METHODS: The review aims to determine the availability of group-based therapy for smoking cessation in Asian countries. The outcome measured was abstinence from smoking following group therapy. Electronic database searches in PubMed, OVID Medline, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO, using keywords such as: 'smoking', 'cigarette', 'tobacco', 'nicotine', 'group therapy' and 'cessation' (smok*, *cigarette*, tobacco, nicotine, group therap*, cessation) were used. The results were reported following PRISMA and PROSPERO guidelines. Review Manager was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 21251 records were retrieved for screening the abstracts. In all, 300 articles for review were identified and assessed for eligibility. Nine articles, including Cochrane reviews, randomized control trials, cohort, observational and cross-sectional studies, were included in the final review. There were three observational qualitative studies, two prospective cohort studies, two crosssectional studies, one non-randomized quasi-experimental study and a single cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Group therapy was found to significantly increase the abstinence rate. Group therapy provided at the workplace, smoking cessation services, availability of pharmacotherapy, and socioeconomic status, appear to be key factors determining success.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the use of group therapy for smoking cessation in Asian countries is still lacking despite publications in the Western population showed that group therapy was effective. Further research on group-based interventions for smoking cessation in Asian countries is required and direct one-to-one comparisons between group therapy and individual therapy for smokers who want to quit smoking, are needed.
OBJECTIVES: This review rigorously employed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.
SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion or with assistance from a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The extracted data included information on the characteristics of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, instrument development, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and interoperability. All data were synthesised and summarised qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed.
MAIN RESULTS: We found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which 382 were screened in full text. A total of 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported on more than one instrument. The primary reasons for excluding studies were their focus on instruments used solely for screening and diagnostic purposes, those conducted in hospital settings, or those without evaluating psychometric properties. Eighty-seven studies reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (97 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high-income countries (69 studies). Ninety-five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults, and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one-quarter of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS-EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS-12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL-31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian) and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS-EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS-12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties) and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments measuring AOP in the community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack sufficient evidence to support their validity and reliability.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a community-based prospective cohort study using randomly selected households from the national census. A multistage sampling method was employed to obtain a total of 2496 older adults living in the rural Kuala Pilah district. The study is divided into two phases: cross-sectional study (baseline), and a longitudinal follow-up study at the third and fifth years. Elder mistreatment was measured using instrument derived from the previous literature and modified Conflict Tactic Scales. Outcomes of elder mistreatment include mortality, physical function, mental health, quality of life and health utilisation. Logistic regression models are used to examine the relationship between risk factors and abuse estimates. Cox proportional hazard regression will be used to estimate risk of mortality associated with abuse. Associated annual rate of hospitalisation and health visit frequency, and reporting of abuse, will be estimated using Poisson regression.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Center (MEC Ref 902.2) and the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-12-1444-11726). Written consent was obtained from all respondents prior to baseline assessment and subsequent follow-up. Findings will be disseminated to local stakeholders via forums with community leaders, and health and social welfare departments, and published in appropriate scientific journals and presented at conferences.
METHODS: Data came from the 2020 ITC Malaysia Survey, a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of adults who smoked (n=1047) aged 18 and older. They were asked on ever heard of, ever used, and currently using HTPs, and their reasons for using HTPs.
RESULTS: Overall, 25.4% (n= 324; 95% CI:22.3%-28.7%) of Malaysians who smoked reported ever used HTPs with 6.7% (n=85; 95% CI:22.3%-28.7%) were using them daily and 8.1% (n=110; 95% CI:6.4% -10.2%) were using HTPs non-daily. Most of them (57.2%) who dual use were of aged 25-39 and 97.3% were males. Among those who smoked daily, almost half (49.3%) were also using HTP daily. Among those who used HTPs daily and non-daily, curiosity (84.2%, 95% CI:78.4%-90.0%), taste (83.2%, 95% CI:77.3%-89.1%), and appealing technology (78.5%, 95% CI:71.3%-85.6%) were the most reported reasons. Among those who used HTPs daily, curiosity was the top reason (87.9%, 95% CI:78.9%-93.4%), while among non-daily, taste good was the top reason (81.9%, 95% CI:71.9%-88.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The very high use of HTPs among Malaysians who smoked requires continued public health surveillance that can inform the regulation of these novel tobacco products.
METHODS: Cross-sectional data among adults who smoked cigarettes came from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Surveys-Brazil (2016/2017), Japan (2021), Republic of Korea (2021), Malaysia (2020) and Mexico (2021). FCCs use was measured based on reporting one's usual/current brand or favourite variety has flavour capsule(s). Perceptions of the harmfulness of one's usual brand versus other brands were compared between those who used capsules versus no capsules. Adjusted logistic regression models examined correlates of FCC use.
RESULTS: There were substantial differences in the prevalence of FCC use among adults who smoke across the five countries: Mexico (50.3% in 2021), Republic of Korea (31.8% in 2021), Malaysia (26.5% in 2020), Japan (21.6% in 2021) and Brazil (6.7% in 2016/2017). Correlates of FCC use varied across countries. Capsule use was positively associated with being female in Japan and Mexico, younger age in Japan, Republic of Korea and Malaysia, high education in Brazil, Japan and Mexico, non-daily smoking in Republic of Korea, and having plans to quit in Japan and Republic of Korea. There was no consistent pattern of consumer perceptions of brand harmfulness.
CONCLUSION: Our study documented the high prevalence of FCCs in some countries, pointing to the need to develop and implement regulatory strategies to control these attractive products.