title: Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain a quit attempt.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL and the Smoking and Health database in March 2002 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates and those with follow-up of less than six months.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow-up for at least one month) was associated with a significantly higher quit rate compared to control (Peto Odds Ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.49-2.22, six trials). Interventions with less than a month of follow-up did not show evidence of significant benefit (Peto Odds Ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, seven trials). There was no evidence to judge the effect of very brief (<20 minutes) interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Longer interventions delivered only during the hospital stay were not significantly associated with a higher quit rate (Peto Odds Ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.79-1.44, three trials). Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  High intensity behavioural interventions that include at least one month of follow-up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. The findings of the review were compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT increases quit rates.
authors.affiliation: ICRF General Practice Research Group, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF. marcus.munafo@dphpc.ox.ac.uk
authors.forename: N A
authors.initials: NA
authors.lastname: Rigotti
authors.forename: M R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Munafo
authors.forename: M F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: L F
authors.initials: LF
authors.lastname: Stead
mesh_terms: D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016540:Smoking Cessation / Q000379:methods*; D000074606:Smoking Prevention