Interventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth.

This review has been withdrawn because it does it does not include recent evidence and does not reflect up-to-date Cochrane methodological standards.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to severe acute exacerbations of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition causing inflammation and changes to the airways. Care of people with asthma includes routine and urgent management across primary and tertiary care; however, due to sub-optimal long-term care and delays in obtaining help during acute exacerbations, the mortality and morbidity related to asthma is still a major health concern. There is reason to believe that non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) could be beneficial to patients with severe acute asthma; however, the evidence surrounding the efficacy of NPPV is unclear, despite its common use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of NPPV in adults with severe acute asthma in comparison to usual medical care with respect to mortality, tracheal intubation, changes in blood gases and hospital length of stay. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out a search in the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (July 2012). Following this, the bibliographies of included studies and review articles were searched for additional studies (July 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of adults with severe acute asthma as the primary reason for presentation to the emergency department or for admission to hospital. Asthma diagnosis was defined by internationally accepted criteria. Studies were included if the intervention was usual medical care for the management of severe acute asthma plus NPPV applied through a nasal or facemask compared to usual medical care alone. Studies including patients with features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were excluded unless data were provided separately for patients with asthma in studies recruiting both COPD and asthmatic patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A combination of two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information where required. All data were analysed using RevMan 5.1. For continuous variables, a mean difference and 95% confidence interval were used and for dichotomous variables, risk ratio with 95% confidence interval were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six trials for inclusion. Five studies on 206 participants contributed data, while one study was available in abstract form only and was not fully incorporated into this review. For the primary outcome of endotracheal intubation there were two studies that contributed data: two intubations were needed in 45 participants on NPPV and no intubations in 41 control patients (risk ratio 4.48; 95% CI 0.23 to 89.13). There were no deaths in either of these studies. Length of hospital stay was reported in two studies, though meta-analysis was not possible. Hospitalisation was reported in one small study, in which there were three admissions out of 17 on NPPV and 10 admissions out of 16 in control patients (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09, 0.84). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of studies has highlighted the paucity of data that exist to support the use of NPPV in patients in status asthmaticus. As such this course of treatment remains controversial despite its continued use in current clinical practice. Larger, prospective randomised controlled trials of rigorous methodological design are needed to determine the role of NPPV in patients with asthma.

Interventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use in Indigenous populations (people who have inhabited a country for thousands of years) is often double that in the non-Indigenous population. Addiction to nicotine usually begins during early adolescence and young people who reach the age of 18 as non-smokers are unlikely to become smokers thereafter. Indigenous youth in particular commence smoking at an early age, and a disproportionate burden of substance-related morbidity and mortality exists as a result. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programmes to prevent tobacco use initiation or progression to regular smoking amongst young Indigenous populations and to summarise these approaches for future prevention programmes and research. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register was searched in November 2011, with additional searches run in MEDLINE. Online clinical trial databases and publication references were also searched for potential studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials aiming to prevent tobacco use initiation or progression from experimentation to regular tobacco use in Indigenous youth. Interventions could include school-based initiatives, mass media, multi-component community level interventions, family-based programmes or public policy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data pertaining to methodology, participants, interventions and outcomes were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, whilst information on risk of bias was extracted independently by a combination of two reviewers. Studies were assessed by qualitative narrative synthesis, as insufficient data were available to conduct a meta-analysis. The review process was examined by an Indigenous (Aboriginal) Australian for applicability, acceptability and content. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met all of the eligibility criteria for inclusion within the review and a third was identified as ongoing. The two included studies employed multi-component community-based interventions tailored to the specific cultural aspects of the population and were based in Native American populations (1505 subjects in total). No difference was observed in weekly smoking at 42 months follow-up in the one study assessing this outcome (skills-community group versus control: risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; skills-only group versus control: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05). For smokeless tobacco use, no difference was found between the skills-community arm and the control group at 42 weeks (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30), though a significant difference was observed between the skills-only arm and the control group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85). Whilst the second study found positive changes for tobacco use in the intervention arm at post test (p < 0.05), this was not maintained at six month follow-up (change score -0.11 for intervention and 0.07 for control). Both studies were rated as high or unclear risk of bias in seven or more domains (out of a total of 10). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, a conclusion cannot be drawn as to the efficacy of tobacco prevention initiatives tailored for Indigenous youth. This review highlights the paucity of data and the need for more research in this area. Smoking prevalence in Indigenous youth is twice that of the non-Indigenous population, with tobacco experimentation commencing at an early age. As such, a significant health disparity exists where Indigenous populations, a minority, are over-represented in the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Methodologically rigorous trials are needed to investigate interventions aimed at preventing the uptake of tobacco use amongst Indigenous youth and to assist in bridging the gap between tobacco-related health disparities in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.

Community interventions for preventing smoking in young people.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. Decisions to smoke are often made within a broad social context and therefore community interventions using coordinated, multi-component programmes may be effective in influencing the smoking behaviour of young people. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of multi-component community based interventions in influencing smoking behaviour, which includes preventing the uptake of smoking in young people. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Tobacco Addiction group's specialised register, Medline and other health, psychology and public policy electronic databases were searched, the bibliographies of identified studies were checked and raw data was requested from study authors. Searches were updated in August 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of multi-component community interventions compared to no intervention or to single component or school-based programmes only. Reported outcomes had to include smoking behaviour in young people under the age of 25 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information relating to the characteristics and the content of community interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were combined in a meta-analysis where possible and reported in narrative synthesis in text and table. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the review and sixty-eight studies did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. All studies used a controlled trial design, with fifteen using random allocation of schools or communities. One study reported a reduction in short-term smoking prevalence (twelve months or less), while nine studies detected significant long-term effects. Two studies reported significantly lower smoking rates in the control population while the remaining thirteen studies showed no significant difference between groups. Improvements were seen in secondary outcomes for intentions to smoke in six out of eight studies, attitudes in five out of nine studies, perceptions in two out of six studies and knowledge in three out of six studies, while significant differences in favour of the control were seen in one of the nine studies assessing attitudes and one of six studies assessing perceptions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of community interventions in reducing the uptake of smoking in young people, but the evidence is not strong and contains a number of methodological flaws.