Project Background
Smoking has been associated with a variety of deleterious health conditions and risks. The research problem is the need for the development of effective interventions designed to facilitate smoking cessation in numerous health contexts. The rationale of the study is that cessation of smoking may be necessary to reduce the risk of developing specific diseases or as a treatment modality to reduce the aggravation of symptoms. This study aims to identify the effectiveness of strategies that employ both behavioral and pharmacotherapy in the facilitation of smoking cessation.
The potential value of the study is that the identification of effective interventions is vital for the preservation of health and the maintenance of overall patient well-being. This project aims to synthesize literature to assess the following PICOT question. (P) In adults who smoke tobacco (I), what is the effect of behavioral interventions in combination with pharmacotherapy (C) compared to non-combined interventions on smoking cessation outcomes (O) in 6 months (T)?
Methodology
The search for articles was conducted in several reputed databases. They included PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, and ResearchGate. The keywords that were utilized in the search included “smoke,” “cessation,” “tobacco,” “behavioral interventions,” “pharmacotherapy,” and “study.” It is vital to note that the keywords that were applied in the search process were informed by the study’s PICOT question. The objective was to identify published research studies that addressed the facilitation of smoking cessation through a blend of behavioral solutions and pharmacotherapy.
The inclusion criteria included studies published in English in the last five years using rigorous research methods. The studies also had to have an ample sample size and needed to focus on conventional smoking cessation interventions. Studies that were older than five years and were published in languages other than English were excluded. The appropriateness of the selected articles was evaluated by reading the respective abstracts.
All studies that featured non-conventional smoking cessation procedures were eliminated. A close evaluation of the reference sections of some of the selected articles provided links to additional studies that were included in the search. A total of 235 articles were identified from the aforementioned databases. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, a total of 10 articles were identified for the literature critique.
Theoretical Framework
The literature synthesis exercise is premised on the elements of the Social Cognitive Theory, suggesting that behavior is strongly influenced by environmental, personal, and behavioral factors (Politis et al., 2018). The implementation of social cognition theories provides insight into the factors that influence preventative behavior (Lin et al., 2020). The identification of modifiable characteristics can drive the substance and design of behavioral interventions aimed at increasing compliance with preventive behaviors in health situations (Lin et al., 2020). In addition, the combination of the developed modalities with evidence-based pharmacotherapeutic interventions could potentially address complex conditions such as smoking cessation.
Critique of the Literature
The studies reviewed in this literature critique employ quantitative study designs. They include four randomized control trials, a single case experimental study, one single-arm pilot study, one randomized pilot study, two follow-up trials, and one retrospective cohort study. The articles present an evidence-based assessment of smoking cessation interventions in a variety of contexts that feature adult populations with varied demographic characteristics. Each of the studies is critiqued, after which a summation of the findings is presented.
Elements Influencing the Believability of the Research
Writing Style
It is vital that reports are well-written, grammatically correct, and organized in an easy-to-read manner. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) present a well-written and concise report. The report explicates how elevated smoking rates and poor stop rates place a substantial strain on public health and medical resources in Turkey. The papers by Yehoshua et al. (2022) and Asayut et al. (2022) are grammatically correct and avoid the use of jargon.
In their assessment of the effects of varenicline therapy, Politis et al. (2018) present well-laid-out and organized concepts. The paper effectively evaluates the prevalence of smoking cessation among patients with respiratory diseases. Webb et al. (2022) present a study to evaluate a clinician-assisted intervention for smoking cessation in which the principles in the research are properly put out and structured.
The assessment of interventions for heavy-drinking smokers by Fucito et al. (2020) includes a concise presentation of concepts. The report emphasizes the capacity of varenicline as a medicine that can target both cigarette smoking and heavy drinking. Cupertino et al. (2019) analyze a mobile smoking cessation intervention in a brief and well-written report.
The study on combining cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy by Pirnia et al. (2019) was grammatically accurate. The study tackles the issue of little evidence on the impact of supportive behavioral treatments on smoking cessation when used in conjunction with bupropion. Brunette et al. (2018) present a well-structured and detailed report in their study. Frings et al. (2020) analyzed Allen Carr’s Easyway program in a report that comprehensively discussed relevant concepts.
Authors
The establishment of the author’s degree of knowledge in the field of study is essential. The researcher’s qualifications in the papers presented by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Fucito et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022) show that they have a high degree of knowledge in smoking cessation initiatives. The researchers are professors in medicine, medical practitioners, and experts in smoking cessation therapies.
For instance, in the study conducted by Fucito et al. (2019), Lisa M. Fucito is associated with the Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, Yale Cancer Center, and Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven, USA. Ran Wu is also affiliated with the Psychiatry Department of Yale School of Medicine; Stephanie S. O’Malley works with the Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, and the Yale Cancer Center. Tess H. Hanrahan is an associate at the Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, and Srinivas Muvvala is a lecturer at the Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine.
The researchers’ positions in the study by Yehoshua et al. (2022), Brunette et al. (2018), and Pirnia et al. (2019) indicate that they have a high degree of knowledge of the subject matter. The researchers in Politis et al. (2018), Asayut et al. (2022), and Frings et al. (2020) are well-versed in their fields of study. The researchers’ qualifications in Cupertino et al. (2019) demonstrate a high level of competence in smoking cessation strategies.
Report Title
The project title is an important identifier for any research report. The titles in the papers presented by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Frings et al. (2020), Asayut et al. (2022), and Brunette et al. (2018) are clear, unambiguous, and precise. The titles in the studies by Yehoshua et al. (2022), Pirnia et al. (2019), and Fucito et al. (2020) are unambiguous and specific. This is quite similar to the one presented by Politis et al. (2018), which is comprehensive and detailed. The report titled by Webb et al. (2022) is exhaustive and informative. The title by Cupertino et al. (2019) is straightforward, plain, and exact.
Abstract
The presentation of an overview of the study helps readers to grasp the endeavor’s essential elements. The abstracts by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), and Cupertino et al. (2019) offer clear overviews of their studies. Yehoshua et al. (2022) and Asayut et al. (2022) also present precise assessments of the findings and general recommendations in their abstracts. Politis et al. (2018) focus on presenting a concise overview of the study in much the same way as Webb et al. (2022) and Fucito et al. (2020), who provide succinct summaries of their research. Pirnia et al. (2019) provide a detailed analysis of the findings as well as broad recommendations.
Elements Influencing Robustness of the Research
Statement of the Phenomenon of Interest
The phenomenon of interest must be clearly delineated in a report. The phenomena to be studied in Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), and Cupertino et al. (2019) are clearly identified. They are also accurately elucidated and defined by Yehoshua et al. (2022), Asayut et al. (2022), and Frings et al. (2020). The same clarity is evident in Politis et al. (2018), Fucito et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022).
For instance, the study by Politis et al. (2018) focused on the evaluation of the rates of smoking cessation in patients diagnosed with respiratory diseases. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) sought to evaluate the results of smoking cessation in a clinical context. Finally, Yehoshua et al. (2022) aimed to compare the effectiveness of smoking cessation impacted by general practitioner appointments compared to intense counseling, with both cases assisted by varenicline.
Purpose/Significance of the Study
Readers must easily identify the overall objective the researchers sought to achieve. The purposes of the studies by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), and Pirnia et al. (2019) are clearly identified. Yehoshua et al. (2022), Asayut et al. (2022), and Frings et al. (2020) offer a clear and precise summation of the studies’ purpose and significance. Politis et al. (2018) and Fucito et al. (2020) effectively highlight and describe the significance of their studies.
The phenomena of interest have been well explained by Webb et al. (2022) and Cupertino et al. (2019). For instance, Webb et al. (2022) compare Quit Genius, a digital platform that delivers clinician-assisted cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) strategy for smoking cessation, to very short advice (VBA). Cupertino et al. (2019) aimed to assess the acceptance and practicality of a novel mobile intervention to assist Mexican smokers in quitting the habit.
Literature Review
A comprehensive assessment of existing knowledge is vital in research. Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Frings et al. (2020), and Pirnia et al. (2019) present comprehensive literature reviews that meet the philosophical underpinnings of their studies. The review of existing knowledge by Yehoshua et al. (2022), Brunette et al. (2018), Asayut et al. (2022), and Cupertino et al. (2019) effectively fulfill the studies’ objectives.
Politis et al. (2018), Fucito et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022) do an excellent job of providing reviews that are comprehensive and true to the studies’ philosophical underpinnings. For instance, Fucito et al. (2020) highlighted the necessity of integrated methods to address concurrent cigarette and alcohol consumption and improve treatment results for those who use both. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) evaluate knowledge of smokers’ behavior and predicted results supported by past studies. Finally, Cupertino et al. (2019) conducted a literature review to examine the influence of technology in providing behavioral support to smokers seeking medication.
The reviews also examine the historical backgrounds and evidence of existing knowledge. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) use the literature review to investigate long-term results as well as the impact of treatments and exposures. Politis et al. (2018) present a storing review of past evidence on the rates of patients with respiratory diseases who quit smoking. Finally, Fucito et al. (2020) present a comprehensive assessment of current evidence on the use of combined approaches to simultaneously tackle cigarette and alcohol use while enhancing treatment outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
The principles and theories that guide research processes must be clearly outlined. Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), and Cupertino et al. (2019) identify and explain their conceptual frameworks. The theoretical framework is appropriate for the studies by Yehoshua et al. (2022) and Asayut et al. (2022). For instance, Prochaska’s Transtheoretical Model (TTM) is the theoretical model upon which the study by Yehoshua et al. (2022) is based. It describes the varied stages involved in the behavioral evolution associated with the cessation of smoking.
Arpacioglu et al. (2019) employed the cognitive-behavioral theory to understand tobacco addiction and devise treatments for its treatment. The study by Politis et al. (2018) was premised on the underpinnings of the Social Cognitive Theory, which proposes that environmental, personal, and behavioral elements significantly impact behavior.
Method and Philosophical Underpinnings
The philosophical underpinnings of a specific methodology add to its credibility. The philosophical approach has been identified in the reports presented by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), Frings et al. (2020), and Cupertino et al. (2019). Pirnia et al. (2019) focus on merging medication and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). The study by Frings et al. (2020) is based on the assumption that medication and behavioral assistance can aid in smoking cessation.
In the studies by Yehoshua et al. (2022), Asayut et al. (2022), and Brunette et al. (2018), the philosophical underpinnings of the applied approaches are well-explained. The paper by Brunette et al. (2018) is founded on behavioral economics, management, contingency concepts, and reinforcement theory. Politis et al. (2018), Fucito et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022) provide detailed explanations of the philosophical approach applied in their respective studies. For instance, the study by Politis et al. (2018) was premised on the underpinnings of the Social Cognitive Theory, while Webb et al. (2022) were based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) concepts.
Methodology: Research Design
The approach that investigators adopt to explicate phenomena is important. The methodologies of Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), Frings et al. (2020), and Cupertino et al. (2019) are appropriate for the studies. The same applies to Yehoshua et al. (2022) and Asayut et al. (2022). The methodologies by Politis et al. (2018), Brunette et al. (2018), and Fucito et al. (2020) are simple and accurate, while the one presented by Webb et al. (2022) is straightforward and precise. For instance, a quasi-experimental methodology was used to assess the efficacy of the cessation intervention for smokers diagnosed with serious mental illnesses in the study by Brunette et al. (2018). The modality facilitates the provision of high-quality evidence without randomization.
Pirnia et al. (2019) used a single-case experimental design approach in their investigation. The method facilitates the exhaustive evaluation of the phenomenon under review. Finally, Frings et al. (2020) conducted a single-blind randomized controlled trial. The method is appropriate because it helps to eliminate bias by preventing the participants’ desires from affecting the outcomes. Asayut et al. (2022) undertook a multi-center investigation and randomized trial in three regions in Thailand. The method is appropriate because it facilitates access to varied perspectives on the subject.
Sample
The population that researchers choose for a study defines its usefulness. The sampling method and sample size in Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), and Cupertino et al. (2019) have been identified and described. The participants in Yehoshua et al. (2022), Frings et al. (2020), Asayut et al. (2022), and Brunette et al. (2018) are suitable for informing the research.
The sampling method and sample size in Politis et al. (2018), Fucito et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022) are appropriate for the studies. For instance, the study by Asayut et al. (2022) included seven pharmacies, and the minimum sample size for the identified groups of participants was 69. Cupertino et al. (2019) conducted their study in Morelos, Mexico, and participants were recruited using multimedia tools and printed advertisements.
Ethical Considerations
The observance of outlined rules governing research on human beings is critical. The participants in the study by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), and Cupertino et al. (2019) were fully informed about the nature of the research. All the participants in the studies by Yehoshua et al. (2022) and Asayut et al. (2022) were protected from harm. Politis et al. (2018), Fucito et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022) sought ethical permission, which was granted prior to the commencement of the studies.
Data Collection
The modalities applied to gather data in research determine the validity of findings. All the data collection strategies that were applied in the studies by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Fucito et al. (2020), Cupertino et al. (2019), and Yehoshua et al. (2022) are described. Politis et al. (2018), Pirnia et al. (2019), Asayut et al. (2022), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), and Webb et al. (2022) applied appropriate data collection mechanisms during their studies. Cupertino et al. (2019) used a face-to-face baseline survey to collect data on sociodemographic characteristics such as age, marital status, and educational level. Self-reported smoking and daily journals filled out by participants were the primary means of data collection in the study conducted by Pirnia et al. (2019). Finally, the study by Brunette et al. (2018) employed structured interviews, record reviews, and physiologically proven metrics to gather data.
Data Analysis
The analytic processes employed in a study determine the accuracy of conclusions and recommendations. The strategies used to analyze the data in the studies by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Webb et al. (2022), Fucito et al. (2020), Frings et al. (2020), and Politis et al. (2018) are comprehensively described. Yehoshua et al. (2022), Pirnia et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Asayut et al. (2022), and Cupertino et al. (2019) were able to effectively achieve data saturation.
The data in the study by Webb et al. (2022) were evaluated using an intention-to-treat method, with relative risk and chi-square testing used to compare Quit Genius and VBA at 4, 26, and 52 weeks post-quit date. Yehoshua et al. (2022) used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software in addition to a Bayes factor computation using R statistical programming. Finally, Fucito et al. (2020) performed precise logistic regression to assess smoking cessation rates at six months while adjusting for sex.
Rigor (Trustworthiness)
The trustworthiness of a scientific process determines the applicability of gathered data. Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Webb et al. (2022), Fucito et al. (2020), Cupertino et al. (2019), and Politis et al. (2018) provide a discussion of how rigor was achieved. This is the case for the studies presented by Frings et al. (2020) and Asayut et al. (2022). Yehoshua et al. (2022), Pirnia et al. (2019), and Brunette et al. (2018) do not discuss measures that were implemented to achieve rigor.
Rigor in Documentation
It is vital to ensure that all aspects of the research process are accurately documented. The documentation processes in the studies by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Politis et al. (2018), Webb et al. (2022), Fucito et al. (2020), and Yehoshua et al. (2022) are up to standard. The study results have a high degree of validity and reliability. The presented findings are consistent, and there is a clear trail of verifiable facts in the documents. The documentation procedures of Cupertino et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), Asayut et al. (2022), and Pirnia et al. (2019) are also up to par. For instance, the collected information in the study by Cupertino et al. (2019) was examined using basic frequencies calculated from categorical means and variables.
Procedural Rigor
Strict adherence to protocols ensures the accuracy of research findings. All procedures were followed in the studies conducted by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Politis et al. (2018), Webb et al. (2022), Fucito et al. (2020), and Yehoshua et al. (2022). The same applies to studies conducted by Cupertino et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), Asayut et al. (2022), and Pirnia et al. (2019).
Ethical Rigor
All investigators must focus on maintaining the highest ethical standards possible. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) observed all the necessary ethical principles, as was the case in the studies by Yehoshua et al. (2022), Webb et al. (2022), Fucito et al. (2020) and Politis et al. (2018). The same applies to the study conducted by Asayut et al. (2022). The researchers in the studies conducted by Cupertino et al. (2019), Brunette et al. (2018), Frings et al. (2020), and Pirnia et al. (2019) also adhered to all the recommended ethical principles.
Credibility
The credibility of a study determines its adoption in real-life contexts. The studies by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Pirnia et al. (2019), Frings et al. (2020), and Cupertino et al. (2019) applied peer examination processes. Yehoshua et al. (2022) and Asayut et al. (2022) focused on debriefing their peers after the study was completed. It is worth noting that Politis et al. (2018) and Brunette et al. (2018) spent a long time with participants. Webb et al. (2022) and Fucito et al. (2020) reference numerous participant experiences that occurred during their studies.
Dependability
It is important that research studies are viewed as dependable. The researchers in the studies conducted by Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Frings et al. (2020), Asayut et al. (2022), and Cupertino et al. (2019) had peers participate in the analytic processes. Yehoshua et al. (2022), Fucito et al. (2020), Pirnia et al. (2019), and Webb et al. (2022) provide detailed descriptions of their research methods. Politis et al. (2018) and Brunette et al. (2018) conducted a step-by-step repetition of the study.
Transferability
The transferability of study findings determines the applicability of its recommendations in target populations. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) and Cupertino et al. (2019) used similar data collection techniques to assess different demographic groups. Yehoshua et al. (2022), Frings et al. (2020), Asayut et al. (2022), and Pirnia et al. (2019) provide a range of experiences associated with their studies. Politis et al. (2018) used similar research methods for varied demographic groups. Readers of the reports by Webb et al. (2022), Brunette et al. (2018), and Fucito et al. (2020) are able to determine the studies’ applications to practice.
Confirmability
The confirmability of research findings is essential for the implementation of associated recommendations. Arpacioglu et al. (2019), Asayut et al. (2022), and Frings et al. (2020) took notes regarding biases and insights. Clarification was sought at different stages of the study conducted by Yehoshua et al. (2022). Politis et al. (2018), Fucito et al. (2020), Brunette et al. (2018), and Webb et al. (2022) focused on addressing all emergent biases during their studies. Cupertino et al. (2019) and Pirnia et al. (2019) also took note of emergent biases during their studies.
Summation of Findings
The highlighted studies present compelling evidence regarding the implementation of strategies to facilitate smoking cessation. Yehoshua et al. (2022) sought to evaluate smoking quit rates among patients receiving pharmacotherapy. The researchers demonstrate that doctors should offer advice on smoking cessation during routine appointments. Arpacioglu et al. (2019) demonstrate that cognitive-behavioral therapies and medication can successfully boost smoking cessation rates. Their findings are supported by Politis et al. (2018), who show that smoking cessation therapies should be considered by healthcare practitioners to improve their health outcomes.
Fucito et al. (2020) also found there is a need to evaluate tobacco usage and provide tobacco therapy to people undergoing alcohol treatment. Cupertino et al. (2019) propose a program that provides a potential technique for increasing smoking cessation rates through increased participation. Participation can be enhanced through applications, as demonstrated by Webb et al. (2022), who proved that Quit Genius, a computerized clinician-assisted CBT strategy, efficiently assists smokers in quitting and maintaining sobriety.
Motivation plays a critical role in smoking cessation among individuals with varied demographic characteristics. Brunette et al. (2018) show that using incentives in smoking cessation programs might be a beneficial technique for the demographic under review. Asayut et al. (2022) demonstrate that, in general, PharmQuit improves smoker involvement by promoting motivation.
While the use of motivational strategies is advisable, the findings from the study conducted by Pirnia et al. (2019) imply that a multimodal strategy for treating nicotine addiction may be useful. This perspective is bolstered by Frings et al. (2020), who highlight the fact that there is insufficient data to conclude that the ACE program is superior to specialist-supported behavioral intervention and medication or vice versa. Both, however, are quite successful in smoking cessation after six months (Frings et al., 2020). The evaluated studies prove that there is a variety of interventions that can be applied to help adults stop smoking.
References
Arpacioglu, S., Unubol, B., Erzincan, E., & Bilici, R. (2019). Results of smoking cessation clinic in Erenkoy Mental and Neurological Diseases Training and Research Hospital: An investigation into the effects of cognitive behavioral intervention and pharmacotherapy. ADDICTA: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 6(4), 295-315. Web.
Asayut, N., Olson, P. S., Kanjanasilp, J., Thanarat, P., Senkraigul, B., Sittisarn, C., & Suksawat, S. (2022). A community pharmacist-led smoking cessation intervention using a smartphone app (PharmQuit): A randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 17(3), e0265483-e0265483. Web.
Brunette, M. F., Pratt, S. I., Bartels, S. J., Scherer, E. A., Sigmon, S. C., Ferron, J. C., Santos, M., Williams, G. E., Kosydar, S., Wolfe, R. S., Lotz, D., & Capuchino, K. (2018). Randomized trial of interventions for smoking cessation among Medicaid beneficiaries with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 69(3), 274-280. Web.
Cupertino, A. P., Cartujano-Barrera, F., Ramírez, M., Rodríguez-Bolaños, R., Thrasher, J. F., Pérez-Rubio, G., Falfán-Valencia, R., Ellerbeck, E.F., & Reynales-Shigematsu, L. M. (2019). A mobile smoking cessation intervention for Mexico (Vive sin Tabaco…¡ Decídete!): Single-arm pilot study. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth, 7(4), Article e12482. Web.
Frings, D., Albery, I. P., Moss, A. C., Brunger, H., Burghelea, M., White, S., & Wood, K. V. (2020). Comparison of Allen Carr’s Easyway program with a specialist behavioral and pharmacological smoking cessation support service: A randomized controlled trial. Addiction, 115(5), 977-985. Web.
Fucito, L.M., Wu, R., O’Malley, S.S., Hanrahan, T.H., Ikomi, J.T., Muvvala, S., Carroll, K.M. & Gueorguieva, R., (2020). An integrated behavioral intervention combined with varenicline for heavy-drinking smokers: a randomized pilot study. Journal of Smoking Cessation, 15(3), 119-127. Web.
Lin, C. Y., Imani, V., Majd, N. R., Ghasemi, Z., Griffiths, M. D., Hamilton, K., Hagger, M. S., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Using an integrated social cognition model to predict COVID-19 preventive behaviors. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 981–1005. Web.
Pirnia, B., Akhondi, M., Pirnia, K., Malekanmehr, P., Farzaneh, S., Deilam, K., Bazargan, M., Komeilizadeh, L., & Zahiroddin, A. (2019). A single-case experimental design to study the combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Crescent Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences, 6(1), 136-139. Web.
Politis, A., Ioannidis, V., Gourgoulianis, K. I., Daniil, Z., & Hatzoglou, C. (2018). Effects of varenicline therapy in combination with advanced behavioral support on smoking cessation and quality of life in inpatients with acute exacerbation of COPD, bronchial asthma, or community-acquired pneumonia: A prospective, open-label, preference-based, 52-week, follow-up trial. Chronic Respiratory Disease, 15(2), 146-156. Web.
Webb, J., Peerbux, S., Ang, A., Siddiqui, S., Sherwani, Y., Ahmed, M., MacRae, H., Puri, H., Majeed, A., & Glasner, S. (2022). Long-term effectiveness of a clinician-assisted digital cognitive behavioral therapy intervention for smoking cessation: secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 24(11), 1763-1772. Web.
Yehoshua, I., Adler, L., Hermoni, S. A., Mizrahi Reuveni, M., Bilitzky, A., Oren, K., & Zacay, G. (2022). Smoking quit rates among patients receiving pharmacotherapy who received general practitioner counseling versus intensive counseling: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Primary Care, 23(1). Web.
Loading...
