Background and aims Behavioural smoking cessation trials have used comparators that vary considerably between trials. Although some previous meta‐analyses made attempts to account for variability in comparators, these relied on subsets of trials and incomplete data on comparators. This study aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness of (individual) smoking cessation interventions while accounting for variability in comparators using comprehensive data on experimental and comparator interventions. Methods A systematic review and meta‐regression was conducted including 172 randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months follow‐up and biochemically verified smoking cessation. Authors were contacted to obtain unpublished information. This information was coded in terms of active content and attributes of the study population and methods. Meta‐regression was used to create a model predicting smoking cessation outcomes. This model was used to re‐estimate intervention effects, as if all interventions have been evaluated against the same comparators. Outcome measures included log odds of smoking cessation for the meta‐regression models and smoking cessation differences and ratios to compare relative effectiveness. Results The meta‐regression model predicted smoking cessation rates well (pseudo R2 = 0.44). Standardising the comparator had substantial impact on conclusions regarding the (relative) effectiveness of trials and types of intervention. Compared with a ‘no support comparator’, self‐help was 1.33 times (95% CI = 1.16–1.49), brief physician advice 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.31–1.90), nurse individual counselling 1.76 times (95% CI = 1.62–1.90), psychologist individual counselling 2.04 times (95% CI = 1.95–2.15) and group psychologist interventions 2.06 times (95% CI = 1.92–2.20) more effective. Notably, more elaborate experimental interventions (e.g. psychologist counselling) were typically compared with more elaborate comparators, masking their effectiveness. Conclusions Comparator variability and underreporting of comparators obscures the interpretation, comparison and generalisability of behavioural smoking cessation trials. Comparator variability should, therefore, be taken into account when interpreting and synthesising evidence from trials. Otherwise, policymakers, practitioners and researchers may draw incorrect conclusions about the (cost) effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions and their constituent components. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.
BACKGROUND: Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I2 = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I2 = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I2 = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I2 = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I2 = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI), delivered in modes other than face-to-face individual counseling, in preventing and treating substance abuse related behaviors. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of alternative modes of MI (other than face-to-face individual counseling) in preventing and treating substance abuse. Eligible studies were rated on methodological quality and their findings were qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles (on 22 RCTs) were eligible for this review. Beyond face-to-face counseling, telephone was the most frequently used medium for delivering MI (11 studies), followed by Internet communication (4 studies) and short message service (SMS) (2 studies). Mail was incorporated as a supplement in one of the studies for telephone MI. In contrast to one-to-one individual counseling, group MI was adopted in 5 studies. The effectiveness of telephone MI in treating substance abuse was supported by all of the published RCTs we located. Internet-based MI was effective in preventing and treating alcoholism, but its outcome appeared to be inconsistent for smoking cessation and poor for abstinence from illicit drugs. SMS-based MI appeared to be useful for controlling tobacco and drinking. Group MI was attempted for quitting alcohol and drugs, with mixed findings on its outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, the studies reviewed indicate that telephone MI is a promising mode of intervention in treating and preventing substance abuse. The effectiveness of other alternative modes (SMS-based MI, Internet-based MI and group MI) remains inconclusive given the controversial findings and a limited number of studies. By synthesizing the currently available evidence, this systematic review suggested that telephone MI might be considered as an alternative to face-to-face MI for treating and preventing substance abuse. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of SMS-based MI, Internet MI, group MI and other alternative modes. Studies with methodological rigor and incorporating MI fidelity measures have great potential to advance the understanding in this field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.
BACKGROUND: Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear.
Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of behavioural interventions targeting diet, physical activity or smoking in low-income adults. Design: Systematic review with random effects meta-analyses. Studies before 2006 were identified from a previously published systematic review (searching 1995-2006) with similar but broader inclusion criteria (including non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs)). Studies from 2006 to 2014 were identified from eight electronic databases using a similar search strategy. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Cochrane Systematic Review and DARE. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: RCTs and cluster RCTs published from 1995 to 2014; interventions targeting dietary, physical activity and smoking; low-income adults; reporting of behavioural outcomes. Main outcome measures: Dietary, physical activity and smoking cessation behaviours. Results: 35 studies containing 45 interventions with 17 000 participants met inclusion criteria. At postintervention, effects were positive but small for diet (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29), physical activity (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.36) and smoking (relative risk (RR) of 1.59, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.89). Studies reporting follow-up results suggested that effects were maintained over time for diet (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.25) but not physical activity (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.37) or smoking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.34). Conclusions: Behaviour change interventions for lowincome groups had small positive effects on healthy eating, physical activity and smoking. Further work is needed to improve the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions for deprived populations.
BACKGROUND: The control and management of many oral health conditions highly depend on one's daily self-care practice and compliance to preventive and curative measures. Conventional (health) education (CE), focusing on disseminating information and giving normative advice, is insufficient to achieve sustained behavioral changes. A counseling approach, motivational interviewing (MI), is potentially useful in changing oral health behaviors. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of MI, in comparison with CE, in improving oral health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four databases (PubMed-Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effectiveness of MI, in comparison with CE, in changing oral health behaviors and improving oral health of dental patients and the public. The scientific quality of the studies was rated and their key findings were qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: The search yielded 221 potentially relevant papers, among which 20 papers (on 16 studies) met the eligibility criteria. The quality of the studies varied from 10 to 18, out of a highest possible score of 21. Concerning periodontal health, superior effect of MI on oral hygiene was found in five trials and was absent in two trials. Two trials targeting smoking cessation in adolescents failed to generate positive effect. MI outperformed CE in improving at least one outcome in four studies on preventing early childhood caries, one study on adherence to dental appointment and two studies on abstinence of illicit drugs and alcohol use to prevent the reoccurrence of facial injury. CONCLUSION: Reviewed randomized controlled trials showed varied success of MI in improving oral health. The potential of MI in dental healthcare, especially on improving periodontal health, remains controversial. Further studies with methodological rigor are needed for a better understanding of the roles of MI in dental practice.
Background and aims Behavioural smoking cessation trials have used comparators that vary considerably between trials. Although some previous meta‐analyses made attempts to account for variability in comparators, these relied on subsets of trials and incomplete data on comparators. This study aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness of (individual) smoking cessation interventions while accounting for variability in comparators using comprehensive data on experimental and comparator interventions. Methods A systematic review and meta‐regression was conducted including 172 randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months follow‐up and biochemically verified smoking cessation. Authors were contacted to obtain unpublished information. This information was coded in terms of active content and attributes of the study population and methods. Meta‐regression was used to create a model predicting smoking cessation outcomes. This model was used to re‐estimate intervention effects, as if all interventions have been evaluated against the same comparators. Outcome measures included log odds of smoking cessation for the meta‐regression models and smoking cessation differences and ratios to compare relative effectiveness. Results The meta‐regression model predicted smoking cessation rates well (pseudo R2 = 0.44). Standardising the comparator had substantial impact on conclusions regarding the (relative) effectiveness of trials and types of intervention. Compared with a ‘no support comparator’, self‐help was 1.33 times (95% CI = 1.16–1.49), brief physician advice 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.31–1.90), nurse individual counselling 1.76 times (95% CI = 1.62–1.90), psychologist individual counselling 2.04 times (95% CI = 1.95–2.15) and group psychologist interventions 2.06 times (95% CI = 1.92–2.20) more effective. Notably, more elaborate experimental interventions (e.g. psychologist counselling) were typically compared with more elaborate comparators, masking their effectiveness. Conclusions Comparator variability and underreporting of comparators obscures the interpretation, comparison and generalisability of behavioural smoking cessation trials. Comparator variability should, therefore, be taken into account when interpreting and synthesising evidence from trials. Otherwise, policymakers, practitioners and researchers may draw incorrect conclusions about the (cost) effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions and their constituent components. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
