ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2185-0162
Current Organisations
University of Bath
,
University of Bristol
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 06-11-2019
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291719002678
Abstract: Smoking prevalence is higher amongst in iduals with schizophrenia and depression compared with the general population. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can examine whether this association is causal using genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We conducted two-s le MR to explore the bi-directional effects of smoking on schizophrenia and depression. For smoking behaviour, we used (1) smoking initiation GWAS from the GSCAN consortium and (2) we conducted our own GWAS of lifetime smoking behaviour (which captures smoking duration, heaviness and cessation) in a s le of 462690 in iduals from the UK Biobank. We validated this instrument using positive control outcomes (e.g. lung cancer). For schizophrenia and depression we used GWAS from the PGC consortium. There was strong evidence to suggest smoking is a risk factor for both schizophrenia (odds ratio (OR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67–3.08, p 0.001) and depression (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.71–2.32, p 0.001). Results were consistent across both lifetime smoking and smoking initiation. We found some evidence that genetic liability to depression increases smoking ( β = 0.091, 95% CI 0.027–0.155, p = 0.005) but evidence was mixed for schizophrenia ( β = 0.022, 95% CI 0.005–0.038, p = 0.009) with very weak evidence for an effect on smoking initiation. These findings suggest that the association between smoking, schizophrenia and depression is due, at least in part, to a causal effect of smoking, providing further evidence for the detrimental consequences of smoking on mental health.
Publisher: European Respiratory Society
Date: 2021
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 09-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-030646
Abstract: Smoking among persons with a mental health disorder is associated with inequitable health, social and economic burden. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard design for the assessment of healthcare intervention efficacy/effectiveness. However, many RCTs of smoking interventions for persons with a mental health disorder lack rigour due to low participant retention. No systematic review has pooled retention rates in randomised trials of smoking interventions for persons with a mental health disorder or explored associated factors. The aims of the systematic review will therefore be to: (1) summarise overall rates of participant retention in smoking cessation and reduction trials involving persons with a mental health disorder (including for experimental and control groups separately) and (2) determine if retention rates vary according to participant, environmental, researcher and study factors. PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Specialised Register will be searched for reports of RCTs of outpatient smoking cessation or reduction interventions for adults with a mental health disorder. The search terms will include MeSH terms and free text words, and there will be no language or date restrictions. All databases will be searched from inception to present. Data will be analysed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, and where substantial heterogeneity (I 2 %) is detected, DerSimonian & Laird inverse-variance random effects model. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs will be calculated for overall participant retention rates and for intervention and control trial arms separately. Associations between participant retention and participant, environmental, researcher and study factors will be assessed via subgroup analyses and, where sufficient data are obtained, meta-regression. This study does not require ethical approval. The findings of this review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed open access medical journal and presentations at international scientific meetings.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2018
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2018-021611
Abstract: To investigate the sex-specific association between smoking and lung cancer. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed and EMBASE from 1 January 1999 to 15 April 2016 for cohort studies. Cohort studies before 1 January 1999 were retrieved from a previous meta-analysis. In idual participant data from three sources were also available to supplement analyses of published literature. Cohort studies reporting the sex-specific relative risk (RR) of lung cancer associated with smoking. Data from 29 studies representing 99 cohort studies, 7 million in iduals and 000 incident lung cancer cases were included. The sex-specific RRs and their ratio comparing women with men were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting. The pooled multiple-adjusted lung cancer RR was 6.99 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.09 to 9.59) in women and 7.33 (95% CI 4.90 to 10.96) in men. The pooled ratio of the RRs was 0.92 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.16 I 2 =89% p .001), with no evidence of publication bias or differences across major pre-defined participant and study subtypes. The women-to-men ratio of RRs was 0.99 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.52), 1.11 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.64) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.30), for light, moderate and heavy smoking, respectively. Smoking yields similar risks of lung cancer in women compared with men. However, these data may underestimate the true risks of lung cancer among women, as the smoking epidemic has not yet reached full maturity in women. Continued efforts to measure the sex-specific association of smoking and lung cancer are required.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 30-05-2022
Abstract: To examine the effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Randomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with a body mass index ≥25 delivered in primary care compared with no treatment, attention control, or minimal intervention and weight change at ≥12 months follow-up. Trials from a previous systematic review were extracted and the search completed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, and PsychINFO from 1 January 2018 to 19 August 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted with random effects models, and a pooled mean difference for both weight (kg) and waist circumference (cm) were calculated. Primary outcome was weight change from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcome was weight change from baseline to ≥24 months. Change in waist circumference was assessed at 12 months. 34 trials were included: 14 were additional, from a previous review. 27 trials (n=8000) were included in the primary outcome of weight change at 12 month follow-up. The mean difference between the intervention and comparator groups at 12 months was −2.3 kg (95% confidence interval −3.0 to −1.6 kg, I 2 =88%, P .001), favouring the intervention group. At ≥24 months (13 trials, n=5011) the mean difference in weight change was −1.8 kg (−2.8 to −0.8 kg, I 2 =88%, P .001) favouring the intervention. The mean difference in waist circumference (18 trials, n=5288) was −2.5 cm (−3.2 to −1.8 cm, I 2 =69%, P .001) in favour of the intervention at 12 months. Behavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care are effective for weight loss and could be offered to members of the public. PROSPERO CRD42021275529.
Publisher: Royal College of Psychiatrists
Date: 10-09-2020
DOI: 10.1192/BJA.2020.52
Abstract: Smoking rates in people with depression and anxiety are twice as high as in the general population, even though people with depression and anxiety are motivated to stop smoking. Most healthcare professionals are aware that stopping smoking is one of the greatest changes that people can make to improve their health. However, smoking cessation can be a difficult topic to raise. Evidence suggests that smoking may cause some mental health problems, and that the tobacco withdrawal cycle partly contributes to worse mental health. By stopping smoking, a person's mental health may improve, and the size of this improvement might be equal to taking antidepressants. In this article we outline ways in which healthcare professionals can compassionately and respectfully raise the topic of smoking to encourage smoking cessation. We draw on evidence-based methods such as cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and outline approaches that healthcare professionals can use to integrate these methods into routine care to help their patients stop smoking.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Gemma Taylor.