Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Cochrane Review; 14 studies (3370 participants), investigating whether interventions designed to train or guide individuals to provide support to smokers trying to quit help more smokers to quit than stop‐smoking programmes without a partner‐support element.

Key results

12 studies (2818 participants) measured successful quitting at six to nine months follow‐up, and seven studies (2573 participants) measured quitting at 12‐month follow‐up. Partner support did not increase the chances of stopping smoking at either time point.

The analysis split the studies based on the type of partner giving support (relatives/friends/co‐workers versus spouses/cohabiting partners versus fellow cessation‐programme participants). There was no difference in quit rates between study groups, regardless of the type of partner providing the support. Only one study reported that partner support improved more in the group given the partner‐support intervention than in the group where no partner‐support intervention was provided. Another study reported that partner support improved more in a more intensive partner‐support intervention than a less intensive partner‐support intervention.

Quality of the evidence

Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. This review therefore cannot tell us whether receiving more support from a partner can help a person to give up smoking.

Read the full Cochrane Review here

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

ResolvedVerified literature

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ What is the best way to use nicotine replacement therapy to quit smoking?\ Key messages\ Using a combination of nicotine patches together with another type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (such as gum or lozenge) is more likely to help people quit smoking than if they used one type of NRT alone. We also found that people who smoke have the same chance of quitting successfully whether they use a nicotine patch or another type of NRT, such as gum, lozenge or nasal spray.\ More high‐quality studies on different NRT patch doses, durations of NRT use, types of fast‐acting NRT, and NRT use prior to quit day are needed to know which treatments work best to help people quit smoking. These studies should report safety outcomes and withdrawals due to treatment.\ What we found\ We found 68 completed studies conducted in 43,327 participants. Most participants were adults who wanted to quit smoking.\ Main results\ People who smoke have the same chances of quitting successfully whether they use a nicotine patch to quit or another type of NRT, such as gum, lozenge or nasal spray. Using nicotine patches together with another type of NRT (such as gum or lozenge) made it 17% to 37% more likely that a person would successfully stop smoking than if they used one type of NRT alone.\ People who used higher‐dose nicotine patches (25 mg patches worn for 16 hours, or 21 mg patches worn for 24 hours) were more likely to quit smoking compared to those using lower‐dose patches (15 mg patches worn for 16 hours or 14 mg patches worn for 24 hours). However, there was not any clear evidence to suggest that people using 42 mg or 44 mg patches were more likely to quit than people using 21 mg or 22 mg (24‐hour) patches.\ Starting to use NRT before a quit day may help more people to quit than only using it after a quit day, but more evidence is needed to strengthen this conclusion.\ We also looked at how long NRT should be used for, whether NRT should be used on a schedule or on demand as craved, and whether more people stop smoking when NRT is provided for free versus if they have to pay for it. More research is needed to answer these questions.\ Most studies did not look at the safety of NRT. Where studies did look at safety, they found that very few people experienced negative effects.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/063337ce-8117-4a92-932e-4deff6c9ead0)

\ \ Standardised (‘plain’) tobacco packaging may reduce the number of people who smoke. No studies directly measured whether it influences starting or stopping smoking. There is no evidence that it may increase tobacco use.\ Cochrane Review; 51 studies with around 800,000 people, exploring the impact of standardised packaging on tobacco attitudes and behaviour](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/0fe4e518-91f4-47e6-9c9a-16b9b474e9ef)

\ \ Cochrane Review; three trials (140 participants with risky alcohol intake (3 to 40 units daily) in need of surgery); comparing intensive alcohol interventions aimed at complete alcohol cessation at the time of surgery compared with no intervention. Interventions included educational strategies for alcohol withdrawal and relapse prevention.\ Key results\ Intensive intervention programmes probably increased the number of participants who quit drinking alcohol and probably reduced postoperative complications. Of 61 participants in the intervention groups, 20 had complications requiring treatment, compared with 33 of 61 participants in the control groups (moderate‐quality evidence). Of 70 participants in the intervention groups, 41 successfully quit drinking, compared to five of 70 participants in the control groups (moderate‐quality evidence). Data were insufficient to show the effect of quitting drinking on the number of deaths (low‐quality evidence), and results show no effect on length of hospital stay. None of the studies reported on the number of participants who continued to avoid risky drinking in the longer term (at three‐, six‐, nine‐, and 12‐month follow‐up).\ Included studies were few and reported small sample sizes; therefore one should be careful about drawing firm conclusions based on these results.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/117189f9-9eda-4e76-b774-69f8dcf481d1)

\ \ Are smoking cessation interventions effective for quitting smoking and reducing disease activity in people with chronic inflammatory joint disease?\ Background\ Tobacco smoking increases the risk of developing inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis, where the joints are progressively damaged by the body's own immune system. Smoking may also worsen symptoms of these diseases. This review looked at whether supportive programmes to help smokers with IJDs quit smoking actually lead to quitting and reduced inflammation in the joints and elsewhere. Inflammation from these diseases can lead to heart attack and stroke, for which people with IJD are at higher risk.\ Study characteristics\ We searched the literature in October 2018. We included two studies with a total of 57 adult smokers ‐ both men and women ‐ with rheumatoid arthritis. One of the studies tested an intervention to help people with rheumatoid arthritis to quit smoking. This study recruited only smokers and compared this specialist, stop smoking programme with a standard, less intensive stop smoking programme. The other study tested an intervention to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Researchers recruited non‐smokers and smokers and compared this programme to a brief factual information leaflet about risks of heart disease. Both studies followed study participants for six months.\ These studies were funded by Arthritis Research UK Educational Research Fellowship, Arthritis Research UK, the New Zealand Health Research Council, Arthritis New Zealand, and the University of Otago Research Fund.\ Key results\ Neither of the two included studies found that the more intensive, specialist interventions aimed at people with rheumatoid arthritis helped more people with rheumatoid arthritis to quit smoking than the less intensive, generic interventions. Only one of the studies reported on the safety of the stop smoking programme used. Very few side effects related to use of nicotine replacement therapy were reported, and none of these were serious. As a result, we do not know whether helping people with inflammatory arthritis improves their disease.\ Quality of the evidence\ We rated the overall quality of the included studies as very low because studies were very few and included few participants; only one of the studies tested an intervention that specifically tried to help people to quit smoking, and there is a chance that people who received the intensive intervention were more likely to incorrectly report that they had stopped smoking when in fact they had not. As a result, further large studies should be carried out to test stop smoking programmes for people with IJD. Researchers should ensure that they measure whether people's IJD symptoms improve, and should confirm whether people have stopped smoking.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2ad99711-dd42-489a-b56f-e4af1c9aa127)

Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)