Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan 4;1(1):CD013229.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013229.pub2.

Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce  1 , Jonathan Livingstone-Banks  1 , José M Ordóñez-Mena  1 , Thomas R Fanshawe  1 , Nicola Lindson  1 , Suzanne C Freeman  2 , Alex J Sutton  2 , Annika Theodoulou  1 , Paul Aveyard  1
Affiliations

Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract
in English, Spanish

Background: Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness.

Objectives: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary.

Methods: This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components.

Main results: We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.

Authors' conclusions: Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.

Antecedentes: El tabaquismo es una causa principal de enfermedad y muerte en todo el mundo. En las personas que fuman, dejar de fumar puede revertir gran parte del daño. Muchas personas utilizan intervenciones conductuales para ayudarles a dejar de fumar y estas intervenciones pueden variar considerablemente en contenido y efectividad.

Objetivos: Resumir la evidencia de las revisiones Cochrane que evaluaron el efecto de las intervenciones conductuales diseñadas para apoyar los intentos de abandono del hábito de fumar y realizar un metanálisis en red para determinar cómo las modalidades de prestación; la persona que administra la intervención; y la naturaleza, el enfoque y la intensidad de las intervenciones conductuales para el abandono del hábito de fumar influyen en la probabilidad de lograr la abstinencia seis meses después de intentar dejar de fumar; y si los efectos de las intervenciones conductuales dependen de otras características, como la población, el contexto y la administración de farmacoterapia. Resumir la disponibilidad y los hallazgos principales de las evaluaciones económicas de intervenciones conductuales para dejar de fumar, en términos de costes y coste‐efectividad, mediante un breve comentario económico. MÉTODOS: Este artículo comprende dos elementos principales. 1. Se realizó una revisión global Cochrane de revisiones según los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Mediante una búsqueda en la Biblioteca Cochrane en julio de 2020 se identificaron las revisiones Cochrane de intervenciones conductuales (incluidas todas las intervenciones no farmacológicas, p.ej., orientación, ejercicio, hipnoterapia, materiales de autoayuda) para el abandono del hábito de fumar. La calidad metodológica de las revisiones se evaluó mediante AMSTAR 2 y los datos de las revisiones se resumieron de manera narrativa. 2. Las revisiones incluidas se utilizaron para identificar los ensayos controlados aleatorizados de intervenciones conductuales para el abandono del hábito de fumar en comparación con otras intervenciones conductuales o ninguna intervención para el abandono del hábito de fumar. Para ser incluidos, los estudios debían incluir a fumadores adultos y medir la abstinencia de fumar a los seis meses o más. La selección, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo siguieron los métodos Cochrane estándar. Los datos se resumieron mediante un metanálisis en red de componentes (MARC) bayesiano, y se examinaron los efectos de 38 componentes diferentes en comparación con una intervención mínima. Los componentes incluyeron elementos conductuales y motivacionales, proveedores de la intervención, modos de administración, naturaleza, enfoque e intensidad de la intervención conductual. Se utilizó la metarregresión en red de componentes (MRRC) para evaluar la influencia de las características de la población, la administración de farmacoterapia y la intensidad de la intervención sobre los efectos de los componentes. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los dominios de GRADE. Se presupuso un efecto aditivo para los componentes individuales.

Resultados principales: Se incluyeron 33 revisiones Cochrane, de las cuales 312 ensayos controlados aleatorizados, que representaban a 250 563 participantes y 845 grupos de estudio distintos, cumplieron los criterios para su inclusión en el metanálisis en red de componentes. Esto representó 437 combinaciones diferentes de componentes. De las 33 revisiones, la confianza en los hallazgos de la revisión fue alta en cuatro y moderada en nueve, medida con la herramienta de lectura crítica AMSTAR 2. Las 20 revisiones restantes tuvieron una confianza baja o críticamente baja debido a una o más deficiencias graves, las más habituales fueron una investigación o discusión (o ambas) insuficiente acerca del impacto del sesgo de publicación. Cabe señalar que las debilidades críticas identificadas no afectaron los elementos de la búsqueda, la selección o la extracción de los datos del proceso de revisión, que mantienen una relación directa en este MARC. Entre los estudios incluidos, 125/312 tuvieron un riesgo general de sesgo bajo, 50 un riesgo de sesgo alto y el resto un riesgo de sesgo poco claro. Los análisis de las revisiones contribuyentes y de este MARC mostraron que las intervenciones conductuales para dejar de fumar pueden aumentar las tasas de abandono del hábito, pero la efectividad varía según las características del apoyo proporcionado. Hubo evidencia de certeza alta de un efecto beneficioso de la prestación de orientación (odds ratio [OR] 1,44; intervalo de credibilidad [ICr] del 95%: 1,22 a 1,70, 194 estudios, n = 72 273) y de los incentivos económicos garantizados (OR 1,46; ICr del 95% 1,15 a 1,85, 19 estudios, n = 8877). La evidencia de un efecto beneficioso se mantuvo cuando se eliminaron los estudios con alto riesgo de sesgo. Estos hallazgos fueron concordantes con los metanálisis pareados de las revisiones contribuyentes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de un efecto beneficioso de las intervenciones administradas a través de mensajes de texto (la certeza se disminuyó debido a una heterogeneidad estadística inexplicada en la comparación pareada), y de los siguientes componentes en los que las estimaciones puntuales indicaron un efecto beneficioso pero los ICr no incorporaron una diferencia clínicamente significativa: personalización; contenido de la intervención con componentes motivacionales; contenido de la intervención centrado en cómo dejar de fumar. Los otros componentes de la intervención tuvieron evidencia de certeza muy baja a baja, y sus problemas principales fueron la imprecisión y el riesgo de sesgo. No hubo evidencia que indicara un aumento de los efectos perjudiciales en los grupos que recibieron apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar. Los efectos de la intervención no cambiaron al ajustar las características de la población, pero los datos fueron limitados. El aumento de la intensidad del apoyo conductual, medido a través del número de contactos, la duración de cada contacto y la duración del programa, tuvo estimaciones puntuales asociadas con un modesto aumento de las posibilidades de dejar de fumar, pero los ICr no incluyeron una diferencia. El efecto del apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar pareció ser ligeramente menos pronunciado cuando las personas ya recibían farmacoterapias para dejar de fumar.

Conclusiones de los autores: El apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar puede aumentar las tasas de abandono a los seis meses o más, sin evidencia de que este apoyo aumente los efectos perjudiciales. Esto es así tanto si se proporciona una farmacoterapia para dejar de fumar como si no, pero el efecto es ligeramente más pronunciado sin farmacoterapia. La evidencia de un efecto beneficioso es más sólida para la prestación de cualquier tipo de orientación y de incentivos económicos garantizados. La evidencia indicó un posible efecto beneficioso, pero la necesidad de realizar más estudios para evaluar: la personalización; la administración mediante mensajes de texto, correos electrónicos y grabaciones de audio; la administración por parte de un asesor de salud no profesional; y el contenido de la intervención con componentes motivacionales y centrada en cómo dejar de fumar. Se identificaron 23 evaluaciones económicas; la evidencia no indicó de manera homogénea que un tipo de intervención conductual para el abandono del hábito de fumar fuera más coste‐efectiva que otra. Las revisiones futuras deberían examinar a fondo el sesgo de publicación. Se necesitan herramientas para investigar el sesgo de publicación y evaluar la certeza en MARC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JHB: is an author of some of the Cochrane Reviews that are included in the overview.

JLB: is an author of some of the Cochrane Reviews that included in the overview.

JMOM: is an author of some of the Cochrane Reviews that are included in the overview.

TRF: is an author of some of the Cochrane Reviews that are included in the overview.

NL: is an author of some of the Cochrane Reviews that are included in the overview.

SF: none.

AS: none.

AT: none.

PA: is an author of some of the Cochrane Reviews included in the overview.

Figures

1
1
Overview study flow diagram.
2
2
Heat map showing frequency and combinations of components across study arms. The numbers indicate the number of study arms included in the network meta‐analysis that contained the components in the corresponding row and column. For cells where the row and column component are the same, the frequency of that component is shown. app: mobile phone application; audio: audio recording; IVR: interactive voice response; SMS: short messaging service (text message); Web: Internet.
3
3
Number of included studies in the network meta‐analysis, per included review. Note, many studies were included in more than one review.
4
4
Risk of bias judgements for studies included in the network meta‐analysis by domain.
5
5
Forest plot, using all available data, showing effect estimates for each component as related to smoking cessation (excluding covariates). app: mobile phone application; audio: audio recording; CrI: credibility interval; Guaranteed: guaranteed financial incentives; IVR: interactive voice response; Not guaranteed: Non‐guaranteed financial incentives (e.g. competitions); OR: odds ratio; SMS: short messaging service (text message); Web: Internet.
6
6
Sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias. app: mobile phone application; audio: audio recording; CrI: credibility interval; Guaranteed: guaranteed financial incentives; IVR: interactive voice response; Not guaranteed: Non‐guaranteed financial incentives (e.g. competitions); OR: odds ratio; SMS: short messaging service (text message); Web: Internet.
7
7
Contour plot of leverage showing individual arm contributions to residual deviance. Each point is an individual study arm. Red: study at high risk of bias; yellow: study at unclear risk of bias; green: study at low risk of bias. DIC: Deviance Information Criterion.
8
8
Study flow diagram for studies included in brief economic commentary.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

References to included reviews

Barnes 2019
    1. Barnes J, McRobbie H, Dong CY, Walker N, Hartmann-Boyce J. Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 6. Art. No: CD001008. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001008.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Behbod 2018
    1. Behbod B, Sharma M, Baxi R, Roseby R, Webster P. Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 1. Art. No: CD001746. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001746.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Cahill 2010
    1. Cahill K, Lancaster T, Green N. Stage-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 11. Art. No: CD004492. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004492.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Cahill 2014
    1. Cahill K, Lancaster T. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No: CD003440. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003440.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Carr 2012
    1. Carr AB, Ebbert J. Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. Art. No: CD005084. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005084.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Carson‐Chahhoud 2019
    1. Carson-Chahhoud KV, Livingstone-Banks J, Sharrad KJ, Kopsaftis Z, Brinn MP, To-A-Nan R, et al. Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No: CD003698. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003698.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Chamberlain 2017
    1. Chamberlain C, O'Mara-Eves A, Porter J, Coleman T, Perlen SM, Thomas J, et al. Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 2. Art. No: CD001055. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Clair 2019
    1. Clair C, Mueller Y, Livingstone-Banks J, Burnand B, Camain JY, Cornuz J, et al. Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 3. Art. No: CD004705. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004705.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Fanshawe 2019
    1. Fanshawe TR, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R, Lindson N. Competitions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 2. Art. No: CD013272. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013272] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Faseru 2018
    1. Faseru B, Richter KP, Scheuermann TS, Park EW. Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 8. Art. No: CD002928. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002928.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hajek 2001
    1. Hajek P, Stead LF. Aversive smoking for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 3. Art. No: CD000546. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000546.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hartmann‐Boyce 2019
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, Hong B, Livingstone-Banks J, Wheat H, Fanshawe TR. Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 6. Art. No: CD009670. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hollands 2010
    1. Hollands GJ, Hankins M, Marteau TM. Visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results for changing health behaviour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. Art. No: CD007434. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007434.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Hollands 2019
    1. Hollands GJ, Naughton F, Farley A, Lindson N, Aveyard P. Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 8. Art. No: CD009164. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009164.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Huibers 2007
    1. Huibers MJ, Beurskens A, Bleijenberg G, Schayck CP. Psychosocial interventions by general practitioners. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No: CD003494. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003494.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lancaster 2017
    1. Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. Art. No: CD001292. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001292.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Lindson 2019a
    1. Lindson N, Thompson TP, Ferrey A, Lambert JD, Aveyard P. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 7. Art. No: CD006936. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006936.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lindson 2019b
    1. Lindson N, Klemperer E, Hong B, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Aveyard P. Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 9. Art. No: CD013183. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013183.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Livingstone‐Banks 2019a
    1. Livingstone-Banks J, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Hartmann-Boyce J. Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 1. Art. No: CD001118. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001118.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Livingstone‐Banks 2019b
    1. Livingstone-Banks J, Norris E, Hartmann-Boyce J, West R, Jarvis M, Chubb E, et al. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No: CD003999. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Marteau 2010
    1. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Sutton S, Watkinson C, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. Art. No: CD007275. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007275.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Matkin 2019
    1. Matkin W, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Hartmann-Boyce J. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 5. Art. No: CD002850. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Maziak 2015
    1. Maziak W, Jawad M, Jawad S, Ward KD, Eissenberg T, Asfar T. Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. Art. No: CD005549. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005549.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Notley 2019
    1. Notley C, Gentry S, Livingstone-Banks J, Bauld L, Perera R, Hartmann-Boyce J. Incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 7. Art. No: CD004307. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Rice 2017
    1. Rice VH, Heath L, Livingstone-Banks J, Hartmann-Boyce J. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 12. Art. No: CD001188. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001188.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Stead 2013
    1. Stead LF, Buitrago D, Preciado N, Sanchez G, Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No: CD000165. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Stead 2017
    1. Stead LF, Carroll AJ, Lancaster T. Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. Art. No: CD001007. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Taylor 2017
    1. Taylor GM, Dalili MN, Semwal M, Civljak M, Sheikh A, Car J. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 9. Art. No: CD007078. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007078.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Thomsen 2014
    1. Thomsen T, Villebro N, Møller AM. Interventions for preoperative smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No: CD002294. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002294.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Tzelepis 2019
    1. Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Williams CM, Gilligan C, Regan T, Daly J, et al. Real-time video counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No: CD012659. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012659.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ussher 2019
    1. Ussher MH, Faulkner GE, Angus K, Hartmann-Boyce J, Taylor AH. Exercise interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No: CD002295. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002295.pub6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vodopivec‐Jamsek 2012
    1. Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Jongh T, Gurol-Urganci I, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging for preventive health care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. Art. No: CD007457. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007457.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Whittaker 2019
    1. Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Rodgers A, Gu Y, Dobson R. Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No: CD006611. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to excluded reviews

Cahill 2008
    1. Cahill K, Perera R. Quit and Win contests for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Art. No: CD004986. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004986.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Dale 2008
    1. Dale J, Caramlau IO, Lindenmeyer A, Williams SM. Peer support telephone calls for improving health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Art. No: CD006903. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006903.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Fanshawe 2017
    1. Fanshawe TR, Halliwell W, Lindson N, Aveyard P, Livingstone-Banks J, Hartmann-Boyce J. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 11. Art. No: CD003289. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Farley 2012
    1. Farley AC, Hajek P, Lycett D, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1. Art. No: CD006219. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006219.pub3] - DOI - PubMed

Additional references

An 2010
    1. An LC, Betzner A, Schillo B, Luxenberg MG, Christenson M, Wendling A, et al. The comparative effectiveness of clinic, work-site, phone, and web-based tobacco treatment programs. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2010;12(10):989-6. - PubMed
ASH 2016
    1. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). ASH briefing: health inequalities and smoking. ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/briefings/ash-briefing-health-inequ... (accessed 12 November 2018).
Barnett 2013
    1. Barnett PG, Wong W, Jeffers A, Munoz R, Humfleet G, Hall S. Cost-effectiveness of extended cessation treatment for older smokers. Addiction 2013;109(2):314-22. - PMC - PubMed
Bauld 2011
    1. Bauld L, Boyd KA, Briggs AH, Chesterman J, Ferguson J, Judge K, et al. One-year outcomes and a cost-effectiveness analysis for smokers accessing group-based and pharmacy-led cessation services. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2011;13(2):135-45. - PubMed
Begh 2011
    1. Begh RA, Aveyard P, Upton P, Shopal RS, White M, Amos A, et al. Promoting smoking cessation in Pakistani and Bangladeshi men in the UK: pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of trained community outreach workers. Trials 2011;12:197. - PMC - PubMed
Berndt 2016
    1. Berndt N, Bolman C, Lechner L, Max W, Mudde A, Vries H, et al. Economic evaluation of a telephone- and face-to-face-delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease. European Journal of Health Economics 2016;17(3):269-85. - PubMed
Black 2020
    1. Black N, Johnston M, Michie S, Hartmann-Boyce J, West R, Viechtbauer W, et al. Behaviour change techniques associated with smoking cessation in intervention and comparator groups of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-regression. Addiction 2020;115(11):2008-20. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Boyd 2009
    1. Boyd KA, Briggs AH. Cost-effectiveness of pharmacy and group behavioural support smoking cessation services in Glasgow. Addiction 2009;104(2):317-25. - PubMed
Brose 2011
    1. Brose LS, West R, McDermott MS, Fidler JA, Croghan E, McEwen A. What makes for an effective stop-smoking service? Thorax 2011;66(10):924-6. - PubMed
Cahill 2013
    1. Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta‐analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No: CD009329. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Calhoun 2016
    1. Calhoun PS, Datta S, Olsen M, Smith VA, Moore SD, Hair LP, et al. Comparative effectiveness of an internet-based smoking cessation intervention versus clinic-based specialty care for veterans. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2016;69:19-27. - PMC - PubMed
Chaiton 2016
    1. Chaiton M, Diemert L, Cohen JE, Bondy SJ, Selby P, Philipneri A, et al. Estimating the number of quit attempts it takes to quit smoking successfully in a longitudinal cohort of smokers. BMJ Open 2016;6(6):1-9. - PMC - PubMed
Clinical Practice Guideline 2008
    1. Clinical Practice Guideline Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence 2008 Update Panel, Liaisons, and Staff. A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. A U.S. Public Health Service report. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;35(2):158-76. - PMC - PubMed
Cromwell 2001
    1. Cromwell J, Bartosch WJ, Fiore MC, Hasselblad V, Baker T. Cost-effectiveness of the clinical practice recommendations in the AHCPR guideline for smoking cessation. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001;278(11):1759-66. - PubMed
de Bruin 2020
    1. Bruin M, Black N, Javornik N, Viechtbauer W, Eisma MC, Hartman-Boyce J, et al. Underreporting of the active content of behavioural interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of smoking cessation interventions. Health Psychology Review 2020;Epub ahead of print. [DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2019.1709098] - DOI - PubMed
Dino 2008
    1. Dino G, Horn K, Abdulkadri A, Kalsekar I, Branstetter S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Not On Tobacco program for adolescent smoking cessation. Prevention Science 2008;9(1):38-46. - PubMed
Dobbie 2015
    1. Dobbie F, Hiscock R, Leonardi-Bee J, Murray S, Shahab L, Aveyard P, et al. Evaluating Long-term Outcomes of NHS Stop Smoking Services (ELONS): a prospective cohort study. Health Technology Assessment 2015;19(95):1-156. - PMC - PubMed
Doll 2004
    1. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004;328(7455):1519. - PMC - PubMed
ERS 2013
    1. European Respiratory Society. European Lung White Book. Sheffield (UK): European Respiratory Society, 2013.
Feenstra 2005
    1. Feenstra TL, Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Hoogenveen RT, Rutten-van Molken MP. Cost-effectiveness of face-to-face smoking cessation interventions: a dynamic modeling study. Value Health 2005;8(3):178-90. - PubMed
Freeman 2018
    1. Freeman SC, Scott NW, Powell R, Johnston M, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ. Component network meta-analysis identifies the most effective components of psychological preparation for adults undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018;98:105-16. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.012] - DOI - PubMed
GBD 2016
    1. Global Burden of Disease 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017;390(10100):1345-422. - PMC - PubMed
Gilbert 2017
    1. Gilbert H, Sutton S, Morris R, Petersen I, Wu Q, Parrot S, et al. Start2quit: a randomised clinical controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS Stop Smoking Services. Health Technology Assessment 2017;21(3):1-206. - PMC - PubMed
Goodchild 2018
    1. Goodchild M, Nargis N, Tursan d'Espaignet E. Global economic cost of smoking-attributable diseases. Tobacco Control 2018;27:58-64. - PMC - PubMed
Hartmann‐Boyce 2014a
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, Stead LF, Cahill K, Lancaster T. Efficacy of interventions to combat tobacco addiction: Cochrane update of 2013 reviews. Addiction 2014;109(9):1414-25. - PubMed
Healey 2019
    1. Healey A, Roberts S, Sevdalis N, Goulding L, Wilson S, Shaw K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of stop smoking interventions in substance-use disorder populations. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2019;21(5):623-30. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
Javitz 2011
    1. Javitz HS, Zbikowski SM, Deprey M, McAfee TA, McClure JB, Richards J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of varenicline and three different behavioral treatment formats for smoking cessation. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2011;1(1):182-90. - PMC - PubMed
Lal 2014
    1. Lal A, Mihalopoulos C, Wallace A, Vos T. The cost-effectiveness of call-back counselling for smoking cessation. Tobacco Control 2014;23(5):437-42. - PubMed
Martín Cantera 2015
    1. Martín Cantera C, Puigdomènech E, Ballvé JL, Arias OL, Clemente L, Casas R, et al. Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in primary healthcare settings to promote continuous smoking cessation in adults: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008807. - PMC - PubMed
McGhan 1996
    1. McGhan WF, Smith MD. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of smoking-cessation interventions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 1996;53(1):45-52. - PubMed
Melendez‐Torres 2015
    1. Melendez-Torres GJ, Bonell C, Thomas J. Emergent approaches to the meta-analysis of multiple heterogeneous complex interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2015;15:47. - PMC - PubMed
Michie 2011
    1. Michie S, Hyder N, Walia A, West R. Development of a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in individual behavioural support for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviours 2011;36(4):315-9. - PubMed
Michie 2013
    1. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2013;46(1):81-95. - PubMed
Mons 2015
    1. Mons U, Müezzinler A, Gellert C, Schöttker B, Abnet CC, Bobak M, et al. Impact of smoking and smoking cessation on cardiovascular events and mortality among older adults: meta-analysis of individual participant data from prospective cohort studies of the CHANCES consortium. BMJ 2015;350:h1551. - PMC - PubMed
Mudde 1996
    1. Mudde AN, De Vries H, Strecher VJ. Cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation modalities: comparing apples with oranges? Preventive Medicine 1996;25(6):708-16. - PubMed
Müezzinler 2015
    1. Müezzinler A, Mons U, Gellert C, Schöttker B, Jansen E, Kee F, et al. Smoking and all-cause mortality in older adults: results from the CHANCES consortium. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;49(5):e53-63. - PubMed
NICE 2018
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stop smoking interventions and services. NICE guideline (NG92). www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng92 (accessed 29 July 2020). [www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng92]
Nohlert 2013
    1. Nohlert E, Helgason AR, Tillgren P, Tegelberg A, Johansson P. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a high and a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in Sweden: a randomized trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(9):1519-27. - PubMed
Ordóñez‐Mena 2016
    1. Ordóñez-Mena JM, Schöttker B, Mons U, Jenab M, Freisling H, Bueno-de-Mesquita B, et al. Quantification of the smoking-associated cancer risk with rate advancement periods: meta-analysis of individual participant data from cohorts of the CHANCES consortium. BMC Medicine 2016;14(1):62. - PMC - PubMed
Papadakis 2010
    1. Papadakis S, McDonald P, Mullen KA, Reid R, Skulsky K, Pipe A. Strategies to increase the delivery of smoking cessation treatments in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventative Medicine 2010;51:199-213. - PubMed
Pirie 2013
    1. Pirie K, Peto R, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V, Million Women Study Collaborators. The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK. Lancet 2013;12(381):9861. - PMC - PubMed
Pollock 2020
    1. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Popp 2018
    1. Popp J, Nyman JA, Luo X, Bengtson J, Lust K, An L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enhancing a Quit-and-Win smoking cessation program for college students. European Journal of Health Economics 2018;19(9):1319-33. - PubMed
Puhan 2014
    1. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Peterson R, Sing JA, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;349:g5630. - PubMed
R (version 4.0.0) [Computer program]
    1. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, Version 4.0.0. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020. Available at www.R-project.org.
Ruger 2008
    1. Ruger JP, Weinstein MC, Hammond SK, Kearney MH, Emmons KM. Cost-effectiveness of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation and relapse prevention among low-income pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. Value Health 2008;11(2):191-8. - PMC - PubMed
Shea 2017
    1. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4008] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shearer 2006
    1. Shearer J, Shanahan M. Cost effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2006;30(5):428-34. - PubMed
Shemilt 2020
    1. Shemilt I, Aluko P, Graybill E, Craig D, Henderson C, Drummond M, et al. Chapter 20: economics evidence. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook.
SIGN 2018
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network. Search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/search-filters.html (accessed 1 October 2018).
Smit 2013
    1. Smit ES, Evers SM, Vries H, Hoving C. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Internet-based computer tailoring for smoking cessation. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2013;15(3):e57. - PMC - PubMed
Stead 2016
    1. Stead LF, Koilpillai P, Fanshawe T, Lancaster T. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 3. Art. No: CD008286. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008286.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Sturtz 2005
    1. Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGSfrom R. Journal of Statistical Software 2005;12(3):1-16.
Tosanguan 2016
    1. Tosanguan J, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinical smoking cessation interventions in Thailand. Addiction 2016;111(2):340-50. - PubMed
Tsoi 2013
    1. Tsoi DT, Porwal M, Webster AC. Interventions for smoking cessation and reduction in individuals with schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No: CD007253. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007253.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
USDHHS 2014
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking – 50 Years of Progress: a Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.
van der Meer 2013
    1. Meer RM, Willemsen MC, Smit F, Cuijpers P. Smoking cessation interventions for smokers with current or past depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. Art. No: CD006102. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006102.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Vangeli 2011
    1. Vangeli E, Stapleton J, Smit ES, Borland R, West R. Predictors of attempts to stop smoking and their success in adult general population samples: a systematic review. Addiction 2011;106(12):2110-21. - PubMed
West 2005
    1. West R, Hajek P, Stead L, Stapleton J. Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005;100(3):299-303. - PubMed
West 2007
    1. West R. The clinical significance of 'small' effects of smoking cessation treatments. Addiction 2007;102:506-9. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01750.x] - DOI - PubMed
West 2013
    1. West R, May S, West M, Croghan E, McEwen A. Performance of English stop smoking services in first 10 years: analysis of service monitoring data. BMJ 2013;347:f4921. - PubMed
WHO 2018
    1. World Health Organization. World Health Organization fact sheets. Tobacco. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco (accessed 3 September 2018).
WinBUGS 2015 [Computer program]
    1. WinBUGS. Version 1.4.3. Cambridge (UK): Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, 2015. Available at www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/software/bugs/the-bugs-project-winbugs/.
Wu 2018
    1. Wu Q, Gilbert H, Nazareth I, Sutton S, Morris R, Petersen I, et al. Cost-effectiveness of personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS stop smoking services: the Start2quit randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2018;113(4):708-18. - PMC - PubMed
Yepes‐Nuñez 2019
    1. Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Li SA, Guyatt G, Jack SM, Brozek JL, Beyen J, et al. Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;115:1-13. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Hartmann‐Boyce 2018
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, Fanshawe TR, Lindson N, Livingstone-Banks J, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Aveyard P. Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 12. Art. No: CD013229. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013229] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources