smoking
practitioners in the English stop-smoking service. Nicotine and Tobacco Research
2013;15(7):July.
McGorrian C, Lonergan M, Kelleher C, Daly L, Fitzpatrick PE-MA, McGorrian
Ccmi. Predictors of successful smoking cessation in a family practice-based
cardiovascular risk factor intervention program: 'Real-world' experience from the
Heartwatch Program. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2010; .5(2).
Meland E, Maeland JG, Laerum E. The importance of self-efficacy in cardiovascular
risk factor change. SCAND J PUBLIC HEALTH 1999; 27(1):11-17.
Monso E, Campbell J, Tonnesen P, Gustavsson G, Morera J. Sociodemographic
predictors of success in smoking intervention. Tobacco Control 2001; 10(2):165-169.
Razavi D, Vandecasteele H, Primo C, Bodo M, Debrier F, Verbist H et al.
Maintaining abstinence from cigarette smoking: effectiveness of group counselling
and factors predicting outcome. European Journal of Cancer 1999; 35(8):1238-1247.
Schneider F, Schulz DN, Pouwels LHL, de Vries H, van Osch LADM. The use of a
proactive dissemination strategy to optimize reach of an internet-delivered computer
tailored lifestyle intervention. BMC Public Health 2013;13.
Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Lennox AS, Silcock J, Winfield AJ, Donnan PT. Training
pharmacists and pharmacy assistants in the stage-of-change model of smoking
cessation: a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Tobacco Control 1998; 7(3):253261.
Smeets T, Kremers SP, Brug J, de VH. Effects of tailored feedback on multiple
health behaviors.[Erratum appears in Ann Behav Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;34(1):104].
ANN BEHAV MED 2007; 33(2):117-123.
Smit ES, Hoving C, Cox VC, de vH. Influence of recruitment strategy on the reach
and effect of a web-based multiple tailored smoking cessation intervention among
Dutch adult smokers. Health education research 2012; 27(2):Apr.
Smith S. Smoking cessation and health inequality: an equity audit. NURS TIMES
2006; 102(3):38-40.
Stanczyk NE, Crutzen R, Bolman C, Muris J, de VH. Influence of delivery strategy
on message-processing mechanisms and future adherence to a Dutch computertailored smoking cessation intervention. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(2):e28.
Wasserfallen J-B, Digon P, Cornuz J. Medical and pharmacological direct costs of a
9-week smoking cessation programme. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
2012; 19(3):June.
West R, May S, West M, Croghan E, McEwen A. Performance of English stop
smoking services in first 10 years: Analysis of service monitoring data. BMJ (Online)
2013;347(7922):f4921.
Wiggers LC, Oort FJ, Peters RJ, Legemate DA, de Haes HC, Smets EM. Smoking
cessation may not improve quality of life in atherosclerotic patients. NICOTINE
TOBACCO RES 2006; 8(4):581-589.
Wiggers LCW, Oort FJ, Dijkstra A, De Haes JCJM, Legemate DA, Smets EMA.
Cognitive changes in cardiovascular patients following a tailored behavioral smoking
cessation intervention. PREV MED 2005; 40(6):June.
Wiggers LCW, Stalmeier PFM, Oort FJ, Smets EMA, Legemate DA, De Haes JCJM.
Do patients' preferences predict smoking cessation? PREV MED 2005; 41(2):August.
Willemsen MC, van der Meer RM, Schippers GM. Smoking cessation quitlines in
Europe: matching services to callers' characteristics. BMC Public Health 2010;
30
10:770.
Intervention/ Jerden L, Weinehall L. Does a patient-held health record give rise to lifestyle
outcome was changes? A study in clinical practice. Family Practice 2004; 21(6):651-653.
smoking
reduction
Moller AM, Pedersen T, Villebro N, Norgaard P. Impact of lifestyle on perioperative
smoking cessation and postoperative complication rate. PREV MED 2003;
36(6):704-709.
Review
Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Welch V, Tugwell P. What types of interventions generate
inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health
2013 Feb;67(2):190-3.
English
Arguder E, Karalezli A, Hezer H, Kilic H, Er M, Hasanoglu HC, et al. Factors
abstract only affecting the success of smoking cessation. Turk Toraks Dergisi 2013;14(3):July.
(Turkish)
31
Supplementary file 1f: QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Attrition rate††
1.1
Yes
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
yes
national
Bauld 2007
25
1.2
yes
n/a
n/a
yes
yes yes
national
Bauld 2009
26
1.1
yes
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
national
1.3
n/a
n/a
yes
yes
2.1
n/a
n/a
yes
yes
1.1
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
yes
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
yes
1.1
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
1.1
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
Johnstone 2004
2.1
n/a
n/a
yes
Judge 200532
1.1
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
1.2
n/a
n/a
yes
yes
1.1
n/a
n/a
yes
n/a
n/a
yes
yes
yes yes
Generalisability+
Credibility of data
collection
instruments†
Bauld 200324
Attributability to
intervention†††
Comparability***
Quality of execution
Randomisation**
study
design
+
Representativeness*
Study
Behavioural & pharmacological
Bauld 201227
Bernard 2012
39
Edwards 200728
Ferguson 2005
29
Hiscock 201130
38
Hiscock 2013
31
33
Low 2007
Lowey 200334
35
1.1
yes
yes
yes
yes
Neumann 201236
1.3
n/a
n/a
yes
yes yes
2.1
n/a
n/a
yes
yes yes
n/a
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Behavioural
Cosnes 200140
2.2
41
De Vries 2006
Pisinger 200842
Polanska 2004
43
van der Aalst 201244
yes
3.1
3.1
yes
3.3
yes
3.1
yes
yes
yes
2.1
n/a
n/a
yes
national
yes
2.2
Sperber 2000
national
yes
McEwen 2009
37
yes
yes
national
national
national
yes yes
national
Pharmacological
Fernandez 200645
yes
Brief interventions
32
Randomisation**
Comparability***
3.1
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes yes
yes
yes
Generalisability+
Representativeness*
Yilmaz 200646
Attributability to
intervention†††
Quality of execution
Attrition rate††
study
design
+
Credibility of data
collection
instruments†
Study
regional
Mass media – Quitlines and Quit & Win campaigns
Owen 200047
1.3
n/a
n/a
Wisniewska 200548
1.3
n/a
n/a
3.1
yes
Brown 201250
2.1
n/a
n/a
yes
yes yes
51
3.1
yes
yes
yes
yes
Text-based
Devries 201249
yes
Internet-based
Mason 2012
# Typology of study designs
Code
Study design
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
Population-based observational
Cross-sectional
Repeat cross-sectional
Cohort longitudinal
Econometric analyses (cross-sectional data)
Intervention-based observational
Single intervention (before and after, same participants)
Single intervention with internal comparison
Comparison between different types of intervention
Intervention-based experimental
Randomised controlled trial (individual or cluster)
Non-randomised controlled trial
Quasi-experimental trial
Qualitative
Cross-sectional
Repeat cross-sectional
Longitudinal
33
## Quality of execution
*Representativeness: Were the study samples randomly recruited from the study population
with a response rate of at least 60% or were they otherwise shown to be representative of the
study population?
**Randomisation: Were participants, groups or areas randomly allocated to receive the
intervention or control condition?
***Comparability: Were the baseline characteristics of the comparison groups comparable or
if there were important differences in potential confounders were these appropriately adjusted
for in the analysis? If there is no comparison group this criterion cannot be met.
†Credibility of data collection instruments: Were data collection tools shown to be credible,
e.g. shown to be valid and reliable in published research or in a pilot study, or taken from a
published national survey, or recognized as an acceptable measure (such as biochemical
measures of smoking).
††Attrition Rate: Were outcomes studied in a panel of respondents with an attrition rate of
less than 30% or were results based on a cross-sectional design with at least 200 participants
included in analysis in each wave?
†††Attributability to intervention: Is it reasonably likely that the observed effects were
attributable to the intervention under investigation? This criterion cannot be met if there is
evidence of contamination of a control group in a controlled study. Equally, in all types of
study, if there is evidence of a concurrent intervention that could also have explained the
observed effects and was not adjusted for in analysis, this criterion cannot be met.
+ Generalisability: Is the study generalisable at National, State/Regional, or Local level? A
study cannot be generalisable if not representative or representativeness is unclear.
Randomisation is not applicable (N/A) for all study designs except trials coded 3.1. Attrition
rate is N/A to cross-sectional studies coded 1.1.
34
Supplementary file 1g: EQUITY IMPACT TABLE
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Bauld
Health action zones,
NHS Smoking
200324
Index of Multiple
Cessation
1.1
deprivation
Services,
England
N=132,500
Outcome
Bauld
200725
1.2
England
Reach,
Quit rates (selfreported at 4
weeks and
estimated at
one year)
Index of Multiple
Deprivation
NHS Smoking
Cessation
Services,
N=1.5 million
Reach,
Number quit at
4 weeks,
Cessation rate
Equity impact
Cessation services based in health action zones reached 140% more
smokers compared to other more affluent areas, and the number of
people who reported quitting at four weeks was 90% greater in HAZ
areas. However, there was an inverse relationship between reach
and cessation rates. Cessation rates were lower in deprived areas
compared with more advantaged areas. Typically the cessation rate
in an area with an upper quartile deprivation score was 6% lower
than that in an area in the lower quartile. Services operating in
deprived areas were more likely to lose clients between setting a
quit date and reporting outcomes at four weeks. The study did not
assess the overall equity impact of the services (i.e. whether the
higher reach in deprived areas compensated for lower quit rates).
Although disadvantaged groups had proportionately lower quitting
success rates than their more affluent neighbours, services were
treating many more clients in disadvantaged communities. Overall,
therefore, the net effect of service intervention was to achieve a
greater proportion of quitters among smokers living in the most
disadvantaged areas and a slight narrowing effect on inequalities in
smoking prevalence.
Summary
for quits
Negative
Negative
35
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Outcome
Equity impact
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Bauld
Scottish Index of
NHS Smoking Carbon
A high proportion of clients in both groups were from
200926
Multiple Deprivation, Cessation
monoxide
disadvantaged areas, with 58.0% of pharmacy-based clients in the
1.1
Socio-economic
Services:
validated 4bottom Scottish deprivation quintile, compared with 45.5% in
Scotland group score
pharmacy
week quit rates, group-based community support.
(summary measure
based vs
number of
Users who accessed the group-based services were almost twice as
based on education
group-based
service users in likely (OR 1.980; CI 1.50 to 2.62) as those who used pharmacyfinished by 16, single community
each type of
based support to have quit smoking at 4-week follow-up.
parent, rented
services,
service
In multivariate analysis low SES was significantly associated with
housing, unemployed N=1785
lower 4 week quit rates (OR 0.677, p=0.015).
or permanently
sick/disabled, eligible
for free prescriptions
and aged under 60,
lowest Scottish
deprivation decile.
Bauld
Composite measure:
NHS Smoking 52-week
In a region of high economic and social disadvantage the service
201227
home ownership;
Cessation
carbon
reached a significant proportion of the smoking population however
1.3
managerial,
Services: drop- monoxide
long-term validated quit rates were significantly associated with
England
professional or
in rolling
validated quit
SES: higher SES was a predictor of quitting.
intermediate
group service
rate
occupation; and
‘Fag Ends’ in
resident in the most
Liverpool,
affluent half of
N=2585
Liverpool postcode
area neighbourhoods
Summary
for quits
Negative
Negative
36
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Bernard
Education
Brief
201239
counselling
2.1
and
France
pharmacothera
py, hospitalbased,
N=133
Outcome
Smoking
abstinence,
relapse rates up
to 3 years
Equity impact
Level of education was significantly associated with relapse (relapse
rate=0.80, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.99, p = 0.04). Lower SES more likely
to relapse.
Summary
for quits
Negative
37
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Edwards Area-level:
200728
‘disadvantaged areas’
1.1
included three
England
‘Neighbourhood
Renewal Areas’ and a
small ‘New Deal for
Communities’ area
and areas within rural
PCTs, designated as
‘Communities in
Need’.
Individual-level: low
SES defined as one or
more: no access to a
car; leaving school
before 17th birthday
(not used for 65–74year age group);
living in Local
Authority/Housing
Association rented
accommodation;
receiving one mean
tested benefit or
more; or being
currently
unemployed (not used
for 65–74-year age
group).
Intervention
Outcome
NHS Smoking
Cessation
Services ‘Fresh
Start’ in
Derbyshire,
N=8328
Reach,
Quitting in the
last year,
Self-reported
motivation to
quit,
Awareness and
use of NHS
Smoking
Cessation
Services
Equity impact
Quit rates were generally lower among low SES smokers, but only
significantly so for men aged 25–44 years. Motivation to quit did
not vary by SES. Awareness varied little by SES but accessing
services was generally higher among smokers of lower SES. Reach
is unclear because split by age. Numbers were small (n=79) and
differences were not significant.
Summary
for quits
Neutral
38
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Ferguson Composite measure:
200529
education finished by
1.1
16, single parent,
England
rented housing,
unemployed or
permanently
sick/disabled, eligible
for free prescriptions
and aged under 60,
lowest deprivation
decile.
Galbraith Scottish Index of
201223
Multiple Deprivation
1.1
Scotland
Intervention
Outcome
NHS Smoking
Cessation
Services,
N=2069
52-week
carbon
monoxide
validated quit
rate
NHS Smoking Reach,
Cessation
Self-report
Services,
week quit
Scotland
N=108,269
Equity impact
14.6% validated quit rate at 52-weeks, 17.7% when self-report cases
were included. Relapse rates between 4 and 52 weeks were about
75% and were most likely to occur in the first 6 months.
Service users with lower SES were less likely to be quitters at 52weeks (OR 0.86; CI 0.78–0.96). 52-week cessation rate ranged from
17.4% for group 1 (relatively advantaged) to just 8.7% for group 6
(relatively disadvantaged).
Summary
for quits
Negative
Those living in the most deprived communities (equivalent to SIMD Negative
4- 1-2) accounted for an estimated 31% of adult smokers in Scotland
and for 37% of quit attempts made in NHS SSSs in 2011. One
month quit outcomes by SIMD revealed that the lowest quit rates
were in the most deprived areas (1-2) and the highest quit rates in
the least deprived areas (9-10). However, in terms of overall
numbers of quitters the most deprived areas (1-2) still accounted for
the largest numbers of quitters of all the deprivation deciles.
Combining reach with quit rates at one month, showed that the
percentage of successful quitters was greater in the most deprived
SIMD area 1 (4.2%) compared with least deprived SIMD area 10
(3.4%).
39
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Hiscock
Composite measure:
NHS Smoking
201130
education finished by Cessation
1.1
16, single parent,
Services,
EnglandS rented housing,
N=2397
cotland
unemployed or
permanently
sick/disabled, eligible
for free prescriptions
and aged under 60,
lowest deprivation
decile.
Hiscock
201338
1.1
England
Outcome
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
52-week
carbon
monoxide
validated quit
rate
Continuous abstinence rates at 1 year were higher in England
Negative
(average 14%) than Glasgow (average 3%). At 52-week follow-up,
14.3% of the most affluent smokers remained quit compared with
only 5.1% of the most disadvantaged. After adjustment for
demographic factors, the most advantaged clients at the North
Cumbria and Nottingham sites and the Glasgow one-to-one
programme (but not the group intervention) were significantly more
likely to have remained abstinent than those who were most
disadvantaged (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.7; and OR 7.5, 95% CI 1.4
to 40.3 respectively). During the study period relatively few
smokers from disadvantaged backgrounds attended the group
service.
Index of Multiple NHS Smoking 4-week carbon Overall CO validated quit rate was 34%. 80% of service clients Negative
Deprivation,
Cessation
monoxide
received one-to-one counselling but open group forms of
Occupational social Services,
validated quit behavioural therapy were more successful (main effect OR 1.26
class
(National N= 132,586
rate
(1.12 to 1.41).
Statistics
Area deprivation did not predict quitting. Affluent clients (those
Socio-Economic
with managerial, professional and intermediate occupations) were
Classification)
significantly more likely to quit than clients with routine and
manual occupations. All but the most affluent clients were less
likely to be successful if treated by a nurse compared with other
types of advisers, including smoking cessation specialists.
40
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Johnston Deprivation score (no Zyban plus
e 200431
further details),
behavioural
2.1
Occupatinal social
support from
England
class
nurse in
general
practice
setting,
N=239
Outcome
Judge
200532
1.1
England
4-week selfreport and also
carbon
monoxide
validated quit
rate
Composite measure:
education finished by
16, single parent,
rented housing,
unemployed or
permanently
sick/disabled, eligible
for free prescriptions
and aged under 60,
lowest deprivation
decile.
NHS Smoking
Cessation
Services,
N=6959
Point
prevalence,
continuous
abstinence at 6
and 12 months
Equity impact
54 of 239 (23%) made an attempt to stop smoking on the agreed
quit date. At 6 months, 21/54 (39%) claimed to be abstinent, and
16/54 (30%) had biochemically verified abstinence. At 12 months,
14/54 (26%) claimed to be abstinent and 12/54 (22%) were
biochemically-validated continuously abstinent at 12 months.
When those who attempted to quit were stratified by deprivation
score, females had significantly less deprivation than males (p =
0.03). This difference in deprivation score persisted among the
successful quitters (mean deprivation score at 12 months in females
=6.7, in males= 12.1).
There were no significant differences between participants and
nonparticipants for SES. 42.4% of adults invited to join the study
were in manual work and 44% of those who accepted were in
manual work. There were slightly higher numbers of manual
workers among the successful quitters (55.6% at six months and
46.2% at 12 months), than among the quit attempters (42.6%).
However these differences were not statistically significant and the
numbers were relatively small.
More than one-half of clients (53%) were CO-validated as quitters
at 4 weeks, rising to 60.7% when self-reported cases not receiving a
CO validation test, were included. Users with lower SES were less
likely to quit at four weeks (OR 0.92; CI 0.88–0.95). The COvalidated rate ranging from 59.8% for group 1 (least deprived areas)
to 43.1% for group 6 (most deprived areas, P<0.001). The study
authors emphasise that the majority of users in this study were
relatively disadvantaged.
Summary
for quits
Neutral
Negative
41
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Low
Index of Multiple
NHS Smoking
200733
Deprivation
Cessation
1.2
Services,
England
N=5495
Outcome
Lowey
200334
1.1
England
Index of Multiple
Deprivation
NHS Smoking
Cessation
Services,
N=22,753
Reach,
Setting a quit
date,
4-week quit
rate
McEwen
200935
2.2
England
Education
NHS Smoking
Cessation
Services,
N=2626
Carbon
monoxide
validated 3-4
week
abstinence
Reach,
Quit rates,
Prevalence
rates, up to 5
years
Equity impact
The equity analysis suggests that the Derwentside Stop Smoking
Service is operating at a position between equity of access and
equity of outcome. Between 2001/02 and 2004/05 there has been
some movement towards equity of outcome, but equity of outcome
is not yet being achieved i.e. quit rates remained lower in more
deprived wards. The gap in quit rates per adult between affluent
and deprived areas is lower than the gap in smoking prevalence
means that the Stop Smoking Service in Derwentside is not
contributing to a reduction of inequality in smoking prevalence
between deprived and affluent areas.
Disproportionately more people living in deprived areas were
contacting smoking cessation services. The relative proportion of
the total population quitting smoking increased as deprivation
increased. In the least deprived quintile, only 0.05% of the total
population quit smoking compared with 0.25% in the most deprived
areas. No clear trend on quits by SES.
3–4 week abstinence rate was 41% (865/2129); for clients using
bupropion it was 34% (129/377) and for those using NRT it was
42% (736/1752) (p = .005). There were no differences in abstinence
rates according to the level of education.
Summary
for quits
Negative
Unclear
Neutral
42
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Outcome
Equity impact
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural & Pharmacological
Neumann Education
Six-week
Continuous
Continuous abstinence of the 16 377 responders was 34% (of all 20
201236
‘Gold Standard abstinence at 6- 588 smokers: continuous abstinence was 27%, when all non1.3
Programme’ of months
responders were considered to be smokers).
Denmark
behaviour
Of the 16 377 responding to follow-up, 27% had a lower level of
change plus
education compared with 37% in the Danish population. Continuous
Nicotine
abstinence was lower in 5738 smokers with a lower educational
ReplacementT
level (30% of responders, 23% of all) compared with those with a
herapy,
higher education level (35% of responders, 28% of all). The overall
N=16,377
difference in continuous abstinence between disadvantaged and
non-disadvantaged patients was 5% (with respect to education).
Sperber
Education
Smoking
Self-reported
Thirty-three percent reported that they did not smoke at follow-up
200037
cessation
and breath-test and there was 95% agreement rate with carbon monoxide breath
2.1
groups based
smoking status tests. There was no difference between quitters and nonquitters in
Israel
on behaviour
at 1-3 years
use of NRT and in years of education.
modification
and peer
support,
N=89
Summary
for quits
Negative
Neutral
43
Author,
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural
Cosnes
200140
2.2
France
SES variable
Intervention
Outcome
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
‘Low-moderate SES,
Moderate-high SES,
High SES’ no further
details
Behavioural
counselling
with
opportunity to
join smoking
cessation
programme,
could include
nicotine
patches and
fluoxetine but
no further
details,
N=177
One year
biochemically
verified
abstinence,
Disease course
and therapy for
Crohn’s
disease, median
29 months
follow-up
Risk of flare-up of Crohn’s disease in quitters did not differ from
that in non-smokers and was less than in continuing smokers (P
<0.001). Need for steroids and for introduction or reinforcement of
immunosuppressive therapy, respectively, were similar in quitters
and non-smokers and increased in continuing smokers. The risk of
surgery was not significantly different in the 3 groups.
Fifty-nine (12%) participants remained abstinent for more than one
year. Independent factors associated with smoking cessation
included high SES (adjusted odds ratio, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.43–5.62).
Negative
44
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural
De Vries
Education
200641
3.1
Netherlan
ds
Intervention
Outcome
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
Brief health
counselling,
self-help
materials on
smoking
cessation
during
pregnancy
and early
postpartum,
and a partner
booklet vs
routine care,
delivered by
midwives,
N=318
Self-reported
quit attempts,
7-day point
prevalence,
approximately
34 weeks
follow-up
When all dropouts were included as smokers, 19% of the
Negative
experimental group reported 7-day abstinence compared
to 7% of the control group at 6 weeks post-intervention,
and 21% and 12%, respectively, at 6 weeks postpartum.
For continuous abstinence (defined as reporting 7-day
abstinence at both time points) these percentages were
12% in the experimental group and 3% in the control
group. When dropouts were excluded from the analysis
these percentages for the experimental group and the
control group were not markedly different. The
intervention had no effect on the smoking behaviour of the
partner as reported by the pregnant women (72% of
partners smoked).
Having a higher education level was predictive of quit
attempts but not 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6
weeks post-intervention and was predictive of quit
attempts and 7-day point prevalence at 6 weeks
postpartum using intention-to-treat analysis.
45
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural
Pisinger
Education
200842
3.1
Denmark
Intervention
Outcome
Equity impact
Behaviour
change:
individual
face-to-face
lifestyle
counselling,
N=2408
Self-reported
point
abstinence at
1, 3 and 5
years
Polanska
200443
3.3
Poland
Behaviour
change
delivered by
midwives,
N=386
Self-reported
smoking
status shortly
after delivery
(approximatel
y 20 weeks
follow-up)
When baseline differences between the groups were
Negative
adjusted for, the difference in self-reported point
abstinence group A (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.7 to 2.8;
p=0.001) and group B (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.6;
p=0.016) were significant when compared separately with
group C. The validated point abstinence rates at 5-year
follow-up were 11.6% in group A and 9.2% in group B.
Smoking status could not be validated in group C. Logistic
analyses, adjusted for baseline differences, showed a
significant effect of the intervention, even when compared
validated point abstinence in groups AB with the selfreported point abstinence in group C (OR: 1.38; 95% CI:
1.1–1.8; p=0.014). Vocational training predicted
abstinence at 5-year follow-up in the combined
intervention groups AB: OR 1.77 (95% CI: 1.2 to 2.6,
p=0.003).
The chance of quitting smoking was significantly higher
Neutral
in the intervention group than in the control group when
including participants, those lost to follow-up,
spontaneous quitters and refusals (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.8–
3.7). No statistically significant differences were found in
the efficacy of the intervention with regard to the level of
education whether including just participants and those
lost to follow-up or also including spontaneous quitters
and refusals.
Education
Summary
for quits
46
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Behavioural
Van der
Education
Aalst44
3.1
Netherlan
ds,
Belgium
Intervention
Outcome
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
Computerised
individually
tailored
smoking
cessation
advice in sub
cohort of
current male
smokers (with
long-term
smoking
history) who
participated
in lung cancer
screening
(NELSON
trial),
N=1284
Self-reported
quit attempts,
Point
prevalent
abstinence,
Prolonged
abstinence,
Continued
abstinence, 2
year followup
47.6% (301/633) of the brochure group and 48.8%
(309/633) of the tailored information group – were lower
educated (primary, lower secondary general or lower
vocational education).
Twenty-three percent of the male smokers in the tailored
information group returned a completed questionnaire and
received the tailored advice. The prolonged smoking
abstinence was slightly, but not statistically significant,
lower amongst those randomised in the tailored
information group (12.5%) compared with the brochure
group (15.6%) (OR = 0.77 (95%-CI: 0.56–1.06) as was
the continued smoking abstinence (OR=0.78; 95% CI:
0.56 to 1.07).
Multivariate analysis showed that those who were higher
educated and motivated to quit smoking were more likely
to quit smoking at follow-up.
Negative
47
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Pharmacological
Fernand Education,
ez
Occupational
45
2006
social class
2.1
Spain
Intervention
Specialised
smoking
clinic in a
university
teaching
hospital,
N=1516
Outcome
1 year and 8
year
abstinence
probabilities
and hazard
ratios for
relapse at 8
years (median
follow-up 52
months)
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
Both men and women in affluent social classes or with
Negative
higher educational levels had a higher probability of
abstinence at 1 year and 8 years. Overall abstinence
probability was 0.412 (95% CI 0.387 to 0.437) at 1-year
and 0.277 (95%CI 0.254 to 0.301) at 8 years.
Lower SES was associated with a higher rate of relapse.
This association persisted after adjustment for confounders
and despite motivation to quit being equal among all social
groups. Men and women in social classes IV–V had
significant hazard ratios of relapse after 8 years follow-up
(men: 1.36, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.72; women: 1.60, 95% CI
1.24 to 2.06), as compared with patients in social classes I–
II. The same independent effect was observed for
education: men and women with primary or less than
primary education had higher hazard ratios of relapse
(men: 1.75, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.25; women: 1.92, 95% CI
1.51 to 2.46), as compared with patients with a university
degree.
48
Author,
Study
design,
Country
SES variable
Brief intervention
Yilmaz
Monthly income
200646
3.1
Turkey
Intervention
Brief advice
from nurse
focussed either
on health risks
of smoking to
the child or to
the mother
compared with
control
(general
personal health
information),
N=363
Outcome
Self-reported
smoking status at
six-months,
change in
smoking location,
knowledge scores
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
The percentage reporting quitting smoking was 24.3%, 13%
and 0.8% of the child intervention, mother intervention and
control at six months, respectively and the three groups were
statistically significantly different from each other.
When the rates of smoking cessation were controlled for
monthly family income there were statistically significant
differences for both income levels. The percentage reporting
quitting smoking was 25%, 8.1% and 1.5% of the child
intervention, mother intervention and control at six months,
respectively for ‘low income’ and 23.6%, 17.4% and 0% of the
child intervention, mother intervention and control at six
months, respectively for ‘high income’.
Family income was an independent factor significantly
influencing smoking location change and post intervention
knowledge, but not smoking cessation. Higher income families
had less location change than lower income families but
greater improvement in knowledge scores at six months
follow-up.
Neutral
49
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Outcome
Study
design,
Country
Mass media – Quitlines and Quit & Win campaigns
Owen
Occupational
3-month
Characteristic
200047
social class
hard-hitting
s of helpline
1.3
testimonial
callers,
England
TV and
smoking
advertising
status at one
(radio/magazi year
ne) campaign
targeted at
young
smokers (1624 years)
encouraging
calls to free
Quitline plus
additional
support
(written
information),
N=730
Equity impact
The social class distribution of callers to the helpline
reflected the social class distribution of smoking in the
population, with nearly two thirds of callers being in
manual occupations or unemployed. However, 25% social
classes ABC1 stopped smoking at one year, compared to
21% social class C2DE which was not statistically
significant.
Summary
for quits
Neutral
50
Author,
SES variable
Intervention
Outcome
Study
design,
Country
Mass media – Quitlines and Quit & Win campaigns
Wisniew Education
Quit & Win
Self-report
ska
campaign,
smoking
48
2005
N=296
status two
1.3
years after 5
Poland
years
abstinence
(total 7 years)
Text-based
Devries Education,
201249
occupation
3.1
England
Intervention
arm of
‘txt2stop’, an
RCT of an
automated,
mobile phone
text messagebased
smoking
cessation
intervention
to prevent
smoking
relapse,
N=2915
Use of text
functions
‘lapse’ and/or
‘crave’,
quit attempts,
relapse, 6month followup
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
In 2003, 284 of 296 respondents (92.6%) reported that they
were still abstinent, during the two years following a five
year period of abstinence (seven years after the Quit & Win
competition). The maintenance of nicotine abstinence was
associated with having a higher than elementary education
level: there was a greater percentage of non-smoking adults
with ‘other’ levels of education (94.8%) compared with
non-smoking adults with elementary education (84.2%).
Negative
Both education and occupation did not predict relapse
following a quit attempt. Both education and occupation did
not predict using the text lapse function amongst those who
did lapse. Higher SES participants appeared more likely to
text crave or lapse but the relationship between these
outcomes and smoking outcomes appears complex.
Neutral
51
Author,
SES variable
Study
design,
Country
Internet-based
UK
Education,
Occupation
(National Statistics
Socio-Economic
Classification)
Mason
201251
3.1
UK
Composite
measure: rented
home; no car; no
educational
qualifications;
manual
occupation;
unemployed or
full-time student.
Intervention
Internet-based
‘StopAdvisor’
recommends
a
structured
quit plan and
a variety of
behaviour
change
techniques for
smoking
cessation,
N=204
Internet-based
‘iQuit’
tailored
smoking
cessation
advice,
N=1758
Outcome
Equity impact
Summary
for quits
Self-report of
at least 1
month
continuous
abstinence
verified by
saliva cotinine
or anabasine.
Usage,
Satisfaction,
8-weeks
follow-up
At 8 weeks post-enrolment, 19.6% (95% CI: 14.1 to 25.1)
of participants (40/204) were abstinent. Participants viewed
a mean of 133.5 pages (median=71.5) during 6.4 log-ins
(median=3). A majority of respondents rated the website
positively on each of the four satisfaction ratings measured
by helpfulness, personal relevance, recommendation and
use in future. There was no evidence of an effect of SES on
cessation (OR=0.99, CI: 0.48–2.02), usage or satisfaction,
using both an occupational and an educational measure of
SES.
Neutral
Self-report 1month and 3month
prolonged
abstinence,
7-day and 24hour point
prevalence, 6months
follow-up
The intervention group did not differ from the control group
on self-reported three month prolonged abstinence (9.1%
versus 9.3%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.42) or on any of
the secondary outcomes. There were no significant
moderating effects of deprivation on the intervention effect
for any of these four outcomes.
Neutral
52