Reviews in Health Care 2011; 2(1): 29-39

Prevention

Systematic review

Smoking cessation interventions in nurses and other health care workers

Interventi volti alla cessazione del fumo negli infermieri e in altri professionisti sanitari

Giuseppe La Torre1, Rosella Saulle1, Francesco Di Nardo1, Tiziana Germani2

1 Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

2 Teaching Hospital “Umberto I”, Rome, Italy

Abstract

Introduction: Tobacco smoking can be considered an old and a new challenge for public health. The aim of this review was to analyse different smoking cessation interventions aiming at health care workers.

Methods: A literature search of electronic journal databases for studies on smoking cessation interventions among health care workers was performed according to PRISMA criteria, using the MEDLINE and Scopus databases.

Results: Smoking restriction policies shouldn’t be considered as actual interventions, being ineffective, unpopular and reducing willingness to quit smoking in many subjects. Even though pharmacological therapies based on bupropion SR and transdermal nicotine patches grant significant results on the short-term (weeks and months), smoking recurrence rates are high and individualised interventions should be preferred or integrated since they seem to grant better results on the long-term (years).

Conclusions: There is evidence that smoking cessation interventions among health care workers can be effective. This is of particular interest both for reducing tobacco smoking prevalence among this type of workers and for helping them to be useful model for the general population.

Keywords

Smoking; Cessation; Health care workers; Systematic review

Corresponding author

Prof. Giuseppe La Torre

Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases

Sapienza University of Rome

Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161 Rome

Tel. +39.06.49970388 - Fax +39.06.49972473

E-mail: giuseppe.latorre@uniroma1.it

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no financial competing interests

Introduction

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of the most important diseases such as lung cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and of coronary heart disease and it is also responsible of overall mortality accounting for more than 20% of all deaths in developed countries [1].

The treatment of tobacco-related diseases makes up an economic burden to the health care system as well as to society due to the fact that almost half of those who die due to smoking die before the age of 70 [2].

Health care professionals have an important role to play both as advisers – influencing smoking cessation – and as role models.

Smoking among nurses has been recognised as a serious concern affecting the profession since the 1970s, when female registered nurses smoked at a higher rate (38.9%) than women in the US population (32.0%) and at a substantially higher rate than physicians (21%) [3].

Smoking is both a matter of personal health and a public health concern for healthcare providers [4-7].

A number of studies have pointed to the potential value of nurses taking an active role in facilitating smoking cessation in general population [8-10]. Nurses could be the largest workforce providing effective smoking cessation interventions, and powerful advocates for tobacco free communities. However, despite recognition of their professional responsibility as models of good health practices and known health risks associated with smoking, many nurses continue to smoke [11,12].

It has been suggested that the smoking behaviour of nurses potentially impairs their role in altering patterns of smoking in the general public [13-15]. Nurses who smoke downplay their role in patient education and tend to show a more negative attitude towards patients. Moreover, it has been proposed that before nurses can serve as role models for positive health behaviours, they must incorporate these behaviours into their own personal lifestyles [16-19].

Nurses who smoke should set an example by quitting smoking both for themselves and their patients, so healthcare workers staff attitudes towards smoking have been shown to be important in determining the effectiveness of workplace smoking policies [20].

Aim of this review is to identify the most effective smoking cessation interventions for nurses and other health care workers.

Methods

We performed literature searches of electronic journal databases for studies on smoking cessation interventions among health care workers, according to PRISMA criteria [21].

Searched databases were MEDLINE and Scopus. The keywords used were: “smoking cessation”; “smoking cessation intervention”; “quit smoking”; “non-smoking policy”; “health care workers”; “health care professionals”; “hospital staff”; nurse; physician. We performed searches for: “smoking cessation” AND “health care workers”; “smoking cessation” AND “health care professionals”; “smoking cessation” AND “hospital staff”; “quit smoking” AND “health care workers”; “quit smoking” AND “health care professionals”; “quit smoking” AND “hospital staff”; “smoking cessation intervention” OR “quit smoking” OR “non-smoking policy” AND nurse; “smoking cessation intervention” OR “quit smoking” OR “non-smoking policy” AND physician. Search criteria are summarised in Figure 1. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies, observational studies and clinical trials evaluating smoking cessation interventions among nurses and other health care workers published in English. We excluded reviews and studies not pertaining smoking cessation interventions. This literature review was completed in December 2010. Duplicates were removed using RefWorks Web Based Bibliography Management Software. Quality assessment of the clinical trials included in this review is shown in Table I and was performed according to Jadad scale, ranging from 0 (poor) to 5 (rigorous) [22].

Prospective and observational studies were evaluated for response rate, study design and data analysis according to 11 scoring items modified from the Angelillo-Villari criteria (scoring items are shown in Table I) [23,24]. Studies were then given a score from 0 (poor) to 11 (rigorous) based on the number of criteria satisfied.

Results

Identification of relevant research

We identified 1,671 records in the two databases. 1,237 records were available for screening after we removed the duplicates. 1,211 records were excluded because not relevant. 18 records were excluded because we judged them not suitable for the purposes of this study or because of poor data quality (Figure 1).

The 8 articles reviewed are shown in Table II. Considering the study design, 3 randomised clinical trials, 1 non randomised clinical trial, 3 observational studies and 1 prospective study were found.

Considering the smoking cessation intervention, 3 studies discuss the efficacy of smoking restriction policies at the workplace, 2 studies consider bupropion SR, 1 study considers an internet assistance program, 1 study considers the efficacy of supportive interviews and 1 study considers transdermal nicotine patches.

Quality assessment

Table II shows the results of the quality scoring procedures. Each of the 3 clinical trials scored 5/5 on the Jadad scale, being randomisation described and appropriate, blinding described and appropriate and withdrawals and dropouts described in each of these studies. 5 other studies scored based on a modified Angelillo-Villari criteria set. Response rate was excellent in every study, but only one article described properly the subjects lost during follow-up and no study described non participant population characteristics. Study design was poor or very poor in most cases, only 2 studies describing properly the criteria for being included in the “smoker” population and only 1 study assessing smoking cessation with a proper method. Data analysis was appropriate in 4/5 studies. Therefore, 2 studies scored 9/11 on the modified Angelillo-Villari score system, 2 studies scored 7/11 and 1 study scored 3/11.

Efficacy of smoking restriction policies at workplace

An observational study by Bloor et al. [25] showed that even if smoking restriction policies might be effective in reducing environmental tobacco smoke exposure, these interventions are unpopular and ineffective in reducing prevalence of smokers among health care workers. In fact, only 11 (34.3%) out of the 32 nurses who smoke planned to quit smoking and 71.8% of the nurses believed that the restriction policy was not effective in motivating to quit smoking. Even tough 82.5% believed that staff should have the right to smoke at work, 82.6% believed that non-smokers should not be in contact with smoke. Etter et al. came to the same conclusion in their observational study on a partial smoking ban followed by a total ban [26]. From their work is clear that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke decreased after the partial ban and further decreased after the total ban. However, among nurses and physicians many participants (59.6%) commented that the total ban was too strict, and most preferred the partial ban. Moreover, the total ban was not followed by any change in smoking prevalence or cigarette consumption. Better results obtained Kannegaard [27], who noticed in an observational study that number of smokers among hospital staff diminished from 33% to 26% after 2 years when workers were informed that the hospital was about to start a restriction policy at the end of the study. However, according to the survey, those who kept on smoking were less willing to quit smoking at the end of the study and were also reluctant to accept any smoking cessation intervention.

Efficacy of bupropion SR

A randomised double blind clinical trial by Dalsgareth et al. proved that buproprion SR is more effective than placebo in reducing smoking prevalence in health care workers at 26 weeks from the beginning of the treatment [28]. After 7 weeks 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 18% of the patients in the control group were abstinent (p < 0.001). The number of continuous abstainers decreased during the observation period to 23% in the experimental group and 11% in the control group at the end of the study (p = 0.007). Efficacy of bupropion SR didn’t seem to last longer, as proved by Zellweger et al. in a prospective double blind clinical trial [29]. In their study bupropion SR was superior to placebo in reducing smokers prevalence at week 4 (50% vs. 40% at week 4; p = 0.013), but statistical differences were not maintained after discontinuation of the treatment (week 52), proving that measures to prevent recurrence are necessary to continue the long-term abstention.

Efficacy of transdermal nicotine patches

A prospective randomised clinical trial by Glavas proved that transdermal nicotine patches are better than placebo in reducing smoking prevalence in health care workers in the short term, but statistical differences are not maintained years after the treatment [30]. After 3 weeks the amount of cigarettes consumed decreased by 74.7% in the experimental group (CO in exhaled air = -61.3%) and by 50.7% in the control group (CO in exhaled air = -37.4%). Abstinence rate was 39% in the experimental group and 20% in the control group (p = 0.038). After 5 years abstinence rate was 17.8% in the experimental group and 14.3% in the control group (p = 0.797).

Efficacy of supportive interviews

Rowe and Clark studied the efficacy of individualised supportive interviews among nurses and student nurses [31]. The study lasted 1 year. At the end of the study 24% of the subjects in the intervention group and 7% of the subjects in the control group quit smoking. In detail, 22.7% of the nurses in the intervention group ceased smoking vs. 8.6% in the control group (p < 0.05) and 25% of the student nurses in the intervention group ceased smoking vs. 6% in the control group (p < 0.05).

Efficacy of the internet assistance program

Sarna et al. used an internet assistance program to help nurses and student nurses quit smoking [32]. Patients had full time access to a website which provided skills to enhance smoking cessation success, no-cost smoking cessation services, evidence based medication information and options for one-to-one counselling. Nurses who quit smoking were 43% after 3 months, 45% after 6 months and 53% after 12 months.

Discussion

The main barriers to smoking cessation among health care workers are the starting high prevalence of smokers, particularly among nurses, and the low awareness of health professionals of being a role model in tobacco control [33], and this is a paradox if one considers the smoking related costs for the health services [34,35].

There is evidence that cigarette smoking is the most frequent, and completely preventable risk factor for adverse neonatal outcomes [36], and that preventive interventions that influence smoking attitudes must be put in place before children start experimenting tobacco [37] with the help of parents and teachers [38] and community services [39]. Smoking prevention programs proved to be effective if methodologically rigorous [40], but in populations with high smokers prevalence may be inadequate in controlling smoking. Moreover, it’s now clear that smoking prevalence tends to increase during academic studies in the health care sector [41]. Therefore, targeted policies and smoking cessation services are needed in order to reduce smoking habits in health care workers, and can be viewed as different from other settings. In fact, as suggested by Chiatti et al. [42], occupation type should be considered in prioritising subsets of populations towards which smoking cessation campaigns should be targeted first. In order to program effective interventions, working conditions, population characteristics and smoking habits should be carefully evaluated. In fact, Eriksen proved that the number of hospital employees who succeed in quit smoking decrease with increasing hours of work per week and that subjects smoking less than 10 cigarettes per day, younger than 30 years of age and married with preschool children are more likely to stop smoking [43]. Nowadays, even if health care workers should give the example adopting smoke-free lifestyle, they barely tolerate smoking bans at the workplace (although they are in favour of smoking bans in public areas such as hospitals) [25-27,33].

According to the results of this review, smoking restriction policies can’t be considered as smoking cessation interventions. Not only smoking bans couldn’t significantly reduce the smoking prevalence among health care workers [25,26], but they also reduced willingness to quit smoking in subjects who kept on smoking [27]. Only Kannegaard et al. noticed a decreasing trend in smoking prevalence in their observational study of 2 years. However, it should be remarked that during these 2 years no restriction policy at all was actually applied: workers were only informed that the hospital “was about” to start a restriction policy at the end of the study.

Bupropion SR and nicotine transdermal patches seemed to be more effective in reducing smoking prevalence than other interventions, but measures to prevent recurrence are necessary to continue the long-term abstention as their effects are superior to other methods only in the first months after the treatment [28-30]. Individualised interventions such as supportive interviews and internet assistance granted the best long-term effects, but further studies are needed to assess their effectiveness in periods longer than 1 year [31,32].

This study has some limitations that must be acknowledged. The use of quality scores in systematic reviews about public health issues is important, and especially for smoking [44]. Even though data quality was elevated in each of the articles included in this review, the number of studies dealing with smoking cessation interventions among health care workers was just too low to permit a rigorous quantitative synthesis. Study design didn’t meet our expectations in many cases and further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of the different interventions treated in this review, especially on the long-term period.

Conclusion

Tobacco smoking can be considered an old and a new challenge for public health [45]. This review analyses different smoking cessation interventions aiming at health care workers. According to our results, we can state that smoking restriction policies shouldn’t be considered as actual interventions, being ineffective, unpopular and reducing willingness to quit smoking in many subjects. Even though pharmacological therapies based on bupropion SR and transdermal nicotine patches grant significant results in the short-term period (weeks and months), smoking recurrence rates are high and individualised interventions should be preferred or integrated since they seem to grant better results in the long-term (years).

References

1. World Health Organization. The world Health Report 2003. Geneva: WHO, 2003
2. Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M, Heath CJ. Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950–2000: indirect estimates from national vital statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994
3. The Health Consequences of Smoking for Women: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1980. Available at: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/R/T/_/nnbbrt.pdf
4. Braun B, Jinnet B, Fowles J, Solberg LI, Kind EA, Lando H, et al. Smoking-related attitudes and clinical practices of medical personnel in Minnesota. Am J Prev Med 2004; 27: 316-22
5. Slater P, McElwee G, Fleming P, McKenna H. Nurses’ smoking behaviour related to cessation practice. Nurs Times 2006; 102: 32
6. Jenkins K, Ahijevych K. Nursing students’ beliefs about smoking, their own smoking behaviors, and use of professional tobacco treatment intervention. Appl Nurs Res 2003; 16: 164-72
7. Sarna L, Brown JK, Lillington L, Wewers ME, Brecht ML. Tobacco-control attitudes, advocacy, and smoking behaviors of oncology nurses. Oncol Nurs Forum 2000; 27: 1519-28
8. Burt A, Illingworth T, Shaw P, Thornley T, White P, Turner P. Stopping smoking after a myocardial infarction. Lancet 1974; 1: 304-6
9. Goldstein AO, Hellier A, Fitzgerald S, Stegall TS, Fischer PM. Hospital nurse counselling of patients who smoke. American Journal Public Health 1987; 77: 1333-4
10. Padula, C. Nurses and smoking: review and implications. J Prof Nurs 1992; 8: 120-32
11. Mackay J, Eriksen M. The tobacco Atlas. Brighton: Myriad Editions Limited, 2002; p. 24
12. Rosen C, Ashley M. Smoking and the health professional: Recognition and performance of roles. Can J Public Health 1979; 69: 399-406
13. Dawley HH, Cartel S, Morrison J. The discouragement of smoking in a hospital setting: the importance of modelled behaviour. International Journal Addiction 1981; 16: 901-10
14. Knobf M, Morra M. Smokers, former smokers and non smokers: a correlational study of nurses in Connecticut. Oncology Nursing Forum 1983; 10: 40-5
15. Kottke TE, Hill V, Heitig C, Brekke M, Blake S, Arneson S, et al. Smoke-free hospitals, attitudes of patients, employees and faculty. Minn Med 1985; 68: 53-5
16. Soeken KL, Bausell RB, Winklestein M. Preventive behaviour: attitudes and compliance of nursing students. J Advanc Nursing 1989; 14: 1026-33
17. Morra M, Knobf M. Comparison of nurses’ smoking habits: The 1975 DHEW survey and Connecticut nurses, 1981. Public Health Rep 1983; 98: 553-557
18. Faulkner A, Ward L. Nurses as health educators in relation to smoking. Nurs Times 1983; 79: 47-8
19. Spencer J. Nurses’ cigarette smoking in England and Wales. Int J Nurs Stud 1984; 21: 69-79
20. Hocking B, Borland R, Owen N, Kemp G. A total ban on workplace smoking is acceptable and effective. J Occ Med 1991; 33: 163-7
21. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ital J Public Health 2009; 4: 94-131
22. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12
23. Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Org 1999; 77: 906-15
24. La Torre G, Chiaradia G, Gianfagna F, De Laurentis A, Boccia S, Ricciardi W. Quality assessment in meta-analysis. Ital J Public Health 2006; 3: 44-50
25. Bloor RN, Meeson L, Crome IB. The effects of a non-smoking policy on nursing staff smoking behaviour and attitudes in a psychiatric hospital. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2006; 13: 188-96
26. Etter M, Khan AN, Etter J. Acceptability and impact of a partial smoking ban followed by a total smoking ban in a psychiatric hospital. Prev Med 2008; 46: 572-8
27. Kannegaard PN, Kreiner S, Gregersen P, Goldstein H. Smoking habits and attitudes to smoking 2001 among hospital staff at a danish hospital - comparison with a similar study 1999. Prev Med 2005; 41: 321-7
28. Dalsgareth OJ, Gerner Hansen NC, Søes-Petersen U, Evald T, Høegholm A, Barber J, et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled, 6-month trial of bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets as an aid to smoking cessation in hospital employees. Nicotine Tob Res 2004; 6: 55-61
29. Zellweger J, Boelcskei PL, Carrozzi L, Sepper R, Sweet R, Hider AZ. Bupropion SR vs placebo for smoking cessation in health care professionals. Am J Health Behav 2005; 29: 240-9
30. Glavas D, Rumboldt M, Rumboldt Z. Smoking cessation with nicotine replacement therapy among health care workers: Randomized double-blind study. Croat Med J 2003; 44: 219-24
31. Rowe K, Macleod Clark J. Evaluating the effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention designed for nurses. Int J Nurs Stud 1999; 36: 301-11
32. Sarna L, Bialous S, Wewers ME, Froelicher ES, Wells MJ, Kotlerman J, et al. Nurses trying to quit smoking using the internet. Nurs Outlook 2009; 57: 246-56
33. Martinez C, Garcia M, Mendez E, Peris M, Fernandez E. Barriers and Challenges for Tobacco Control in a Smoke-Free Hospital. Canc Nurs 2008; 31: 88-94
34. Versino E, Gianino MM, Renga G. Tobacco smoke in Piedmont: attributable morbidity and impact on hospital costs. Ital J Public Health 2006; 2: 57-64
35. Versino E, Gianino MM, Renga G. Tobacco attributable morbidity and hospital costs in Piedmont: forecast for the years 2003-2014. Ital J Public Health 2007; 2: 154-60
36. Zisovska E, Lazarevska L, Pehcevska N, Tavcioska G. Tobacco influence on the neonatal outcome. Ital J Public Health 2010; 3: 249-55
37. Ferrante M, Fiore M, Leon L, Costantidines F, Castaing M, Fallico R, et al. Age of smoking initiation, tobacco habits and risk perception among primary, middle and high school students in Southern Italy. Ital J Public Health 2010; 3: 262-7
38. Roncarolo F, Ramella F, Sacco S, Pretti G, Bonfanti M, Tenconi MT. Mr. Starbene e il Club dei Vincenti: assessing an anti-smoking campaign for school children. Ital J Public Health 2008; 1: 72-9
39. Gianti A, Vianello S, Casinghini C, Roncarolo F, Ramella F, Maccagni M, et al. The “Quit and Win” campaign to promote smoking cessation in Italy: results and one year follow-up across three Italian editions (2000-2004). Ital J Public Health 2007; 1: 59-64
40. La Torre G, Chiaradia G, Ricciardi G. School-based smoking prevention in children and adolescents: review of the scientific literature. J Public Health 2005; 13: 285-90
41. Boccoli E, Federici A, Trianni GL, Melani AS. Changes of smoking habits and beliefs during nurse training: A longitudinal study. Eur J Epidem 1997; 13: 899-902
42. Chiatti C, Chiadò Piat S, Federico B, Capelli C, Di Stanislao F, Di Giovanni P, et al. Cigarette smoking in young-adult workers: a cross-sectional analysis from Abruzzo, Italy. Ital J Public Health 2010; 3: 243-8
43. Eriksen W. Work factors and smoking cessation in nurses’ aides: a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 2005; 5: 142
44. Mannocci A, Semyonov L, Saulle R, Boccia A. Evaluation of the association between acne and smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Ital J Public Health 2010; 3: 256-61
45. Saulle R, La Torre G. Baccus, Tobacco and Venus: old and new challenges for Public Health. Ital J Public Health 2010; 3: 221-5