Mindfulness for smoking cessation

Jackson S et al (2022)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - 10.1002/14651858.CD013696.pub2.

Ewch i'r cyhoeddiad

Mapiau Tystiolaeth

• Lleoliadau Gofal: Lleoliad gofal iechyd
• Lleoliadau Gofal: Lleoliad cymunedol
• Lleoliadau Gofal: Lleoliad gweithle
• Lleoliadau Gofal: Lleoliad Addysgol
• Lleoliadau Gofal: Lleoliadau eraill
• Grwpiau Poblogaeth: Oedolion
• Grwpiau Poblogaeth: Plant a Phobl ifanc
• Grwpiau Poblogaeth: Y boblogaeth yn gyffredinol
• Grwpiau Poblogaeth: Plant ac Oedolion Ifanc
• Ymyriadau: Aml-gydran
• Ymyriadau: Therapïau seicogymdeithasol eraill
• Canlyniad: Rhoi'r gorau i ysmygu

Math o Dystiolaeth

Adolygiad Systematig

Nodau

Mae'r awduron yn datgan:

"To assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation among people who smoke, and whether these interventions have an effect on mental health outcomes."

Canfyddiadau

Mae'r awduron yn datgan:

"

21 studies were included, with 8186 participants. Most studies recruited adults from the community, and the majority (15 studies) were conducted in the USA.

The authors did not detect a clear benefit or harm of mindfulness training interventions on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence), less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.19; I2 = 60%; 5 studies, 813 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or no treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.53; 1 study, 325 participants; low-certainty evidence). In each comparison, the 95% CI encompassed benefit (i.e. higher quit rates), harm (i.e. lower quit rates) and no difference. In one study of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, we did not detect a clear benefit or harm of the intervention over no treatment (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.67; 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

The authors did not detect a clear benefit or harm of ACT on quit rates compared with less intensive behavioural treatments, including nicotine replacement therapy alone (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.02; 1 study, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence), brief advice (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.75; 1 study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or less intensive ACT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was a high level of heterogeneity (I2 = 82%) across studies comparing ACT with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatments, meaning it was not appropriate to report a pooled result.

They did not detect a clear benefit or harm of distress tolerance training on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 1 study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence).

The authors did not detect a clear benefit or harm of yoga on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.16; 1 study, 55 participants; very low-certainty evidence)."

Casgliadau

Mae'r awduron yn datgan:

"The authors did not detect a clear benefit of mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions for increasing smoking quit rates or changing mental health and well-being. This was the case when compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment, less intensive smoking cessation treatment, or no treatment. However, the evidence was of low and very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, meaning future evidence may very likely change the interpretation of the results. Further RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation compared with active comparators are needed. There is also a need for more consistent reporting of mental health and well-being outcomes in studies of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation."