Smoking Cessation among Disadvantaged Populations

Last Name 1
Smoking Cessation among Disadvantaged Populations
Student’s Name
Name of the Class
Professor’s Name
City
State
The Date

Last Name 2
Smoking Cessation among Disadvantaged Populations
1. The search strategy
Electronic databases were searched to get relevant literature for this review. Keywords
were joined using Boolean operators including “AND’, “OR” and “NOT” and used during the
search. The keywords are smoking, tobacco, cessation, quit, disadvantaged, socioeconomically
disadvantaged, and low socioeconomic status. These search terms were combined and altered to
yield many results. The search results were limited to English publications, last five years, and
search terms. Besides, the search was limited to peer-reviewed and scholarly articles. The search
results were hand reviewed for relevancy, duplication, and possible errors.
2. The reasons for including/excluding articles for the review and the pertinence and
quality of the papers included
The criterion of including and excluding papers in this review was based on various
fundamental factors. Only studies that focused on disadvantaged populations were included. In
this context, disadvantaged populations include people living in low socioeconomic status (SES),
unemployed individuals and those earning low incomes. All papers that did not define the target
population or focused on the broad populations were excluded from this review. In addition, the
review included studies that present both pharmacological and non-pharmacological smoking
cessation interventions. Importantly, some studies detailed pharmacological trails only while
others focused on non-pharmacological cessation interventions only. Papers, whereby the
therapy is administered by peers such as friends or family members and unqualified individuals,
are excluded. In essence, the papers that include nurses, medical professionals, nurses, cessation
counselors, and qualified social workers are included in the review.

Last Name 3
The selection criterion also considered the kinds of interventions detailed in the papers. In
this regard, the papers that were included focused on nicotine replacement therapy, behavioral
therapy, Mindfulness Training for Smokers, and financial incentives. The papers used different
population sizes in their trials in an effort to determine the effectiveness and effect of smoking
cessation attributes. The review excluded studies that focused on group therapies such as group
counseling. Evidently, the review wanted to determine the effectiveness or effect of individual
cessation therapies. Papers were excluded in case they were not original accounts of therapies
developed to support smoking quitting efforts, failed to include peer support components in the
interventions or failed to analyze the peer support components of the interventions. Eventually,
ten papers were selected as suitable for the review.
3. The evidence on the topic
In Australia, the prevalence of smoking is 23 per cent for individuals in the lowest
socioeconomic quintile and 10 per cent within the highest socioeconomic quintile (Twyman et
al., 2018, p.170). Recent research has found that the use of cessation aids as well as lower odds
of experiencing financial stress cause people to quit smoking (Twyman et al., 2018, p.170).
According to Guillaumier et al. (2016, p.118), a majority of socially disadvantaged smokers in
Australia have normalized the dangers associated with smoking. Besides, many of these smokers
have “skeptic” beliefs about smoking (Guillaumier et al., 2016, p.118). The barriers to smoking
cessation among disadvantaged populations include smoking to manage stress, inadequate
support from service providers and acceptance of smoking among the vulnerable communities
(Twyman et al., 2014, p.e006414). Indigenous populations are also likely to smoke because of
their historical and cultural norms (Twyman et al., 2014, p.e006414). As a result, the literature