The Experts below are selected from a list of 38364 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Billie Bonevski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a systematic narrative review of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected Disadvantaged Groups 2010 2017
Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 2017Co-Authors: Amanda Wilson, Ashleigh Guillaumier, Johnson George, Alexandra M J Denham, Billie BonevskiAbstract:ABSTRACTIntroduction: Tobacco remains the key modifiable risk factor for the development of a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tuberculosis and cancer. Among priority populations, smoking prevalence remains high, smokers tend to relapse more often and earlier and fewer are able to sustain quit attempts. This systematic review provides an update on the literature.Areas covered: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials published from 2010–2017, in English language, were identified after searching on Medline, Ovid, Embase and PsycINFO databases. Studies reported on the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among six Disadvantaged Groups known to have high smoking rates: (i) homeless, (ii) prisoners, (iii) indigenous populations, (iv) at-risk youth, (v) people with low income, and (vi) those with a mental illness. Narrative review and assessment of methodological quality of included pa...
-
reaching the hard to reach a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially Disadvantaged Groups
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014Co-Authors: Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Madeleine Randell, Kathy Chapman, Laura Twyman, Jamie Bryant, Irena Brozek, Clare HughesAbstract:Background This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially Disadvantaged Groups.
-
anti tobacco mass media and socially Disadvantaged Groups a systematic and methodological review
Drug and Alcohol Review, 2012Co-Authors: Ashleigh Guillaumier, Billie Bonevski, Chris PaulAbstract:Issues. Only a limited amount of research has been conducted to explore whether there are socioeconomic status differences in responses to mass media. However, the methodological quality of this evidence has not been assessed, limiting confidence in conclusions that can be drawn regarding study outcomes. A systematic review of the effectiveness of anti-tobacco mass media campaigns with socially Disadvantaged Groups was conducted, and the methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Approach. Medline, The Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Embase and Web of Science were searched using MeSH and keywords for quantitative studies conducted in Western countries prior to March 2012. A methodological quality assessment and narrative analysis of included studies was undertaken. Key Findings. Seventeen relevant studies (reported in 18 papers) were identified; however, weak study designs and selection bias were common characteristics, limiting strong conclusions about effectiveness. Using predominantly non-cessation related outcome measures reviewed papers indicated mixed results for mass media tobacco control campaign effectiveness among various social Groups. Most studies assessed mass media impact on low socioeconomic status Groups rather than highly socially Disadvantaged Groups. Implications. Methodological rigour of evaluations in this field must be improved to aid understanding regarding the effectiveness of mass media campaigns in driving cessation among Disadvantaged Groups. Conclusion. The results of this review indicate a gap in methodologically rigorous research into the effectiveness of mass media campaigns among socially Disadvantaged Groups, particularly the highly Disadvantaged.[Guillaumier A, Bonevski B, Paul C. Anti-tobacco mass media and socially Disadvantaged Groups: A systematic and methodological review. Drug Alcohol Rev 2012;31:698–708]
-
a systematic review and meta analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected Disadvantaged Groups
Addiction, 2011Co-Authors: Jamie Bryant, Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Patrick Mcelduff, John AttiaAbstract:Aims A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions targeted at six Disadvantaged Groups; the homeless, prisoners, indigenous populations, at-risk youth, individuals with low socio-economic status and individuals with a mental illness. Methods Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycInfo databases were searched using MeSH and keywords for studies conducted in developed countries prior to October 2010. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality. A DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible to explore the effectiveness of interventions for the different subGroups. A narrative review was conducted for studies unable to be included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes examined were abstinence rates at short-term (up to 3 months) and long-term (6 months or the longest) follow-up. Results Thirty-two relevant studies were identified.The majority (n = 20) were rated low in methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant increase in cessation for behavioural support interventions targeted at low-income female smokers at short-term follow-up [relative risk (RR) 1.68, confidence interval (CI) 1.21‐2.33], and behavioural support interventions targeted at individuals with a mental illness at long-term follow-up (RR 1.35, CI 1.01‐1.81). Results of the narrative review showed several promising interventions that increased cessation rates at 6-month or longer follow-up. Conclusions Few well-controlled trials have examined the most effective smoking cessation strategies for highly Disadvantaged Groups, especially among the homeless, indigenous smokers and prisoners. The use of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for some socially Disadvantaged Groups appears promising; however, overall findings are inconsistent. Further research is needed to establish the most effective interventions for vulnerable high-risk Groups. Special attention should be given to increasing sample size and power, and to sound evaluation methodology to overcome methodological limitations of conducting research with these high-risk Groups.
Neil Sipe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
travel behavior patterns of different socially Disadvantaged Groups analysis of household travel survey data for a dispersed metropolitan area
Transportation Research Record, 2010Co-Authors: Jago Dodson, Matthew Burke, Brendan Gleeson, Rick James Evans, Neil SipeAbstract:This paper contributes to the understanding of transport disadvantage and the transport dimensions of environmental justice by investigating the travel behavior patterns of socially Disadvantaged Groups by using household travel survey data. The study described in this paper goes beyond determining the basic descriptive statistics that are commonly reported in this area of research and instead uses cluster analysis to identify socially Disadvantaged households. The study then uses the six clusters generated by the analysis to identify the differences in the travel behaviors between these Groups. The paper shows considerable differences in travel behavior between socially Disadvantaged households that must be recognized if scholars and policy makers are to describe and respond adequately to the experience of transport disadvantage for these Groups. The paper concludes with some comparative observations about the travel behavior of the Disadvantaged population in dispersed rapidly growing regions and the wider implications for ensuring environmental justice in transport.
-
Travel Behavior Patterns of Different Socially Disadvantaged Groups
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010Co-Authors: Jago Dodson, Matthew Burke, Rick Evans, Brendan Gleeson, Neil SipeAbstract:his paper contributes to the understanding of transport disadvantage and the transport dimensions of environmental justice by investigating the travel behavior patterns of socially Disadvantaged Groups by using household travel survey data. The study described in this paper goes beyond determining the basic descriptive statistics that are commonly reported in this area of research and instead uses cluster analysis to identify socially Disadvantaged households. The study then uses the six clusters generated by the analysis to identify the differences in the travel behaviors between these Groups. The paper shows considerable differences in travel behavior between socially Disadvantaged households that must be recognized if scholars and policy makers are to describe and respond adequately to the experience of transport disadvantage for these Groups. The paper concludes with some comparative observations about the travel behavior of the Disadvantaged population in dispersed rapidly growing regions and the wider implications for ensuring environmental justice in transport.Griffith Sciences, Griffith School of EnvironmentNo Full Tex
Chris Paul - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reaching the hard to reach a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially Disadvantaged Groups
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014Co-Authors: Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Madeleine Randell, Kathy Chapman, Laura Twyman, Jamie Bryant, Irena Brozek, Clare HughesAbstract:Background This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially Disadvantaged Groups.
-
anti tobacco mass media and socially Disadvantaged Groups a systematic and methodological review
Drug and Alcohol Review, 2012Co-Authors: Ashleigh Guillaumier, Billie Bonevski, Chris PaulAbstract:Issues. Only a limited amount of research has been conducted to explore whether there are socioeconomic status differences in responses to mass media. However, the methodological quality of this evidence has not been assessed, limiting confidence in conclusions that can be drawn regarding study outcomes. A systematic review of the effectiveness of anti-tobacco mass media campaigns with socially Disadvantaged Groups was conducted, and the methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Approach. Medline, The Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Embase and Web of Science were searched using MeSH and keywords for quantitative studies conducted in Western countries prior to March 2012. A methodological quality assessment and narrative analysis of included studies was undertaken. Key Findings. Seventeen relevant studies (reported in 18 papers) were identified; however, weak study designs and selection bias were common characteristics, limiting strong conclusions about effectiveness. Using predominantly non-cessation related outcome measures reviewed papers indicated mixed results for mass media tobacco control campaign effectiveness among various social Groups. Most studies assessed mass media impact on low socioeconomic status Groups rather than highly socially Disadvantaged Groups. Implications. Methodological rigour of evaluations in this field must be improved to aid understanding regarding the effectiveness of mass media campaigns in driving cessation among Disadvantaged Groups. Conclusion. The results of this review indicate a gap in methodologically rigorous research into the effectiveness of mass media campaigns among socially Disadvantaged Groups, particularly the highly Disadvantaged.[Guillaumier A, Bonevski B, Paul C. Anti-tobacco mass media and socially Disadvantaged Groups: A systematic and methodological review. Drug Alcohol Rev 2012;31:698–708]
-
a systematic review and meta analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected Disadvantaged Groups
Addiction, 2011Co-Authors: Jamie Bryant, Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Patrick Mcelduff, John AttiaAbstract:Aims A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions targeted at six Disadvantaged Groups; the homeless, prisoners, indigenous populations, at-risk youth, individuals with low socio-economic status and individuals with a mental illness. Methods Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycInfo databases were searched using MeSH and keywords for studies conducted in developed countries prior to October 2010. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality. A DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible to explore the effectiveness of interventions for the different subGroups. A narrative review was conducted for studies unable to be included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes examined were abstinence rates at short-term (up to 3 months) and long-term (6 months or the longest) follow-up. Results Thirty-two relevant studies were identified.The majority (n = 20) were rated low in methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant increase in cessation for behavioural support interventions targeted at low-income female smokers at short-term follow-up [relative risk (RR) 1.68, confidence interval (CI) 1.21‐2.33], and behavioural support interventions targeted at individuals with a mental illness at long-term follow-up (RR 1.35, CI 1.01‐1.81). Results of the narrative review showed several promising interventions that increased cessation rates at 6-month or longer follow-up. Conclusions Few well-controlled trials have examined the most effective smoking cessation strategies for highly Disadvantaged Groups, especially among the homeless, indigenous smokers and prisoners. The use of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for some socially Disadvantaged Groups appears promising; however, overall findings are inconsistent. Further research is needed to establish the most effective interventions for vulnerable high-risk Groups. Special attention should be given to increasing sample size and power, and to sound evaluation methodology to overcome methodological limitations of conducting research with these high-risk Groups.
Jamie Bryant - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reaching the hard to reach a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially Disadvantaged Groups
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014Co-Authors: Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Madeleine Randell, Kathy Chapman, Laura Twyman, Jamie Bryant, Irena Brozek, Clare HughesAbstract:Background This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially Disadvantaged Groups.
-
a systematic review and meta analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected Disadvantaged Groups
Addiction, 2011Co-Authors: Jamie Bryant, Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Patrick Mcelduff, John AttiaAbstract:Aims A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions targeted at six Disadvantaged Groups; the homeless, prisoners, indigenous populations, at-risk youth, individuals with low socio-economic status and individuals with a mental illness. Methods Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycInfo databases were searched using MeSH and keywords for studies conducted in developed countries prior to October 2010. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality. A DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible to explore the effectiveness of interventions for the different subGroups. A narrative review was conducted for studies unable to be included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes examined were abstinence rates at short-term (up to 3 months) and long-term (6 months or the longest) follow-up. Results Thirty-two relevant studies were identified.The majority (n = 20) were rated low in methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant increase in cessation for behavioural support interventions targeted at low-income female smokers at short-term follow-up [relative risk (RR) 1.68, confidence interval (CI) 1.21‐2.33], and behavioural support interventions targeted at individuals with a mental illness at long-term follow-up (RR 1.35, CI 1.01‐1.81). Results of the narrative review showed several promising interventions that increased cessation rates at 6-month or longer follow-up. Conclusions Few well-controlled trials have examined the most effective smoking cessation strategies for highly Disadvantaged Groups, especially among the homeless, indigenous smokers and prisoners. The use of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for some socially Disadvantaged Groups appears promising; however, overall findings are inconsistent. Further research is needed to establish the most effective interventions for vulnerable high-risk Groups. Special attention should be given to increasing sample size and power, and to sound evaluation methodology to overcome methodological limitations of conducting research with these high-risk Groups.
John Attia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a systematic review and meta analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected Disadvantaged Groups
Addiction, 2011Co-Authors: Jamie Bryant, Billie Bonevski, Chris Paul, Patrick Mcelduff, John AttiaAbstract:Aims A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions targeted at six Disadvantaged Groups; the homeless, prisoners, indigenous populations, at-risk youth, individuals with low socio-economic status and individuals with a mental illness. Methods Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycInfo databases were searched using MeSH and keywords for studies conducted in developed countries prior to October 2010. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality. A DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible to explore the effectiveness of interventions for the different subGroups. A narrative review was conducted for studies unable to be included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes examined were abstinence rates at short-term (up to 3 months) and long-term (6 months or the longest) follow-up. Results Thirty-two relevant studies were identified.The majority (n = 20) were rated low in methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant increase in cessation for behavioural support interventions targeted at low-income female smokers at short-term follow-up [relative risk (RR) 1.68, confidence interval (CI) 1.21‐2.33], and behavioural support interventions targeted at individuals with a mental illness at long-term follow-up (RR 1.35, CI 1.01‐1.81). Results of the narrative review showed several promising interventions that increased cessation rates at 6-month or longer follow-up. Conclusions Few well-controlled trials have examined the most effective smoking cessation strategies for highly Disadvantaged Groups, especially among the homeless, indigenous smokers and prisoners. The use of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for some socially Disadvantaged Groups appears promising; however, overall findings are inconsistent. Further research is needed to establish the most effective interventions for vulnerable high-risk Groups. Special attention should be given to increasing sample size and power, and to sound evaluation methodology to overcome methodological limitations of conducting research with these high-risk Groups.