Nursing Interventions for Smoking Cessation
This review is titled Nursing Interventions for Smoking Cessation and its main objective is to find out the effectiveness of nursing-initiated smoking cessation interventions (Rice, HartmannBoyce & Stead, 2013). The review was mainly authored by Virginia Rice and Lindsay Stead and both authors are notable nursing authorities in the universities of Michigan and Oxford respectively. This systematic research review is relevant to nursing because nurses are among the health practitioners who can have a major impact on patient behavior. For instance, it is common for healthcare practitioners to give advice to individuals who are trying to stop smoking. Quitting smoking is an uphill task for most individuals and this undertaking requires a lot of guidance and support. Even though the advice that nurses give to potential smokers might be brief, it can have a significant effect on smoking cessation. The authors of this review note that nurses are the most common healthcare professionals; hence, their contributions towards smoke cessation activities cannot be overlooked. The articles research relies on forty-two clinical studies and an upward of fifteen thousand participants. The research is relevant to nursing practice because its overall finding was that nurses could help individuals in their efforts to stop smoking. In addition, the article notes that most support from the nursing staff comes in the form of advice or encouragement. Several stakeholders in the nursing profession including nurses and trainers can use the information that is provided in this article to improve their practices. Furthermore, this research can be used to reduce the rates of tobacco-related deaths in the world.
The authors of this review are able to set out their objectives in respect to their subject of study. For instance, the authors are able to recognize the need to classify the level of intensity in respect to the intervention that is employed by nurses towards smoking cessation. This strategy enables the researchers to gauge how smoking-cessation intervention can be tailored to make it more effective in future. For example, nurses can be advised to be either persistent or take a casual attitude when advising or encouraging smokers. On the other hand, the authors are positively inquisitive about the use of aids and other props when they are communicating to smokers. This approach is important and it can be used as a base for future studies in the subject of smoking cessation. The objectives of this study are simple to achieve because they are narrow-based and pinpointed to simple goals. However, the review can be faulted for failing to take a complex medical stance through its objectives. For instance, it is clear that this systematic research review would not be useful to broader addiction subject matters such as nicotine replacement therapy.
The methods that are used in this study are quite accurate and simple. The reviewers chose to focus on the studies that had at least two treatment groups in their categorization. In addition, all the studies that were used for this review had random samples. These two approaches enable the authors to reduce their chances of working with faulty data. Consequently, the methodology that is used in this study is quite reliable. The study only used adult smokers as participants thereby avoiding the complexities that involve the issues of underage smoking. For instance, most underage smokers are not habitual smokers and they tend to keep shifting through various brands of tobacco products. The method that is used in this study is quite effective in respect to the subject matter of quitting smoking. The most important part of the methodology that is used by the study involves the authors choice of nurse-initiated interventions. The strategy of categorizing these interventions is important to the studys objectives. The authors of this study categorize the advice that is given by nurses in respect to its ability to pass the stop smoking message to patients. The studys sampling methods are quite effective because they utilize the best available tools. For example, the reviewers utilized the Tobacco Addiction Review Group register. This register records all relevant tobacco addiction trials. The use of a the probability of the authors of this paper working on inadequate trials. However, the that are used in this study are ambiguous and clattered. The authors data extraction procedure involves the collection of too much or too limited information from the studys samples. For example, the authors only record five categories of information from the studied samples. This brevity in analysis has the potential to overlook or overemphasize some pieces of information in respect to the subject matter. For instance, the authors classify the intensity of the interventions that are used for smoking cessation as either high or low. This approach is too simplistic and it warrants for addition research when it comes to the specifics of the intensity of the intervention that is used when nurses are communicating the smoking cessation message to patients. Nevertheless, the studys quality assessment and data analysis methods are quite effective because they are considerate of their prospective readers. Furthermore, the authors have presented a simplified glossary of the terms that are used in this study. The glossary is helpful to both the professional and non-professional users of this review.
The authors presentation of the results is significant and it contributes towards the realization of the studys objectives. The authors begin by noting that all the studied forty-two trials were able to meet the criteria for this review. The results analysis is buoyed by the fact that all the studies took place in different places across the world. For instance, the results of the article indicate that the studies took place in the USA, UK, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Australia, Norway, and Spain. The authors are also able to account for the risk of bias by being mindful of the error factor in the randomization process. The use of computer technology in the study also minimized the error margin in respect to the big number of studies that were picked for this systematic research review. Overall, the results of this study indicated that nurse-based intervention was instrumental in helping patients to quit smoking. These results are presented in a coherent manner and the authors are able to defend them with their choice of research methodology and analysis. The authors are also able to present the results of the Systematic research review in segments that are easy to understand. For instance, the findings of this review first take to account two important considerations; the descriptions of the studies and the biases that are expected in the studies. Consequently, the readers are familiarized with the pitfalls of the reviewers before going through the studys results.
According to the authors of this article, the results of this study indicate that nurses are important when it comes to smoking cessation. This finding is part of the expected results. On the other hand, some of the results that are presented in this review are quite interesting. For instance, the study found that interventions that were done over the telephone had a lesser impact than the ones that were conducted face to face. This is interesting especially when the attitude of most smokers is put into account. Furthermore, even when telephone interventions were done with a higher intensity, their effects on smoking cessation were still minimal (Rice, HartmannBoyce & Stead, 2013). The results of this systematic research review are hard to dispute. In addition, the authors present their findings in a simplistic manner that does not elicit additional questions in respect to the papers objectives. Nevertheless, the results of the study do not appeal to the top-level academics who might be interested in the specifics of smoking cessation interventions. The authors of this systematic research review utilized over forty studies when compiling their paper. However, it is apparent that the authors took time to simplify some of these studies. This action makes some of these studies unpalatable to some academics.
The conclusions of the authors dwell a lot on the benefits that their study brings to nurses and their patients. Nevertheless, the authors take time to distance their study from the practice of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). It would have been prudent for the authors to incorporate NRT in their study because it is very closely connected to smoking cessation. All the conclusions of the authors are brief and accurate thereby offering readers the last item of satisfaction as far as this study is concerned.