Knowledge synthesis of smoking cessation among employed and unemployed young adults

Abstract

Objectives: We synthesized evidence regarding effective strategies for smoking cessation among employed or unemployed young adults aged 18 to 24 years.

Methods: For this knowledge synthesis, we used (1) a systematic review of the scientific literature, (2) a Delphi panel of experts, and (3) 6 focus groups of employed and unemployed young adult smokers.

Results: Of 51 related studies, only 4 included employed and unemployed young adults in their samples (as opposed to students), and none focused solely on them. Using the Delphi process, 27 experts reached consensus on priorities for research, practice, and policy, emphasizing population engagement, recruitment, and innovative interventions. Key themes from focus groups were that interventions should be relevant to young adults, individual choice should be respected, and the positive aspects of quitting should be stressed. Despite having negative views on traditional smoking cessation methods, participants expressed optimism about being able to quit and proposed creative recommendations.

Conclusions: Our findings set an agenda for targeting research, improving practice, and informing policy for smoking cessation among young adults. We also demonstrate the value of using 3 complementary approaches: literature review, expert opinion, and target population perspectives.

FIGURE 1—

Summary of priorities for research, practice, and policy from modified Delphi process, 2006 Note. ICT = information and communication technology. A modified Delphi method was used to identify and rank the top priorities for research, practice, and policy. The 27 members of the panel were recruited on the basis of their expertise in the area of tobacco control. This process used sequential questionnaires over 3 rounds. Round 1 asked participants to respond to open-ended questions. Responses were analyzed and organized according to common themes to generate 3 lists of priorities for (1) research, (2) practice, and (3) policy. In round 2, panelists were asked to rank the items on the 3 lists generated from round 1 and provide reasons for their choices. Their rankings were then combined to produce a total score for each priority. In addition, the reasons provided for the top choices were summarized. In round 3, consensus was consolidated as panelists were asked to either agree or rerank their choices. For more information on this method, see the Methods section.