Search

Context Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are at increased risk for the adverse effects of tobacco use, given their high prevalence of use, especially smoking. Evidence regarding cessation is limited. To determine if efficacious interventions are available and to aid the development of interventions, a systematic review was conducted of grey and peer-reviewed literature describing clinical, community, and policy interventions, as well as knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding tobacco use cessation among LGBT people. Evidence acquisition Eight databases for articles from 1987 to April 23, 2014, were searched. In February−November 2013, authors and researchers were contacted to identify grey literature. Evidence synthesis The search identified 57 records, of which 51 were included and 22 were from the grey literature; these were abstracted into evidence tables, and a narrative synthesis was conducted in October 2013−May 2014. Group cessation curricula tailored for LGBT populations were found feasible to implement and show evidence of effectiveness. Community interventions have been implemented by and for LGBT communities, although these interventions showed feasibility, no rigorous outcome evaluations exist. Clinical interventions show little difference between LGBT and heterosexual people. Focus groups suggest that care is needed in selecting the messaging used in media campaigns. Conclusions LGBT-serving organizations should implement existing evidence-based tobacco-dependence treatment and clinical systems to support treatment of tobacco use. A clear commitment from government and funders is needed to investigate whether sexual orientation and gender identity moderate the impacts of policy interventions, media campaigns, and clinical interventions.

Context Screening reduces mortality from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The Guide to Community Preventive Services previously conducted systematic reviews on the effectiveness of 11 interventions to increase screening for these cancers. This article presents results of updated systematic reviews for nine of these interventions. Evidence acquisition Five databases were searched for studies published during January 2004-October 2008. Studies had to (1) be a primary investigation of one or more intervention category; (2) be conducted in a country with a high-income economy; (3) provide information on at least one cancer screening outcome of interest; and (4) include screening use prior to intervention implementation or a concurrent group unexposed to the intervention category of interest. Forty-five studies were included in the reviews. Evidence synthesis Recommendations were added for one-on-one education to increase screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and group education to increase mammography screening. Strength of evidence for client reminder interventions to increase FOBT screening was upgraded from sufficient to strong. Previous findings and recommendations for reducing out-of-pocket costs (breast cancer screening); provider assessment and feedback (breast, cervical, and FOBT screening); one-on-one education and client reminders (breast and cervical cancer screening); and reducing structural barriers (breast cancer and FOBT screening) were reaffirmed or unchanged. Evidence remains insufficient to determine effectiveness for the remaining screening tests and intervention categories. Conclusions Findings indicate new and reaffirmed interventions effective in promoting recommended cancer screening, including colorectal cancer screening. Findings can be used in community and healthcare settings to promote recommended care. Important research gaps also are described.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are at increased risk for the adverse effects of tobacco use, given their high prevalence of use, especially smoking. Evidence regarding cessation is limited. To determine if efficacious interventions are available and to aid the development of interventions, a systematic review was conducted of grey and peer-reviewed literature describing clinical, community, and policy interventions, as well as knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding tobacco use cessation among LGBT people.Eight databases for articles from 1987 to April 23, 2014, were searched. In February-November 2013, authors and researchers were contacted to identify grey literature.The search identified 57 records, of which 51 were included and 22 were from the grey literature; these were abstracted into evidence tables, and a narrative synthesis was conducted in October 2013-May 2014. Group cessation curricula tailored for LGBT populations were found feasible to implement and show evidence of effectiveness. Community interventions have been implemented by and for LGBT communities, although these interventions showed feasibility, no rigorous outcome evaluations exist. Clinical interventions show little difference between LGBT and heterosexual people. Focus groups suggest that care is needed in selecting the messaging used in media campaigns.LGBT-serving organizations should implement existing evidence-based tobacco-dependence treatment and clinical systems to support treatment of tobacco use. A clear commitment from government and funders is needed to investigate whether sexual orientation and gender identity moderate the impacts of policy interventions, media campaigns, and clinical interventions.

Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate, using meta-analysis, pooled odds ratios for the effects of smoking on five pregnancy complications: placenta previa, abruptio placenta, ectopic pregnancy, preterm premature rupture of the membrane (PPROM), and pre-eclampsia. Methods: Published articles were identified through computer search and literature review. Five criteria were applied to those studies initially identified to determine those eligible for the meta-analysis. A random effects model was applied to derive pooled odds ratios for the eligible studies for each pregnancy complication. Meta-analyses were repeated on subsets of the studies to confirm the overall results. Results: Smoking was found to be strongly associated with an elevated risk of placenta previa, abruptio placenta, ectopic pregnancy, and PPROM, and a decreased risk of pre-eclampsia. All pooled odds ratios were statistically significant. The pooled ratios ranged from 1.58 for placenta previa to 1.77 for ectopic pregnancy. The pooled odds ratio for pre-eclampsia was 0.51 and all subset analyses confirmed this seemingly protective effect. Conclusions: Smoking during pregnancy is a significant and preventable factor affecting ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption, placenta previa, and PPROM. The findings of smoking's apparently protective effect on pre-eclampsia should be balanced with these harmful effects. In addition, the biological linkage between smoking and pre-eclampsia is not yet well understood. Pregnant women should be advised to stop smoking in order to reduce the overall risk of pregnancy complications as well as any risk of adverse impact on the unborn child.

Context: Despite known adverse health effects, many women continue to smoke during pregnancy. Public attention has now focused on the economic as well as health effects of this behavior. Objective: To estimate health care costs associated with smoking-attributable cases of placenta previa, abruptio placenta, ectopic pregnancy, preterm premature rupture of the membrane (PPROM), pre-eclampsia, and spontaneous abortion. Design: Pooled odds ratios were used with data on total cases to estimate smoking-attributable cases. Estimated average costs for cases of ectopic pregnancy and spontaneous abortion were used to estimate smoking-attributable health care costs for these conditions. Incremental costs, or costs above those for a "normal" delivery, were used to estimate smoking-attributable costs of placenta previa, abruptio placenta, PPROM, and pre-eclampsia associated with delivery. Setting: National estimates for 1993. Participants: Data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) and claims data from a sample of large, self-insured employers across the country. Results: Smoking-attributable costs ranged from $1.3 million for PPROM to $86 million for ectopic pregnancy. Smoking during pregnancy apparently protects against pre-eclampsia and saves between $36 and $49 million, depending on smoking prevalence. Over all conditions smoking-attributable costs ranged from $135 to $167 million. Conclusions: Smoking during pregnancy is a preventable cause of higher health care costs for the conditions studied. While smoking during pregnancy was found to be protective against pre-eclampsia and, hence, saves costs, the net costs were still positive and significant. Effective smoking-cessation programs can reduce health care costs but clinicians will perhaps need to manage increased cases of pre-eclampsia in a cost-effective manner.