Cochrane · systematic review · CD013413
Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness
Vijayaraghavan, M, Elser, H, Frazer, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Tobacco AddictionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
3
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 66.7%Low 1 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Contingent reinforcement in addition to usual smoking cessation care in people experiencing homelessness
Population: people experiencing homelessness
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Smoking abstinence | RR 0.67 [0.16, 2.77] | 2 studies · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
More compared to less intensive behavioral smoking cessation support in people experiencing homelessness
Population: people experiencing homelessness
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Smoking abstinence More vs less intensive behavioral smoking cessation support | RR 1.64 [1.01, 2.69] | 3 studies · 657 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Multi‐issue support compared to smoking cessation support only in people experiencing homelessness
Population: people experiencing homelessness
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Smoking abstinence Multi‐issue support vs smoking cessation support only | RR 0.95 [0.35, 2.61] | 2 studies · 146 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |