Skip to main content
Download PDF

The scope of tobacco cessation randomized controlled trials in low- to middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review

Systematic Reviews volume 9, Article number: 86 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Tobacco consumption is the leading cause of preventable death globally. The global mortality burden of tobacco use lies predominantly in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There is much evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco cessation RCTs in high-income nations. However, the evidence base in LMICs is far more limited. To effectively design randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that mitigate tobacco-related harms in LMICs, further understanding of RCTs in this environment will be helpful. We will provide quality evidence regarding the scope of tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs.

Methods

A scoping review of tobacco cessation RCTs will be conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science and Sociological Abstracts will be searched to capture current literature. We will review RCTs that have already been done on tobacco cessation in the LMICs. The key outcome will be tobacco cessation in adults. Examples of the key outcome include smoking abstinence and reduction of tobacco use. Study selection will conform to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and study quality assessed with a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s instrument.

Discussion

As researchers attempt to minimize the harms from tobacco in LMICs, they need to be aware of scientific evidence to develop RCTs to achieve their aim. The review will complement the evidence base on tobacco cessation in LMICs.

Peer Review reports

Background

Tobacco consumption is the leading cause of preventable death globally [1, 2]. Most of global mortality burden of tobacco use lies predominantly in low- to middle-income countries [3]. Low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) are experiencing a growing epidemic of tobacco use [4]. Tobacco use rates have been increasing in LMICs [5, 6]. Tobacco control is key to any nation’s public health strategy [7, 8]. Tobacco control, such as cessation interventions, should thus be a priority for policymakers in LMICs to mitigate effects of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality [1, 2].

There are stark differences between LMICs and high-income nations regarding the proportion of smokers who want to quit [9, 10]. Intention to quit smoking in high-income nations is about 75% [11, 12], while LMICs still lag far behind. For example, 41% of Indian smokers and smokeless tobacco users did not want to quit [13]. In high-income nations, prevalence has significantly declined [14]. For example, Australia has seen a 50% decrease in smoking prevalence from 26.1% in 1991 to 13.3% in 2013 [15]. LMIC smoking rates still persist [16].

Previous reviews explored tobacco cessation in LMICs [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. However, these reviews were limited as they did not include studies across all LMICs nor centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). There are multiple observational and quasi-experimental studies on tobacco cessation in LMICs [25,26,27]. However, tobacco cessation RCTs are minimal in this context. While we acknowledge the issues inherent with RCTs [28,29,30], we also indicate that other study designs are not an adequate replacement for RCTs in establishing efficacy [31], which is key in tobacco cessation [32, 33].

The main objective of this scoping review was to locate and review all published literature relating to tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs, detailing gaps in the literature. For example, we will detail if there are LMICs where comparatively fewer RCTs have been conducted. We chose to conduct a scoping review due to the broad research question, suited for mapping an area of research [34]. While scoping reviews normally include all evidence, not just RCTs, [35] we sought to focus on RCTs for two reasons. Firstly, previous reviews had centered on other study designs, such as quasi experimental studies. Secondly, to effectively design RCTs that mitigate tobacco-related harms in LMICs, further understanding of RCTs in this environment will be helpful. Research in this area may augment knowledge about tobacco products, broaden understanding around tobacco use among diverse populations, and improve understanding of tobacco firm strategies [36]. Greater understanding around tobacco cessation research may also aid the evidence base to enhance tobacco cessation scholarship, policy, and implementation globally, mitigating the tobacco epidemic [36]. In this scoping review, we will evaluate evidence on the scope of tobacco cessation RCTs, already conducted, in LMICs.

This review will expand on past literature to detail methodological and scientific progress of previously conducted tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, use standard tools to assess study quality [37, 38] and propose a reproducible strategy to query the literature about the scope of tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs.

Methods/design

Search strategy

The search strategy will be performed in line with techniques that enhance methodological transparency and improve the reproducibility of the results and evidence synthesis. Thus, the search strategy will be elaborated and implemented prior to study selection, with the PRISMA-ScR checklist as guidance [37]. We will use the following guiding question to ensure a scoping literature search: “What is the scope of tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs?”. We will review RCTs already conducted on tobacco cessation in LMICs.

Studies will be reviewed across six databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science, and Sociological Abstracts. To account for contemporary studies, a literature search will be conducted till September 2020. No language restrictions will be imposed. Reference lists of the articles will be used to identify more studies. We will also conduct a gray literature search using Google Scholar, clinical trials registries, and governmental websites. We will speak with leading tobacco control experts to identify any relevant studies. EndNote, a bibliographic software, will be used to store, organize, and manage all references [39]. Covidence will be used to manage the title/abstract and full-text screening phases [40]. We will use the search strategy indicated in Additional file 1. We will manually exclude non-RCTs to avoid bias.

Study selection criteria

Studies will be excluded if they were conducted in the high-income nations. LMICs and high-income nations were defined based on the World Bank’s per capita gross national income metric [41] (see Additional file 2). Two independent reviewers will screen each title and abstract as per inclusion/exclusion criteria (see below). Only studies involving adults ( ≥ 18 years) were included. The key outcome will be tobacco cessation. Examples of the key outcome include smoking abstinence and reduction of tobacco use.

Inclusion criteria

  • Research was conducted in LMICs

  • Research investigating tobacco cessation in adults

  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Exclusion criteria

  • Any commentaries, editorials, or opinion pieces

  • Research conducted in high-income countries

  • Qualitative studies

  • Non-RCT studies

  • Studies involving only children or adolescents

Study selection

Reviewers will be trained in calibration and utilized standardized screening forms. Reviewers will work in teams of two and independently screen all titles and abstracts that we identify by the literature search strategy. We will obtain full-text articles of all possibly eligible studies and evaluate article eligibility. Reviewers will resolve disagreement around eligibility by discussion or, if necessary, with a third reviewer. Studies reported only as conference abstracts will also be included and we will cite all articles utilizing data from such studies. Conference abstracts are often left out of systematic reviews as they may not contain adequate information [42]. We will include conference abstracts as they are more likely to contain positive results and are often published sooner [42], key to a scoping review on RCTs. We will contact authors where necessary if the abstracts do not provide sufficient information [42].

Data extraction

Four pairs of reviewers will undergo practice exercises and then work in pairs to independently extract data from studies. Reviewers will resolve disagreement through discussion. When differences are unable to be resolved, a third reviewer will make the final decision. Reviewers will abstract the data using a pretested data extraction template, which includes study design, participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes.

Risk of bias assessment

While it is not common to assess risk of bias in scoping reviews [43], we are only including RCTs, and thus, the review is amenable for study quality assessment. Reviewers will work in pairs to independently assess the risk of bias for included RCTs. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. We will use a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s instrument [44]. The instrument includes nine domains: adequacy of sequence generation, allocation sequence concealment, participant blinding, data collectors blinding, outcome assessment blinding, data analyst blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and potential sources of bias. We will contact study authors for additional information when information regarding risk of bias or other methodological aspects is unavailable. The risk of bias will be summarized as a narrative statement and supported by a risk of bias table.

Descriptive analysis

A narrative synthesis of the outcomes of selected studies will be detailed in the final review. We will include information such as: type of intervention, sample size, target population and demographic characteristics, intervention outcomes.

Amendments

Any amendments to this protocol will be documented with reference to saved searches and analysis.

Dissemination

Results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and likely in other media such as: conferences, seminars, symposia.

Discussion

The strength of the planned study is the use of a transparent and reproducible procedure for a scoping literature review. In this protocol, we detailed types of studies, participants, interventions, and outcomes included. We stated the data sources, search strategy, data extraction, and quality assessment methods [45]. Through publishing the research protocol, we strengthen the clarity of the search strategy and reduce risk of bias, such as selective outcome reporting [46]. Moreover, we center solely on the scope of tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs. Results will thus provide high-level information to inform, support, and customize design of RCTs in this setting. As researchers attempt to minimize the harms from tobacco in LMICs, they need to be aware of scientific evidence to develop RCTs to achieve their aim. The planned study hopes to build knowledge around inadvertent outcomes of tobacco cessation interventions and enhance understanding around tobacco control advocacy efforts [36].

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews

LMIC:

Low- to middle-income countries

References

  1. Ghebreyesus TA. Progress in beating the tobacco epidemic. Lancet. 2019;394:548–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agaku IT, Alpert HR. Trends in annual sales and current use of cigarettes, cigars, roll-your-own tobacco, pipes, and smokeless tobacco among US adults, 2002-2012. Tob Control. 2016;25:451–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sinha DN, Suliankatchi RA, Gupta PC, Thamarangsi T, Agarwal N, Parascandola M, et al. Global burden of all-cause and cause-specific mortality due to smokeless tobacco use: systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2018;27:35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sreeramareddy CT, Harper S, Ernstsen L. Educational and wealth inequalities in tobacco use among men and women in 54 low-income and middle-income countries. Tob Control. 2018;27:26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jawad M, Lee JT, Millett C. Waterpipe tobacco smoking prevalence and correlates in 25 eastern Mediterranean and Eastern European countries: cross-sectional analysis of the Global Youth Tobacco Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18:395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sinha DN, Gupta PC, Kumar A, Bhartiya D, Agarwal N, Sharma S, et al. The poorest of poor suffer the greatest burden from smokeless tobacco use: a study from 140 countries. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20:1529–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schreuders M, Lagerweij NA, van den Putte B, Kunst AE. To what extent and why adolescents do or do not support future tobacco control measures: a multimethod study in the Netherlands. Tobacco Control. 2017;27:596–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053770.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodchild M, Zheng R. Tobacco control and Healthy China 2030. Tob Control. 2018;28:409–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kulak JA, Cornelius ME, Fong GT, Giovino GA. Differences in quit attempts and cigarette smoking abstinence between Whites and African Americans in the United States: literature review and results from the International Tobacco Control US Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(Suppl 1):S79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Saqib MAN, Rafique I, Qureshi H, Munir MA, Bashir R, Arif BW, et al. Burden of tobacco in Pakistan: findings from Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2014. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21:136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marques-Vidal P, Melich-Cerveira J, Paccaud F, Waeber G, Vollenweider P, Cornuz J. Prevalence and factors associated with difficulty and intention to quit smoking in Switzerland.. BMC Public Health 2011;11:227.

  12. Disease Control C for, (CDC P, others. Current cigarette smoking among adults-United States, 2011.. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2012; 61:889.

  13. Singh PK, Yadav A, Lal P, Sinha DN, Gupta PC, Swasticharan L, et al. Dual burden of smoked and smokeless tobacco use in India 2009–2017: a repeated cross-sectional analysis based on Global Adult Tobacco Survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa033.

  14. Feliu A, Filippidis FT, Joossens L, Fong GT, Vardavas CI, Baena A, et al. Impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and quit ratios in 27 European Union countries from 2006 to 2014. Tobacco Control 2018; tobaccocontrol–2017–054119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054119.

  15. Health AI of, Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey Detailed Report 2013. supplementary tobacco smoking table S3. 2. Drug Statistics Series No. 28. Cat. No. PHE 1832014.

  16. Hughes N, Arora M, Grills N. Perceptions and impact of plain packaging of tobacco products in low and middle income countries, middle to upper income countries and low-income settings in high-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sinha DN, Palipudi KM, Rolle I, Asma S, Rinchen S. Tobacco use among youth and adults in member countries of South-East Asia region: review of findings from surveys under the Global Tobacco Surveillance System. Indian J Public Health. 2011;55:169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brathwaite R, Addo J, Smeeth L, Lock K. A systematic review of tobacco smoking prevalence and description of tobacco control strategies in Sub-Saharan African countries; 2007 to 2014. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nagarkar SAGA. Tobacco control interventions during last decade in India: a narrative review. National Journal of Community Medicine 2017.

  20. Alzahrane A, West R, Ubhi HK, Brown J, Abdulqader N, Samarkandi O. Evaluations of clinical tobacco cessation interventions in Arab populations: a systematic review. Addict Behav. 2019;88:169–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Blecher E. The impact of tobacco advertising bans on consumption in developing countries. J Health Econ. 2008;27:930–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdelwahab SI, Yagoub U, Sunosi RA, Bulgiba A, Hatim A, Alahmar A. Smoking cessation efforts in special population: a review of research on Muslim countries and communities. Int J Pharmacol. 2013;9:98–107. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijp.2013.98.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kristina SA, Thavorncharoensap M. Smoking and smoking cessation in Indonesia and other Muslim countries: a systematic review. Res Soc Administr Pharm. 2012;8:e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.08.068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim SS, Chen W, Kolodziej M, Wang X, Wang VJ, Ziedonis D. A systematic review of smoking cessation intervention studies in China. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14:891–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chelwa G, van Walbeek C, Blecher E. Evaluating South Africa’s tobacco control policy using a synthetic control method. Tob Control. 2016;26:509–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goel S, Sharma D, Gupta R, Mahajan V. Compliance with smoke-free legislation and smoking behaviour: observational field study from Punjab India. Tob Control. 2017;27:407–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053559.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schensul JJ, Nair S, Bilgi S, Cromley E, Kadam V, Mello SD, et al. Availability accessibility and promotion of smokeless tobacco in a low-income area of Mumbai. Tob Control. 2012;22:324–30. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Carey TA, Stiles WB. Some problems with randomized controlled trials and some viable alternatives. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2015;23:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1942.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McCambridge J, Kypri K, Elbourne D. In randomization we trust? There are overlooked problems in experimenting with people in behavioral intervention trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:247–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.004.

  30. Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2175–81. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmms1604593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gerstein HC, McMurray J, Holman RR. Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy. Lancet. 2019;393:210–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32840-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heckman CJ, Egleston BL, Hofmann MT. Efficacy of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2010;19:410–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2009.033175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu S-H, Lee M, Zhuang Y-L, Gamst A, Wolfson T. Interventions to increase smoking cessation at the population level: how much progress has been made in the last two decades? Tob Control. 2012;21:110–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Arksey H, OMalley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Berg CJ, Fong GT, Thrasher JF, Cohen JE, Maziak W, Lando H, et al. The impact and relevance of tobacco control research in low-and middle-income countries globally and to the US. Addict Behav. 2018;87:162–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, Langlois EV, O’Brien KK, Horsley T, et al. Reporting scoping reviews - PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol 2020.

  38. Guyatt GH, Busse JW. Modification of Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials. Distiller http://distillercer.com/resources/ (access: 201703 26) 2015.

  39. Analytics C. Endnote X8 for Windows. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics 2017.

  40. Innovation VH. Covidence systematic review software; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bank W. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. 2019. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Scherer RW, Saldanha IJ. How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Syst Rev. 2019;8:264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2018;18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.

  44. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343 oct18 2:d5928–d5928. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.

  45. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews. JAMA. 2002;287:2831. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Green S, Higgins JPT. Preparing a Cochrane review. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2008. p. 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers, editors, and Melissa Funaro for her assistance.

Funding

Study was funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. The funding body had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Nature Lab, Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Navin Kumar, Jessica Ainooson, Ameera Billings, Grace Chen, Lauren Cueto, Kamila Janmohamed, Jeannette Jiang & Amy Zhang

  2. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Global Public Health, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY, USA

    Raymond Niaura

  3. Department of Epidemiology, College of Global Public Health, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY, USA

    Raymond Niaura

Authors
  1. Navin Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Ainooson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ameera Billings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Grace Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lauren Cueto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kamila Janmohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jeannette Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Raymond Niaura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Amy Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the manuscript and read and approved the final draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Navin Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

Medline search example.

Additional file 2.

Definitions of Low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) and High-Income Nations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, N., Ainooson, J., Billings, A. et al. The scope of tobacco cessation randomized controlled trials in low- to middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review. Syst Rev 9, 86 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01361-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01361-2

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053