Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Jun;117(6):1526-1542.
doi: 10.1111/add.15724. Epub 2021 Nov 6.

A systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health-what works?

Panagiotis Spanakis  1 , Emily Peckham  1 , Ben Young  2 , Paul Heron  1 , Della Bailey  1 , Simon Gilbody  1   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health-what works?

Panagiotis Spanakis et al. Addiction. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Background and aims: People with severe mental ill health smoke more and suffer greater smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation in this group. This review evaluated randomized controlled trial evidence to measure the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions (both digital and non-digital) in people with severe mental ill health.

Design: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. We searched between inception and January 2020 in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and CENTRAL databases.

Setting and participants: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of behavioural smoking cessation and reduction interventions in adults with severe mental ill health, conducted in any country, in either in-patient or community settings and published in English.

Measurements: The primary outcome was biochemically verified smoking cessation. Smoking reduction and changes in mental health symptoms and body mass index (BMI) were included as secondary outcomes. Narrative data synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted and the quality of included studies was appraised using the risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool.

Findings: We included 12 individual studies (16 articles) involving 1861 participants. The first meta-analysis (three studies, 921 participants) demonstrated effectiveness of bespoke face-to-face interventions compared with usual care across all time-points [medium-term: relative risk (RR) = 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38-3.81; long-term: RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.09-2.30]. The second (three studies, 275 participants) did not demonstrate any difference in effectiveness of bespoke digital on-line interventions compared with standard digital on-line interventions (medium-term: RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.17-4.46). A narrative overview revealed mixed results when comparing bespoke face-to-face interventions with other active interventions. The methodological quality of studies was mixed, with the majority having some concerns mainly around risk of selective reporting.

Conclusions: Face-to-face bespoke smoking cessation interventions for adults with severe mental ill health appear to be effective when compared with treatment as usual, but evidence is equivocal when compared with other active interventions. There is limited evidence comparing bespoke digital interventions with generic interventions, and we found no studies comparing them with usual treatment.

Keywords: Bipolar disorder; psychosis; quit smoking; schizophrenia; severe mental illness; smoking cessation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) diagram
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Meta‐analysis results for bespoke person based behavioural interventions compared to usual care
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Meta‐analysis results for bespoke machine‐based smoking cessation intervention compared to standard machine‐based interventions
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Risk of bias critical appraisal
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Brown S, Kim M, Mitchell C, Inskip H. Twenty‐five year mortality of a community cohort with schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2010;196:116–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Correll CU, Solmi M, Veronese N, Bortolato B, Rosson S, Santonastaso P, et al. Prevalence, incidence and mortality from cardiovascular disease in patients with pooled and specific severe mental illness: a large‐scale meta‐analysis of 3,211,768 patients and 113,383,368 controls. World Psychiatry. 2017;16:163–80. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Osborn DPJ, Levy G, Nazareth I, Petersen I, Islam A, King MB. Relative risk of cardiovascular and cancer mortality in people with severe mental illness from the United Kingdom's general practice research database. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:242–9. - PubMed
    1. Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) . Smoking and Mental Health: A Joint Report by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. London, UK: RCP; 2013.
    1. Cook BL, Wayne GF, Kafali EN, Liu Z, Shu C, Flores M. Trends in smoking among adults with mental illness and association between mental health treatment and smoking cessation. JAMA. 2014;311:172–82. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types