Summary of findings for the main comparison. Targeted mass media intervention versus general population mass media intervention for promoting healthy behaviours.
| Comparison 1: targeted mass media intervention versus general population mass media intervention for promoting healthy behaviours | ||||||
| Patient or population: adult, ethnic minority: self‐described Americans of African heritage Setting: volunteers, smokers, USA Intervention: targeted mass media intervention Comparison: general population mass media intervention | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | N of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE)a | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| General population mass media intervention | Targeted mass media intervention | |||||
| Indicators of behavioural change | ||||||
| Any outcome considered an indicator of change | No study provided data for this outcome. | |||||
| Self‐reported behavioural change | ||||||
| Proportion smoking reduction, 3 months follow‐up |
94% | 95% | — | 255 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c | No effect measures reported by authors. Not significantly different between groups |
| Quit‐attempts, 3 months follow‐up |
— | — | Adjusted OR 1.97 (1.09 to 3.55) in favour of general population mass media intervention | 255 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c | 24‐hour and 7‐day point prevalence abstinence not significantly different between groups |
| Knowledge and attitudes to change | ||||||
| Contemplation ladder to quit smoking (1‐10), 3 months follow‐up | Mean score: 8.2 (SD 2.4) | Mean score: 7.3 (SD 2.6) | — | 255 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c | Difference between group reported at P = 0.01 |
| Adverse effects | ||||||
| Any outcome considered an adverse effect | No study provided data for this outcome. | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SD: standard deviation. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aIn the GRADE assessments for the domain 'directness', we considered the studies directly relevant to the inclusion criteria. Thus, we have not downgraded on this domain. However, the population of interest will be dissimilar in different contexts, relating to characteristics of the ethnic minority group, the country and setting overall. The transferability of results must be considered for each context specifically. bDowngraded one level for unclear risk of bias. cDowngraded two levels for imprecision: Only one, relatively small study.