Effectiveness of including weight management in smoking cessation treatments: A meta-analysis of behavioral interventions.

The potential of weight gain after smoking cessation reduces the incentive to quit. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation that also address post-cessation weight gain. Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials on behavioral treatments targeting both health outcomes. Six separate meta-analyses were undertaken to assess treatment efficacy on smoking abstinence and weight outcomes at end of treatment (EOT), short-term, and long-term follow-up. Individual and treatment moderators were examined as well as methodological quality and publication bias of studies. A total of 28 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant positive impact of treatments addressing both targets on smoking outcomes at EOT (RR = 1.279, 95% CI: 1.096, 1.492, p = .002), but not at follow-ups. Age impacted on EOT abstinence rates Q (1) = 4.960, p = .026) while increasing the number of sessions significantly improved EOT abstinence rates (p = .020). There was no statistically significant impact of these treatments on weight at EOT (Hedges' g = -0.015, 95% CI: -.164, 0.135, p = .849) or follow-ups (short term: Hedges' g = 0.055, 95% CI: -0.060, 0.170, p = .347; long term: Hedges' g = -0.320, 95% CI: -.965, 0.325, p = .331). There were minimal impacts of publication bias, mostly related to sample size, meaning studies including small sample sizes revealed larger effect sizes on abstinence at EOT. Addressing post-cessation weight management in treatments for smoking cessation significantly enhances tobacco abstinence at EOT though it was not found to have a lasting impact after treatment.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.