Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34788849›Full record

SynthesisNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2022

Identifying Active Ingredients, Working Mechanisms, and Fidelity Characteristics Reported in Smoking Cessation Interventions in Dutch Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

Dennis de Ruijter, Enrique Mergelsberg, Matty Crone, Eline Smit, Ciska Hoving

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Dennis de RuijterDepartment of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7210-371X
Enrique MergelsbergDepartment of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7048-830X
Matty CronePublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Eline SmitDepartment of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
Ciska HovingDepartment of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1357-863X
Maastricht University · NLCurtin University · AULeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based smoking cessation interventions provided by healthcare professionals can be successful in helping citizens to quit smoking. Yet, evidence is needed about the active ingredients of these interventions, how these ingredients work and how they are implemented in practice. Such knowledge is required to effectively support healthcare professionals to optimally put evidence-based smoking cessation interventions to (inter)national practice.

objectiveTo identify active ingredients (including behavior change techniques), mechanisms of action and implementation fidelity reported in smoking cessation interventions in Dutch primary care settings and to relate these to intervention effectiveness.

methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching nine national intervention or funding databases, five international scientific databases and consulting 17 national smoking cessation experts. Out of 1066 identified manuscripts, 40 interventions were eligible for this review. Based on published protocols, information regarding behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action was systematically abstracted. Additionally, information regarding study characteristics and other active ingredients, effects on smoking behavior and implementation fidelity was abstracted. Comparative effectiveness concerning abstracted intervention characteristics was qualitatively explored.

resultsActive ingredients, mechanisms of action and implementation fidelity were moderately to poorly reported. Interventions applying behavior change techniques and interventions with a single behavioral target (i.e. smoking-only versus multiple behaviors) seemed to provide stronger evidence for successfully changing smoking behavior.

conclusionAttention to and reporting on interventions' active ingredients (e.g. behavior change techniques), mechanisms of action and implementation fidelity are prerequisites for developing more effective evidence-based smoking cessation interventions to be successfully implemented in primary healthcare. IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review provides an overview of smoking cessation interventions in Dutch primary care settings, identified since the year 2000. Smoking cessation support is offered in various forms, but our qualitative findings show that interventions including more behavior change techniques and interventions targeting only smoking cessation (compared to multiple behaviors) might be more effective. Results also show that-based on available intervention reports-it is difficult to distinguish patterns of active ingredients (such as behavior change techniques), mechanisms of action and fidelity of implementation in relation to interventions' effectiveness. This means (quality of) reporting on these intervention characteristics should improve.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationBehavior TherapyHumansPrimary Health CareSmokingTobacco Smoking

Identifiers

PMID34788849
PMCPMC8962690
OpenAlexW3214116966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.