Introduction
It is imperative to note that the role of nurses in health promotion has been increasing over the years, and some of the interventions are viewed as incredibly efficient. It is understandable that health care providers have a broad range of responsibilities, and it is necessary to prioritize techniques that are more useful based on available evidence. Nurses have focused on smoking cessation and recommended it to patients to improve their condition over the years. Moreover, it would be beneficial to review a systematic review on this subject matter to get a better understanding of approaches that are more efficient.
Relevance
Rice, Hartmann-Boyce, and Stead (2013) have conducted a systematic review to determine if current nursing interventions related to smoking cessation are sufficient. It is necessary to understand that the level of importance of such techniques has been increasing because it is a vital part of many therapies and it is suggested to improve the overall health of the patient. The number of smokers has been steady declining in the United States because the population has access to all the necessary information and individuals are aware of severe consequences, but it is still viewed as a significant health problem. For instance, smoking over the period can be incredibly dangerous for the fetus and associated morbidity risks are also statistically significant. Interventions became much better developed, and it has helped many patients to quit smoking (Sohlberg & Wennberg, 2014). The research problem is quite relevant, and the situation is not going to change anytime soon. Many individuals are aware of possible risks but still do not regard smoke cessation necessary. Another critical issue is that some of the states are legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes, and it could complicate the situation because it may be important to develop new guidelines to deal with addiction. Numerous interventions have been introduced over the years, and the issue is that currently there is no consensus on which techniques should be prioritized. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to analyze studies on this subject matter to identify particular trends or correlations.
Levels of Evidence
Researchers have utilized the Cochrane and CINAHL databases to find the relevant information. The sample size is appropriate in this case, and some of the studies were excluded because the research design was not appropriate. Moreover, they made sure that possible bias is minimized. Available data suggests that risks were relatively small most of the time. Another issue that has been identified is that some scholars have used various definitions of abstinence and convenience selection was utilized in nearly all the studies. All the studies had two and more treatment groups, and allocation has been random. Participants were of appropriate age, and gender differences were not considered. On the other hand, studies that focused only on pregnant women were also included because it is a pivotal problem that needs to be resolved and information about the effectiveness of such interventions is valuable (Rice et al., 2013). The fact that some of the included studies were conducted in other countries needs to be highlighted. Cultural differences could affect the results, and this aspect should have been considered. Study heterogeneity has also been noted, and it could have affected the results. Also, it was much higher in trials with higher levels of intensity.
Clarity
Studies are presented clearly and the fact that such sections as methods, participants, and interventions are present needs to be highlighted. They are sorted in alphabetical order to ensure that the reader may find required information much easier. The fact that approaches utilized by researchers and sample sizes were different has complicated the process of critique. Authors devote enormous attention to bias to ensure that it is addressed. Moreover, risks are rated based on their personal judgment, and argumentation is provided (Rice et al., 2013). However, these sections take up too much place, and it would be reasonable to list them separately to make sure that readers are not distracted. The authors are not biased and try to critique every single study and explain complications that were noted. Also, they avoided unnecessary sentences or terms to increase the level of clarity.
Results and Implications
The conclusions are quite intriguing in this case because the authors suggest that available evidence is sufficient to state that the counseling and advice related to smoking cessation provided by nurses can be critical and leads to positive outcomes. Also, the impact has been shown in various settings, and the level of intensity also varied. A well-structured intervention conducted by a health care professional is much more efficient than standard smoking abstinence according to available data. It is also suggested that the impact of interventions is not as significant when they are performed by nurses that are not specialized on smoking cessation, and this factor needs to be considered.
Moreover, it is also stated that it would be beneficial to incorporate some of the techniques into standard practice to ensure that every individual may get access to information about dangers of smoking and provided a consultation (Rice et al., 2013). It is paramount to note that such suggestion is reasonable because pieces of evidence support the idea that such changes would have a positive effect. The state risk ratio is one and twenty-nine, and an approximate confidence interval is ninety-five percents. It would be reasonable to utilize the received information in future practice because the level of evidence is appropriate and suggestions are extensive. Also, it may be necessary to research how modern technologies can be utilized to assist nurses. For instance, smartphone applications can be quite helpful and can be used by patients to keep track of their activities and daily consumption of tobacco. It is understandable that every client needs an individual approach, but particular guidelines on smoking cessation should be developed to ensure that nurses spend reasonable amounts of time and resources on these interventions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to state that the systematic review is quite comprehensive, and methods that have been utilized by the authors are appropriate. Some of the studies that were included can be viewed as outdated, but inclusion criteria are reasonable in this case. Researchers have focused on the effect size to support the initial thesis (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2011). Overall, it is paramount to have an understanding of the fact that nurses play a critical role most of the time, and it is their responsibility to ensure that the process is successful. The primary goal of the future research is to develop techniques that would help to minimize unnecessary expenses and increase the number of positive outcomes.
References
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.
Rice, V. H., Hartmann-Boyce, J., & Stead, L. F. (2013). Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(8), 1–88. Web.
Sohlberg, T., & Wennberg, P. (2014). Developmental pathways to smoking cessation. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 14(2), 96-106.