4.6 Review

Smoking cessation interventions for US adults with disabilities: protocol for a systematic review

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066700

关键词

substance misuse; public health; health equity; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes a systematic review protocol to identify and evaluate tobacco smoking cessation interventions tailored to improve outcomes for people with disabilities. The review will be conducted using Cochrane procedures and Covidence systematic review software. The data will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations.
Introduction People with disabilities have a higher prevalence of cigarette smoking than people without disabilities. However, little information exists on smoking cessation interventions tailored to address the unique needs of people with disabilities. This paper describes a systematic review protocol to identify and evaluate tobacco smoking cessation interventions designed to improve outcomes for people with disabilities. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of the literature using the procedures outlined by Cochrane. We will search four electronic databases (CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid)) with no date restriction to identify tobacco cessation interventions tailored to meet the needs of people with disabilities. We will extract data and assess risk of bias using the RoB2 and ROBINS-I for included studies using Covidence systematic review software. Quantitative and qualitative syntheses will summarise key study characteristics and outcomes with text, tables and forest plots; a meta-analysis will be conducted, if appropriate. Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as there are no primary data associated with the study. Data will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations. PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022337434.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据