Best practice in group-based smoking cessation: results of a literature review applying effectiveness, plausibility, and practicality criteria.
OBJECTIVE
Apply a "best practices" model to evidence regarding group smoking cessation to inform organizational decisions about adopting such programs. The best-practices model attempts to integrate rigorous review of evidence with context and practical considerations important to organizations contemplating adoption.


METHODS
First, we identified effective practices by systematic literature review with two blinded reviewers to (1) search databases (99.8% agreement), (2) hand search journals with five or more papers selected in first step (99.9% agreement), (3) search reference lists of included papers (99.4% agreement), and (4) contact published experts. Second, model programs, theory, and expert opinion suggested plausible practices. Finally, a practitioner-researcher advisory group suggested practical considerations affecting adoption decisions.


METHODS
All 67 studies included in the review met six requirements: (1) peer reviewed, (2) primary studies, (3) using experimental or quasi-experimental design, (4) compared one or more smoking-cessation interventions that involved two or more group sessions, (5) studied persons 18+ years old, and (6) reported > or =6-month point prevalence or continuous abstinence outcomes.


METHODS
Two independent raters assessed study quality (89.5% agreement). Effective practices consistently exhibited a statistically significant effect. Plausible practices showed consistency across three types of evidence. An advisory group based practicality criteria on critical review and experience.


RESULTS
Two practices were rated effective: multicomponent behavioral intervention and nicotine replacement therapy. Five practices received plausible ratings: components of behavioral skills, information about smoking, self-monitoring, social support, and four or more sessions of 60 to 90 minutes. The Advisory Group identified 11 practicality questions to assist organizations to make adoption decisions regarding effective and plausible practices.


CONCLUSIONS
No research evidence guides potential smoking-cessation program adopters regarding program participants, providers, settings, or quality assurance. Reviews to influence practice must consider science and practice (context) to facilitate adoption of best practices.
Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation, Lyle Hallman Institute, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Steve
S
Manske
Susan
S
Miller
Cheryl
C
Moyer
Marie Rose
MR
Phaneuf
Roy
R
Cameron
D019985:Benchmarking; D002170:Canada; D006126:Group Processes; D006801:Humans; D016540:Smoking Cessation / Q000379:methods*