Effectiveness of anti-smoking interventions towards community: a meta-analysis study


ÜNAL E. , METİNTAŞ S.

Central European journal of public health, vol.29, no.2, pp.134-142, 2021 (Journal Indexed in SCI Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 29 Issue: 2
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.21101/cejph.a6350
  • Title of Journal : Central European journal of public health
  • Page Numbers: pp.134-142
  • Keywords: anti-smoking intervention, effectiveness, meta-analysis

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Smoking is one of the biggest public health problems in the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the MPOWER package which provides a guide for tobacco control. The package includes six evidence based anti-smoking interventions. This meta-analysis study aims to assess the effectiveness of MPOWER - (M)onitor, (P)rotect, (O)ffer, (W)arn, (E)nforce, and (R)aise. In the study, "smoking prevalence rate, smoking cessation rate and number of cigarettes smoked daily" outputs were used in adult and adolescent age groups. METHODS: Literature search has been made with "smok*, tobacco, cigarette*" keywords from the databases of Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane-Library. Abstracts were assessed in detail according to the inclusion criteria by the research team. Quality of articles was evaluated with modified Jadad criteria. The follow-up periods of articles were determined in two groups named as short and long term periods. We used random effects model (p ≤ 0.05) and fixed effects model (p > 0.05) according to the heterogeneity test results. RESULTS: P and O interventions, which are evaluated with smoking cessation rate, increased the smoking cessation rate in adults by 39% in the longest follow-up period - RR: 1.39 (1.23-1.57). However, it was determined that the interventions were not effective on smoking cessation rate in adolescents - RR: 1.13 (0.90-1.42). Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was the most effective intervention for smoking cessation rate in adults. W interventions, which are evaluated with smoking prevalence rate, decreased the smoking prevalence rate in adults by 13% in the longest follow-up period - OR: 0.87 (0.82-0.92). P, W and E interventions, which are evaluated with smoking prevalence rate, decreased the smoking prevalence rate in adolescents by 26% in the longest follow-up period - OR: 0.74 (0.68-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: MPOWER interventions affect smoking prevalence rate, smoking cessation rate and number of cigarettes smoked daily in different age groups. Well-controlled, well-planned and cost-effective anti-smoking interventions have great importance for public health protection.