» Articles » PMID: 31663182

Overview
Journal Psychooncology
Publisher Wiley
Specialties Oncology
Psychology
Date 2019 Oct 31
PMID 31663182
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated.

Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P = .007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.31, P = .24).

Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.

Citing Articles

Digital Smoking Cessation Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Analysis of Predictors and Moderators of Engagement and Outcome Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Andree R, Mujcic A, den Hollander W, van Laar M, Boon B, Engels R JMIR Cancer. 2024; 10:e46303.

PMID: 38901028 PMC: 11229662. DOI: 10.2196/46303.


Digital interventions targeting excessive substance use and substance use disorders: a comprehensive and systematic scoping review and bibliometric analysis.

Johansson M, Romero D, Jakobson M, Heinemans N, Lindner P Front Psychiatry. 2024; 15:1233888.

PMID: 38374977 PMC: 10875034. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1233888.


Which interventions for alcohol use should be included in a universal healthcare benefit package? An umbrella review of targeted interventions to address harmful drinking and dependence.

Botwright S, Sutawong J, Kingkaew P, Anothaisintawee T, Dabak S, Suwanpanich C BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):382.

PMID: 36823618 PMC: 9948368. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15152-6.


Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Cost-Utility of a Digital Smoking Cessation Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Health Economic Evaluation and Outcomes of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mujcic A, Blankers M, Boon B, Verdonck-de Leeuw I, Smit F, van Laar M J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(3):e27588.

PMID: 35297777 PMC: 9491833. DOI: 10.2196/27588.


Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Cost-Utility of a Digital Alcohol Moderation Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Health Economic Evaluation and Outcomes of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mujcic A, Blankers M, Boon B, Berman A, Riper H, van Laar M J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(2):e30095.

PMID: 35103605 PMC: 8848232. DOI: 10.2196/30095.


References
1.
Park E, Puleo E, Butterfield R, Zorn M, Mertens A, Gritz E . A process evaluation of a telephone-based peer-delivered smoking cessation intervention for adult survivors of childhood cancer: the partnership for health study. Prev Med. 2006; 42(6):435-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.03.004. View

2.
Riper H, Hoogendoorn A, Cuijpers P, Karyotaki E, Boumparis N, Mira A . Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(12):e1002714. PMC: 6298657. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714. View

3.
Islami F, Sauer A, Miller K, Siegel R, Fedewa S, Jacobs E . Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 68(1):31-54. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21440. View

4.
Hawkes A, Gollschewski S, Lynch B, Chambers S . A telephone-delivered lifestyle intervention for colorectal cancer survivors 'CanChange': a pilot study. Psychooncology. 2009; 18(4):449-55. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1527. View

5.
McCorkle R, Ercolano E, Lazenby M, Schulman-Green D, Schilling L, Lorig K . Self-management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(1):50-62. PMC: 3058905. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20093. View