Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Asesoramiento conductual individual para el abandono del hábito de fumar

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 31 marzo 2017
Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Ir a:

Ahluwalia 2006 {published data only}

Ahluwalia JS, Okuyemi K, Nollen N, Choi WS, Kaur H, Pulvers K, et al. The effects of nicotine gum and counseling among African American light smokers: A 2 x 2 factorial design. Addiction 2006;101:883‐91.
Nollen NL, Mayo MS, Sanderson CL, Okuyemi KS, Choi WS, Kaur H, et al. Predictors of quitting among African American light smokers enrolled in a randomized, placebo‐controlled trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2006;21:590‐5.
Okuyemi KS, Cox LS, Nollen NL, Snow TM, Kaur H, Choi W, et al. Baseline characteristics and recruitment strategies in a randomized clinical trial of African‐American light smokers. American Journal of Health Promotion 2007;21:183‐91.
Okuyemi KS, Faseru B, Sanderson CL, Bronars CA, Ahluwalia JS. Relationship between menthol cigarettes and smoking cessation among African American light smokers. Addiction 2007;102:1979‐86.
Okuyemi KS, Pulvers KM, Cox LS, Thomas JL, Kaur H, Mayo MS, et al. Nicotine dependence among African American light smokers: a comparison of three scales. Addictive Behaviors 2007;32:1989‐2002.

Aleixandre 1998 {published data only}

Aleixandre ME, Mitjans JF, Casanova MA, Sanchez J, Belloch A. Clinical trial of two interventions of tobacco cessation in primary care. Atencion Primaria 1996;18(Suppl 1):212.
Aleixandre i Marti E, Casanova Matutano MA, Mitjans Lafont J, Sanchez Monfort J, Sanmartin Almenar A. Clinical trial of two tobacco use cessation interventions in primary care [Ensayo clinico de dos intervenciones de deshabituacion tabaquica en atencion primaria]. Atencion Primaria 1998;22:424‐8.

Alterman 2001 {published data only}

Alterman AI, Gariti P, Mulvaney F. Short‐ and long‐term smoking cessation for three levels of intensity of behavioral treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2001;15:261‐4.

Aveyard 2007 {published data only}

Aveyard P, Brown K, Saunders C, Alexander A, Johnstone E, Munafo MR, et al. Weekly versus basic smoking cessation support in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2007;62:898‐903.
Greaves C. Smoking cessation trial may be missing the point.[comment]. Thorax 2008;63:291‐2.

Bobo 1998 {published data only}

Bobo JK, McIlvain HE, Lando HA, Walker RD, Leed Kelly A. Effect of smoking cessation counseling on recovery from alcoholism: findings from a randomized community intervention trial. Addiction 1998;93:877‐87. [MEDLINE: 98416786]
Leed Kelly A, Russell KS, Bobo JK, McIlvain H. Feasibility of smoking cessation counseling by phone with alcohol treatment center graduates. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1996;13:203‐10. [MEDLINE: 97170019]

Bronson 1989 {published data only}

Bronson DL, Flynn BS, Solomon LJ, Vacek PM, Secker‐Walker RH. Smoking cessation counselling during periodic health examinations. Archives of Internal Medicine 1989;149:1653‐6.
Secker‐Walker RH, Lynn BS, Solomon LJ, Vacek PM, Bronson DL. Predictors of smoking behavior change 6 and 18 months after individual counseling during periodic health examinations. Preventive Medicine 1990;19:675‐85.

Burling 1991 {published data only}

Burling TA, Marshall GD, Seidner AL. Smoking cessation for substance abuse inpatients. Journal of Substance Abuse 1991;3:269‐76.

Burling 2001 {published data only}

Burling TA, Burling AS, Latini D. A controlled smoking cessation trial for substance‐dependent inpatients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2001;69:295‐304.

Dornelas 2000 {published data only}

Dornelas EA, Sampson RA, Gray JF, Waters D, Thompson PD. A randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation counseling after myocardial infarction. Preventive Medicine 2000;30:261‐8.

Fiore 2004 {published data only}

Fiore MC, McCarthy DE, Jackson TC, Zehner ME, Jorenby DE, Mielke M, et al. Integrating smoking cessation treatment into primary care: An effectiveness study. Preventive Medicine 2004;38:412‐20.

Glasgow 2000 {published data only}

Glasgow RE, Whitlock EP, Eakin EG, Lichtenstein E. A brief smoking cessation intervention for women in low‐income planned parenthood clinics. American Journal of Public Health 2000;90:786‐9.

Hennrikus 2005 {published data only}

Hennrikus D, Lando HA, McCarty MC, Vessey JT. The effectiveness of a systems approach to smoking cessation in hospital inpatients. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 7th Annual Meeting March 23‐23 Seattle Washington. 2001:47.
Hennrikus DJ, Lando HA, McCarty MC, Klevan D, Holtan N, Huebsch JA, et al. The TEAM project: the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions with hospital patients. Preventive Medicine 2005;40:249‐58.
Lando H, Hennrikus D, McCarty M, Vessey J. Predictors of quitting in hospitalized smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2003;5:215‐22.

Jorenby 1995 {published data only}

Jorenby DE, Smith SS, Fiore MC, Hurt RD, Offord KP, Croghan IT, et al. Varying nicotine patch dose and type of smoking cessation counseling. JAMA 1995;274:1347‐52.

Kim 2005 {published data only}

Kim JR, Lee MS, Hwang JY, Lee JD. Efficacy of a smoking cessation intervention using the AHCPR guideline tailored for Koreans: a randomized controlled trial. Health Promotion International 2005;20:51‐9.

Lifrak 1997 {published data only}

Lifrak P, Gariti P, Alterman AI, McKay J, Volpicelli J, Sparkman T, et al. Results of two levels of adjunctive treatment used with the nicotine patch. American Journal on Addictions 1997;6:93‐8.

McCarthy 2008 {published data only}

McCarthy DE. Mechanisms of tobacco cessation treatment: Self‐report mediators of counseling and bupropion sustained release treatment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2007;67(9‐B):5414.
McCarthy DE, Piasecki TM, Lawrence DL, Jorenby DE, Shiffman S, Fiore MC, et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial of bupropion SR and individual smoking cessation counseling. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10:717‐29.

Molyneux 2003 {published data only}

Molyneux A, Lewis S, Leivers U, Anderton A, Antoniak M, Brackenridge A, et al. Clinical trial comparing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) plus brief counselling, brief counselling alone, and minimal intervention on smoking cessation in hospital inpatients. Thorax 2003;58:484‐8.

Nakamura 2004 {published data only}

Nakamura M, Masui S, Oshima A, Okayama A, Ueshima H. Effects of stage‐matched repeated individual counseling on smoking cessation: A randomized controlled trial for the High‐risk Strategy by Lifestyle Modification (HISLIM) study. Environmental Health & Preventive Medicine 2004;9(4):152‐60.

Ockene 1992 {published data only}

Ockene JK, Kristeller J, Goldberg R, Ockene IS, Merriam P, Barrett S, et al. Smoking cessation and severity of disease: The coronary artery smoking intervention study. Health Psychology 1992;11:119‐26.
Rosal MC, Ockene JK, Ma YS, Hebert JR, Ockene IS, Merriam P, et al. Coronary Artery Smoking Intervention Study (CASIS): 5‐year Follow‐up. Health Psychology 1998;17(5):476‐8.

Pedersen 2005 {published data only}

Pedersen L, Johansen S, Eksten L. [Smoking cessation among patients with acute heart disease. A randomised intervention project]. [Danish]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 2005;167(33):3044‐7.

Pederson 1991 {published data only}

Pederson LL, Wanklin JM, Lefcoe NM. The effects of counseling on smoking cessation among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of the Addictions 1991;26:107‐19.

Rigotti 1997 {published data only}

Rigotti NA, Arnsten JH, McKool KM, WoodReid KM, Pasternak RC, Singer DE. Efficacy of a smoking cessation program for hospital patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 1997;157:2653‐60.

Schmitz 1999 {published data only}

Schmitz JM, Spiga R, Rhoades HM, Fuentes F. Smoking cessation in women with cardiac risk: a comparative study of two theoretically based therapies. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 1999;1:87‐94.

Simon 1997 {published data only}

Simon JA, Solkowitz SN, Carmody TP, Browner WS. Smoking cessation after surgery ‐ A randomized trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 1997;157:1371‐6.

Simon 2003 {published data only}

Simon JA, Carmody TP, Hudes ES, Snyder E, Murray J. Intensive smoking cessation counseling versus minimal counseling among hospitalized smokers treated with transdermal nicotine replacement: a randomized trial. American Journal of Medicine 2003;114:555‐62.

Stevens 1993 {published data only}

Meenan RT, Stevens VJ, Hornbrook MC, LaChance PA, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of a hospital‐based smoking cessation intervention. Medical Care 1998;36:670‐8. [MEDLINE: 1998255497]
Stevens VJ, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, Lichtenstein E, Vogt TM. A smoking‐cessation intervention for hospital patients. Medical Care 1993;31:65‐72. [MEDLINE: 1993108828]

Tonnesen 2006 {published data only}

Tonnesen P, Mikkelsen K, Bremann L. Nurse‐conducted smoking cessation in patients with COPD using nicotine sublingual tablets and behavioral support. Chest 2006;130(2):334‐42.

Weissfeld 1991 {published data only}

Weissfeld JL, Holloway JL. Treatment for cigarette smoking in a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic. Archives of Internal Medicine 1991;151:973‐7. [MEDLINE: 1991221915]

Wiggers 2006 {published data only}

Wiggers LC, Oort FJ, Dijkstra A, de Haes JC, Legemate DA, Smets EM. Cognitive changes in cardiovascular patients following a tailored behavioral smoking cessation intervention. Preventive Medicine 2005;40:812‐21.
Wiggers LC, Smets EM, Oort FJ, Peters RJ, Storm‐Versloot MN, Vermeulen H, et al. The effect of a minimal intervention strategy in addition to nicotine replacement therapy to support smoking cessation in cardiovascular outpatients: a randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 2006;13:931‐7.
Wiggers LC, Smets EM, Oort FJ, Storm‐Versloot MN, Vermeulen H, van Loenen LB, et al. Adherence to nicotine replacement patch therapy in cardiovascular patients. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2006;13:79‐88.
Wiggers LCW, Oort FJ, Peters RJG, Legemate DA, de Haes HCJM, Smets EMA. Smoking cessation may not improve quality of life in atherosclerotic patients. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006;8(4):581‐9.

Windsor 1988 {published data only}

Windsor RA, Lowe JB, Bartlett EE. The effectiveness of a worksite self‐help smoking cessation program: a randomized trial. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 1988;11:407‐21.

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Ir a:

Alonso‐Pérez 2007 {published data only}

Alonso‐Pérez F, Secades‐Villa R, Duarte CG. Are psychological treatments effective to stop smoking? [Son eficientes los tratamientos psicológicos para dejar de fumar?]. Trastornos Adictivos 2007;9(1):21‐30.

Bolman 2002 {published data only}

Bolman C, De Vries H, van Breukelen G. A minimal‐contact intervention for cardiac inpatients: long‐term effects on smoking cessation. Preventive Medicine 2002;35(2):181‐92.

Borrelli 2005 {published data only}

Borrelli B, Novak S, Hecht J, Emmons K, Papandonatos G, Abrams D. Home health care nurses as a new channel for smoking cessation treatment: outcomes from project CARES (Community‐nurse Assisted Research and Education on Smoking). Preventive Medicine 2005;41(5‐6):815‐21.

Camarelles 2002 {published data only}

Camarelles F, Asensio A, Jimenez‐Ruiz C, Becerril B, Rodero D, Vidaller O. [Effectiveness of a group therapy intervention to quit smoking. Randomized clinical trial]. Medicina Clinica ‐ Barcelona 2002;119(2):53‐7.

Canga 2000 {published data only}

Canga N, De Irala J, Vara E, Duaso MJ, Ferrer A, Martinez‐Gonzalez MA. Intervention study for smoking cessation in diabetic patients ‐ A randomized controlled trial in both clinical and primary care settings. Diabetes Care 2000;23(10):1455‐60.

Colby 1998 {published data only}

Colby SM, Monti PM, Barnett NP, Rohsenow DJ, Weissman K, Spirito A, et al. Brief motivational interviewing in a hospital setting for adolescent smoking: a preliminary study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998;66(3):574‐8.

Emmons 2001 {published data only}

Emmons KM, Hammond SK, Fava JL, Velicer WF, Evans JL, Monroe AD. A randomized trial to reduce passive smoke exposure in low‐income households with young children. Pediatrics 2001;108:18‐24.

Froelicher 2004 {published data only}

Froelicher ESS, Miller NH, Christopherson DJ, Martin K, Parker KM, Amonetti M, et al. High rates of sustained smoking cessation in women hospitalized with cardiovascular disease ‐ The Women's Initiative for Nonsmoking (WINS). Circulation 2004;109:587‐93.

Gifford 2004 {published data only}

Gifford EV, Kohlenberg BS, Hayes SC, Antonuccio DO, Piasecki MM, Rasmussen Hall ML, et al. Acceptance‐based treatment for smoking cessation. Behavior Therapy 2004;35(4):689‐705.

Hilberink 2005 {published data only}

Hilberink SR, Jacobs JE, Bottema BJ, de Vries H, Grol RP. Smoking cessation in patients with COPD in daily general practice (SMOCC): six months' results. Preventive Medicine 2005;41(5‐6):822‐7.

Hyman 2007 {published data only}

Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN, Taylor WC, Goodrick GK, Moye L. Simultaneous vs sequential counseling for multiple behavior change. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167(11):1152‐8.

Kadowaki 2000 {published data only}

Kadowaki T, Watanabe M, Okayama A, Hishida K, Ueshima H. Effectiveness of smoking‐cessation intervention in all of the smokers at a worksite in Japan. Industrial Health 2000;38(4):396‐403.

Lando 1992 {published data only}

Lando HA, Hellerstedt WL, Pirie PL, McGovern PG. Brief supportive telephone outreach as a recruitment and intervention strategy for smoking cessation. American Journal of Public Health 1992;82:41‐6. [MEDLINE: 1992161042]

Lopez 2007 {published data only}

Lopez ML, Iglesias JM, Del Valle MO, Comas A, Fernandez JM, de Vries H, et al. Impact of a primary care intervention on smoking, drinking, diet, weight, sun exposure, and work risk in families with cancer experience. Cancer Causes & Control 2007;18(5):525‐35.

Malchodi 2003 {published data only}

Malchodi CS, Oncken C, Dornelas EA, Caramanica L, Gregonis E, Curry SL. The effects of peer counseling on smoking cessation and reduction. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;101(3):504‐10.

Marks 2002 {published data only}

Marks DF, Sykes CM. Randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for smokers living in a deprived area of London: Outcome at one‐year follow‐up. Psychology, Health and Medicine 2002;7:17‐24.

Mildestvedt 2007 {published data only}

Mildestvedt T, Meland E, Eide GE. No difference in lifestyle changes by adding individual counselling to group‐based rehabilitation RCT among coronary heart disease patients. Scandinavian Journal Of Public Health 2007;35(6):591‐8.

Mooney 2007 {published data only}

Mooney ME, Sayre SL, Hokanson PS, Stotts AL, Schmitz JM. Adding MEMS feedback to behavioral smoking cessation therapy increases compliance with bupropion: A replication and extension study. Addictive Behaviors 2007;32(4):875‐80.

Niaura 1999 {published data only}

Niaura R, Abrams DB, Shadel WG, Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM, Sirota AD. Cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention: A controlled clinical trial. Addiction 1999;94(5):685‐96.

Okuyemi 2006 {published data only}

Okuyemi KS, Thomas JL, Hall S, Nollen NL, Richter KP, Jeffries SK, et al. Smoking cessation in homeless populations: A pilot clinical trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006;8(5):689‐99.

Rabkin 1984 {published data only}

Kaufert JM, Rabkin SW, Syrotuik J, Boyko E, Shane F. Health beliefs as predictors of success of alternate modalities of smoking cessation: results of a controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 1986;9:475‐89.
Rabkin SW, Boyko E, Shane F, Kaufert J. A randomized trial comparing smoking cessation programs utilizing behaviour modification, health education or hypnosis. Addictive Behaviors 1984;9:157‐73. [MEDLINE: 1984253195]

Rodriguez 2003 {published data only}

Rodriguez‐Artalejo F, Lafuente‐Urdinguio P, Guallar‐Castillon P, Garteizaurrekoa‐Dublang P, Sainz‐Martinez O, Diez‐Azcarate JI, et al. One‐year effectiveness of an individualized smoking cessation intervention at the workplace: a randomized controlled trial.. Occupational Environmental Medicine 2003;60(5):358‐63.

Sanz‐Pozo 2006 {published data only}

Sanz Pozo B, Miguel Diaz J, Aragon Blanco M, Gonzalez Gonzalez AI, Cortes Catalan M, Vazquez I. [Effectiveness of non‐pharmacological primary care methods for giving up tobacco dependency] (Spanish) [Efectividad de los métodos no farmacológicos para la deshabituación tabáquica en atención primaria]. Atencion Primaria 2003;32(6):366‐70.
Sanz‐Pozo B, Miguel‐Diez J, Anegon‐Blanco M, Garcia‐Carballo M, Gomez‐Suarez E, Fernandez‐Dominguez JF. [Effectiveness of a programme of intensive tobacco counselling by nursing professionals] (Spanish) [Efectividad de un programa de consejo antitabaco intensivo realizado por profesionales de enfermería]. Atencion Primaria 2006;37:266‐72.

Schnoll 2005 {published data only}

Schnoll RA, Rothman RL, Wielt DB, Lerman C, Pedri H, Wang H, et al. A randomized pilot study of cognitive‐behavioral therapy versus basic health education for smoking cessation among cancer patients. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2005;30:1‐11.

Schwartz 1967 {published data only}

Schwartz JL, Dubitzky M. Clinical reduction of smoking: a California study. Addiction 1967;14:35‐44.

Sherman 2007 {published data only}

Sherman SE, Estrada M, Lanto AB, Farmer MM, Aldana I. Effectiveness of an on‐call counselor at increasing smoking treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007;22(8):1125‐31.

Soria 2006 {published data only}

Soria R, Legido A, Escolano C, Yeste AL, Montoya J. A randomised controlled trial of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. British Journal of General Practice 2006;56(531):768‐74.

Stein 2006 {published data only}

Stein MD, Weinstock MC, Anderson BJ, Anthony JL. Relationship of depression to smoking outcomes in a methadone‐maintained population. Journal of Addictive Diseases 2007;26(1):35‐40.
Stein MD, Weinstock MC, Herman DS, Anderson BJ, Anthony JL, Niaura R. A smoking cessation intervention for the methadone‐maintained. Addiction 2006;101(4):599‐607.

Stevens 2000 {published data only}

Stevens VJ, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, Mount K. Implementation and effectiveness of a brief smoking‐cessation intervention for hospital patients. Medical Care 2000;38:451‐9.

Williams 2006 {published data only}

Figueroa‐Moseley CD, Williams GC, Morrow GR, Jean‐Pierre P, Carroll J, Ryan J. Empowered to stop smoking: The impact of a SDT smoking cessation intervention on economically disadvantaged whites and blacks. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006;24(18 Suppl):51S.
Williams GC, McGregor H, Sharp D, Kouides RW, Levesque CS, Ryan RM, et al. A self‐determination multiple risk intervention trial to improve smokers' health. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2006;21(12):1288‐94.
Williams GC, McGregor HA, Sharp D, Levesque C, Kouides RW, Ryan RM, et al. Testing a Self‐Determination Theory Intervention for Motivating Tobacco Cessation: Supporting Autonomy and Competence in a Clinical Trial. Health Psychology 2006;25:91‐101.
Williams GC, Minicucci DS, Kouides RW, Levesque CS, Chirkov VI, Ryan RM, et al. Self‐determination, smoking, diet and health. Health Education Research 2002;17(5):512‐21.

Woodruff 2002 {published data only}

Woodruff SI, Talavera GA, Elder JP. Evaluation of a culturally appropriate smoking cessation intervention for Latinos. Tobacco Control 2002;11(4):361‐7.

Niaura 2004 {published data only}

Niaura R, Richardson EE, Stanton C, Carton‐Lopez S, Morrow K, Shadel W. Motivation and patch treatment for HIV‐positive smokers: psychosocial barriers to cessation (POS1‐057). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting February 18‐21, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004.

AHCPR 1996

Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Smoking Cessation. Clinical Practice Guideline No 18. AHCPR Publication No. 96‐0692. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, April 1996.

Cahill 2008

Cahill K, Moher M, Lancaster T. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4.

Fiore 2000

Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence. A Clinical Practice Guideline. AHRQ publication No. 00‐0032. Rockville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Services, 2000.

Fiore 2008

Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, May 2008.

Greenland 1985

Greenland S, Robbins J. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow‐up data. Biometrics 1985;41:55‐68.

Higgins 2003

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analysis. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60.

Lancaster 2005

Lancaster T, Stead LF. Self‐help interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001118.pub2]

Lumley 2004

Lumley J, Oliver SS, Chamberlain C, Oakley L. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub2]

Meenan 1998

Meenan RT, Stevens VJ, Hornbrook MC, La Chance PA, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of a hospital‐based smoking cessation intervention. Medical Care 1998;36:670‐8.

Rice 2008

Rice VH, Stead LF. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001188.pub3]

Rigotti 2007

Rigotti N, Munafo MR, Stead LF. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub2]

Stead 2005

Stead LF, Lancaster T. Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub2]

Stead 2006

Stead LF, Perera T, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub2]

Stead 2008a

Stead LF, Bergson G, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub3]

Stead 2008b

Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub3]

Sutherland 2003

Sutherland G. Evidence for counseling effectiveness in smoking cessation. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Monograph 2003;18(1):22‐34.

Yusuf 1985

Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 1985;27:335‐71.

Referencias de otras versiones publicadas de esta revisión

Ir a:

Lancaster 2002

Lancaster TR, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001292]

Lancaster 2005b

Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001292.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Ahluwalia 2006

Methods

Setting: Community health centre, USA
Recruitment: community volunteers interested in quitting

Participants

755 African American light smokers (<= 10 cpd)
67% female, av. age 45, av. cpd 8
Therapists: trained counsellors

Interventions

Factorial trial, 2mg nicotine gum/placebo arms collapsed for this review
1. Counselling using Motivational Interviewing (MI) approach. 3 in‐person visits at randomization, wk1, wk8, and phone contact at wk3, wk6, wk16, S‐H materials.
2. Counselling using Health education (HE) approach. Same schedule & materials as 1.

Outcomes

PP abstinence at 6m (7 day PP)
Validation: cotinine <=20 ng/ml

Notes

New for 2008. Not in main analysis; compares two counselling styles. No significant effect of gum, no evidence of interaction.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Centrally generated blocked scheme, block size 36

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

Sealed envelopes opened sequentially

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff & participants blind to pharmacotherapy but not to type of counselling

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

118 (15.6%) lost to follow‐up included in ITT analysis. HE participants less likely to be lost. Alternative assumptions about losses did not alter conclusions. Low level of cotinine validation.

Aleixandre 1998

Methods

Setting: Primary care clinic, Spain
Recruitment: clinic & community volunteers

Participants

48 smokers (excludes 6 dropouts)
65% female, av. age 36, av. cpd 24‐27
Therapist: unclear, primary care clinic staff

Interventions

1. 'Advanced', 4 x30 min over 4 wks, video, cognitive therapy, social influences, relapse prevention
2. 'Minimal' 3 min advice immediately after randomization

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m
Validation: no biochemical validation

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Stratified on cigarette consumption & age, block size 4.

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff not blind, unclear for participants

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

6 post‐randomization dropouts excluded from ITT analyses. Their inclusion would marginally increase effect size.

Alterman 2001

Methods

Setting: cessation clinic, USA
Recruitment: community volunteers

Participants

240 smokers of > 1 pack/day
45‐54% female, av. age 40, av. cpd 27
Therapists: Nurse practitioners (NP) and trained counsellors

Interventions

All interventions included 8 wks nicotine patch (21 mg with weaning)
1. Low intensity. Single session with NP.
2. Moderate intensity. as 1 plus additional 3 sessions at wks 3,6,9 with NP.
3. High intensity. As 2. + 12 sessions cognitive behavioural therapy with trained therapist within 15 wks.

Outcomes

Abstinence at 1 yr
Validation: urine cotinine < 50ng/ml, CO <= 9ppm

Notes

3 vs 2+1 in intensive versus minimal intervention, but sensitivity analysis.
Quit rates significantly lower in 2 than 1 or 3

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'Urn technique'

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given. Allocation took place after baseline session common to all conditions

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff not blind, unclear for participants

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

30 (12.5%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis
Aveyard 2007

Methods

Setting: 26 general practices (primary care clinics), UK
Recruitment: 92% volunteers in response to mailings

Participants

925 smokers
51% female, av. age 43, 50% smoked 11‐20 cpd
Therapists: Practice nurses trained to provide cessation support & manage NRT

Interventions

Both interventions included 8 wks 16mg nicotine patch
1. Basic support; 1 visit (20‐40 mins) before quit attempt, phone call on TQD, visits/phone calls at 7‐14 days & at 21‐28 days (10‐20 mins)
2. Weekly support; as 1. plus additional call at 10 days & visits at 14 & 21 days

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m (sustained at 1, 4, 12, 26 wks)
Validation: CO <10ppm at treatment visits, saliva cotinine <15ng/ml at follow ups

Notes

New for 2008 update. Not in main analysis; compares higher and lower intensity counselling. Therapists were not full time specialist counsellors.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Random number generator

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

Numbered sealed envelopes

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff making follow‐up calls were blind

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

288 (31%) lost to follow up, similar across groups, included in ITT analysis
Bobo 1998

Methods

Setting: 12 residential centres for alcohol/drug treatment, USA
Recruitment: inpatient volunteers

Participants

(50 participants in each of 12 sites)
67% male, av. age 33
50% smoked >1 pack/day
Therapists: centre staff for 1st session, trained counsellors for telephone sessions

Interventions

1. 4 x10‐15min sessions. 1st during inpatient stay. 3 by telephone, 8, 12, 16 wks post‐discharge.
2. No intervention 

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m post discharge (7 day PP)
Validation: saliva cotinine, but validated quit rates not reported
(A primary outcome for the study was alcohol abstinence) 

Notes

Cluster‐randomized, so individual data not used in primary meta‐analysis. Entered into a secondary analysis using inverse variance method, using adjusted OR 1.02 (CI 0.50 to 2.49) 

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

High risk

Matched pairs of centres allocated by coin toss, 2 centres declined participation after allocation

Allocation concealment?

High risk

Cluster randomized with participant recruitment (by research team) after centre allocation so potential for selection bias

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff not blind, unclear for participants

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

22% lost to follow up. Including them as smokers made little difference to estimates
Bronson 1989

Methods

Setting: internal medicine practice, USA
Recruitment: attenders for periodic health examinations

Participants

155 smokers
38%m , av. age 42, av. cpd 25
Therapist: smoking cessation counsellor

Interventions

1. Two 20 min counselling sessions during a periodic health examination (benefits of quitting, assessment of motivation, quit plan, high risk/problem solving)
2. Control (completed smoking behaviour questionnaire)
Physicians carrying out health examinations were blind to group assignment and would have given similar advice to all participants.

Outcomes

Abstinence at 18m (sustained from 6‐18m)
Validation: no biochemical validation at 18m, limited sample for saliva cotinine at 6m

Notes

18m data reported in Secker‐Walker 1990

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Randomized, method not described

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Physicians blind, counsellor not blind, participants probably blind,

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

20 (13%) not contacted at 6 & 18m, included in ITT analysis.
Burling 1991

Methods

Setting: Inpatient substance abuse treatment centre, USA
Recruitment: inpatient volunteers

Participants

39 male veteran inpatients
Therapist: paraprofessional counsellor (Social Work Master's candidate)

Interventions

1. Smoking cessation programme; daily 15 min counselling session and computer‐guided nicotine fading with contingency contract
2. Wait list control.

Outcomes

Abstinence 6m after discharge
Validation ‐ none ‐ no self‐reported quitters at 6m

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Randomized, method not described

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff not blind, participants unclear

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Loss to follow up not reported
Burling 2001

Methods

Setting: Inpatient Veterans rehabilitation centre, USA
Recruitment: inpatient volunteers

Participants

150 veteran drug‐ & alcohol‐dependent smokers.
95%m, av. age 40, av. cpd 17
Therapists: Masters/Doctoral level counsellors

Interventions

All participants were receiving standard substance abuse treatment, smoking banned in building.
1. Multicomponent. 9 wk programme; 7 wk daily counselling, 2 wk biweekly. Target quit wk 5. Nicotine fading, contingency contracting, relapse prevention, coping skills practice. Nicotine patch (14 mg) 4 wks.
2. As 1, but skills generalized to drug & alcohol relapse prevention.
3. Usual care. Other programmes & NRT available

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m (sustained at 1, 3, 6m follow ups)
Continuous abstinence rates taken from graph & abstract. PP rates also reported
Validation: CO & cotinine

Notes

1+2 vs 3
Using PP rates would give lower estimate of treatment effect.
No significant difference between 1 &2, but favoured 1.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Randomized, method not described

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff not blind, participants unclear

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

12 (8%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis
Dornelas 2000

Methods

Setting: Hospital inpatients, USA
Recruitment: Acute MI patients (not selected for motivation to quit)

Participants

100 MI patients (98% smoked in previous wk)
23% female, aged 27‐83, av cpd 29
Therapist: Psychologist

Interventions

1. 8 x20 min sessions, 1st during hospitalisation, 7 by phone (<1, 4, 8, 12, 20 & 26 wks post‐discharge). Stage of change model, motivational interviewing, relapse prevention.
2. Minimal care. Recommended to watch online patient education video, referral to local resources.

Outcomes

Sustained abstinence at 1 yr (no smoking since discharge)
Validation: household member confirmation for 70%. 1 discrepancy found

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

'drawing random numbers from an envelope'

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information on blinding

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

20 (20%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis
Fiore 2004

Methods

Setting: Primary care patients, 16 clinics, USA
Recruitment: Clinic attenders willing to accept treatment

Participants

961 smokers of >=10 cpd. (A further 908 were allowed to select treatment. Demographic details based on 1869)
58% female, av. age 40, av. cpd 22
Therapists: Trained cessation counsellors

Interventions

(Self‐selected group of factorial trial not included in meta‐analysis)
1. Nicotine patch, 22mg, 8 wks incl tapering.
2. As 1 plus Committed Quitters programme, single telephone session and tailored S‐H.
3. As 2 plus individual counselling, 4 x 15‐25 min sessions, pre‐quit, ˜TQD, next 2 wks

Outcomes

Continuous abstinence at 1 yr (no relapse lasting 7 days), also PP.
Validation: CO, cut‐off not specified. 2 discordant

Notes

3 versus 1&2 used in meta‐analysis. More conservative than 3 versus 2.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Randomized, method not described

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information on blinding

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

Denominators in meta‐analysis based on numbers who collected patches (85%, similar across arms).

Glasgow 2000

Methods

Setting: 4 Planned Parenthood clinics, USA
Recruitment: Clinic attenders, unselected for motivation

Participants

1154 female smokers
Av. age 24, av. cpd 12
Therapists: 4 hours training

Interventions

Both groups received 20 sec provider advice.
1. Video (9 min) targeted at young women. 12‐15 min counselling session, personalized strategies, stage‐targeted S‐H materials. Offered telephone support call
2. Generic S‐H materials

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6m (for 30 days)
Validation: saliva cotinine <= 10ng/ml

Notes

26% did not want telephone component, 31% of remainder not reached.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Randomized, block size 4, fixed schedule

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

10% loss to follow up included in ITT analysis
Hennrikus 2005

Methods

Setting: 4 hospitals, USA
Recruitment: Newly admitted inpatients invited to participate, not selected by motivation

Participants

2095 current smokers
53% female, av. age 47, cpd NS, 15‐20% precontemplators
Therapists: research nurses with 12 hours training

Interventions

1. Control: modified usual care: smoking cessation booklet in hospital (not used in meta‐analysis).
2. Brief advice (A): as control, plus labels in records to prompt advice from nurses and physicians.
3. Brief advice and counselling (A+C): As 2. plus 1 bedside (or phone) session using motivational interviewing and relapse prevention approaches and 3 to 6 calls (2‐3 days, 1 wk, 2‐3 wk, 1m, 6m)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m (7‐day PP).
Validation: saliva cotinine<15 ng/ml

Notes

New for 2008.
Brief advice & counselling compared to Brief advice. Including Usual Care in control as well would marginally increase relative effect but not change conclusion of no effect.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'randomly ordered within blocks of 30 assignments'

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Allocation by research assistant, concealment not described

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

78 (3.7%) excluded from ITT analysis due to death or too ill for follow up. 426 (20%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis; higher loss in treatment than control.

Jorenby 1995

Methods

Setting: clinical research centres, USA (2 sites)
Recruitment: community volunteers

Participants

504 smokers >= 15 cpd
av. age 44, av. cpd 26‐29
Therapists: Trained smoking cessation counsellors

Interventions

Factorial trial; compared 22 mg/day vs 44 mg/day nicotine patch and 3 types of adjuvant treatment. All participants had 8 weekly assessments by research staff
1. Minimal ‐ S‐H materials from physician at screening visit for trial entry, instructed not to smoke whilst wearing patch. No further contact with counsellors.
2. Individual ‐ S‐H at screening visit + motivational message. Met nurse counsellor x3 after TQD. Counsellor helped generate problem‐solving strategies and provided praise and encouragement.
3. Group ‐ S‐H + motivational message. 8x 1hr weekly group sessions. Skills training, problem‐solving skills.

Outcomes

7 day PP abstinence at 26 wks
Validation; CO < 10ppm.

Notes

No significant difference in dose‐related outcome and no dose‐counselling interaction at 26 wks reported, so patch arm collapsed in analysis. 2 vs 1, counselling vs NRT alone, Comparison with group counselling covered in Cochrane group therapy review.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Randomized, method not stated

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

'In a double blind manner' for NRT, but not specified for counselling

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

16.3% lost to follow up included in ITT analysis, no difference across conditions
Kim 2005

Methods

Setting: Outpatient clinic, South Korea
Recruitment: outpatients, not selected on motivation

Participants

401 daily smokers, 65% willing to quit within 1m
92% m, av. age 52
Therapists: Retired nurses trained in cessation

Interventions

Test of 5As approach. All participants had first been Asked about smoking status & Advised to quit by physicians and told to go to onsite counsellors, who Assessed willingness to quit, and enrolled & randomized patients.
1. Intervention: Counsellors provided Assist and Arrange components to participants willing to quit within 1m; set quit date, provided Self‐help materials, supplied cigarette substitute (˜11 min average). Culturally specific for Koreans. Other participants given 4Rs. Follow‐up calls at 1 wk & m (˜7min).
2. Control: Counsellors told participants to quit without further assistance.

Outcomes

Abstinence at 5m
Validation: CO<=7ppm

Notes

New for 2008
Marginal to include because 5m follow up and counselling was very brief

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Random list with block size of 6 and 12 allocation strata

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

Assignments in sealed opaque envelopes

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Outcome assessors were unaware of participants' group

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

7 lost to follow up included in ITT analysis
Lifrak 1997

Methods

Setting: substance abuse outpatient facility, USA
Recruitment: community volunteers

Participants

69 smokers
av. age 39, av. cpd 25
Therapists: nurse practitioner for 1. and 2, clinical social worker or psychiatrist experienced in addiction treatment for 2.

Interventions

Both interventions included use of nicotine patch (24 hr, 10 wks tapered dose)
1. Moderate intensity ‐ 4 meetings with nurse who reviewed S‐H materials and instructed in patch use.
2. High intensity. As 1 plus 16 weekly 45 min cognitive behavioural relapse‐prevention therapy

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m, 1 wk PP
Validation: urine cotinine for some participants, but no corrections made for misreporting.

Notes

Both interventions regarded as counselling, used in comparison of intensity.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Block randomization (block size 10)

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

12 administrative drop‐outs/exclusions not included, treatment group not specified. All others included.

McCarthy 2008

Methods

Setting: clinic, USA
Recruitment: community volunteers

Participants

463 smokers
50% female, av. age 36‐41 across arms, av.cpd 22
Therapists: trained college‐aged or bachelor's level staff, supervised by experienced counsellor

Interventions

Factorial trial. Bupropion/placebo pharmacotherapy arms collapsed.
1. Counselling; 8 x10min session, 2 prequit, TQD, 5 over 4 wks
2. Psychoeducation about medication, support & encouragement. Same no. of sessions, 80mins less contact time

Outcomes

7 day PP abstinence at 12m
Validation: CO ≤10ppm

Notes

New for 2008

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Random number table

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

Staff who screened and enrolled participants were unaware of the experimental condition to be assigned

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff and participants blind to medication but not counselling

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

171 (37%) failed to attend quit date visit or lost to follow up, included in ITT analysis
Molyneux 2003

Methods

Setting: hospital, UK
Recruitment: hospital inpatients

Participants

274 smokers (183 in relevant arms) admitted to medical and surgical wards, smoked in last 28 days
60% m, av age 60, median cpd 17, 81% had previous quit attempt
Therapists: research doctor or nurse trained in cessation counselling

Interventions

1. Usual Care, no smoking advice
2. Brief (20 min) bedside counselling + advice leaflet + advice on NRT
3. As 2 plus choice of NRT product (not relevant to this review)

Outcomes

Continuous abstinence at 12m
Validation: CO < 10ppm

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'List generated for each centre allocating equally in random permuted blocks of nine.'

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

72 (39%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis
Nakamura 2004

Methods

Setting: communities & worksites, Japan
Recruitment: Smokers with hypertension and/or hypercholesterolemia having health check‐ups

Participants

977 smokers
98% m, av. age 45, av. cpd 25, ˜20% in preparation/ contemplation
Therapists: mostly public health nurses

Interventions

Intervention: Stage‐base counselling, 1 x40 min, 4 x20‐30 min at 1,2,4,6m. + Phone call if TQD set
Control: Matched contact intervention for hypertension (161) or hypercholesterolemia (318)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6m, sustained 4 point prevalence at 1,2,4,6m
Validation: CO≤8ppm

Notes

New for 2008. Recruited a largely unmotivated population

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Method not stated

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No information given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

54 (5.5%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis
Ockene 1992

Methods

Setting: cardiac catheterization labs at 3 hospitals, USA
Recruitment: inpatient smokers or recent quitters with coronary artery stenosis, following arteriography

Participants

267 smokers (256 surviving at 12m follow up)
av. age 53, av. cpd 25
Therapists: Masters level health educators

Interventions

1. Minimal intervention ‐ 10 min advice and review of an information sheet
2. Inpatient counselling session, 30 min, outpatient visits and telephone calls. Opportunity to attend group programme

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m (sustained for 6m)
Validation: saliva cotinine < 20ng/ml

Notes

Average length of contact for intervention was 1.22 hr (20min to > 5hr)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Method not stated

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Physicians unaware of intervention condition, therapists blinded, participants unclear

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

No mention of losses to follow up and all survivors included in denominators.
Pedersen 2005

Methods

Setting: hospital, Denmark
Recruitment: Inpatients with cardiac disease

Participants

105 smokers
36% female, ˜70% aged >50
Therapists: counsellors

Interventions

1. Usual care control: in hospital advice to quit + information about NRT + NRT available.
2. Intervention: As 1. plus 5 x30 min post discharge contacts

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 months (point prevalence)
Validation: none

Notes

New for 2008

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Randomized, method not described

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Sealed envelopes, but not stated to be numbered

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

10 (9.5%) lost to follow up, included in ITT analysis
Pederson 1991

Methods

Setting: Chest unit, USA
Recruitment: Inpatients with COPD

Participants

74 cigarette smokers
av. age 53, 75% smoked 20+ cpd
Therapist: Non‐specialist trained in counselling

Interventions

1. Advice to quit
2. Individual counselling; between 3 & 8 15‐20 min sessions on alternate days during hospitalisations. S‐H manual, support & encouragement.

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6m
Sample validated by COHb

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Method not described

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Physicians blinded, therapist not blinded, participants unclear

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

8 lost to follow up were reincluded in ITT analysis by reviewers. 8 deaths excluded
Rigotti 1997

Methods

Setting: hospital, USA
Recruitment: Inpatients in medical or surgical services, smoking > 1 cig in month before admission

Participants

615 smokers or recent quitters (excluding 35 deaths). 37% of intervention and 32% of controls had a current smoking‐related health problem.
Therapist: research assistant supervised by a nurse

Interventions

1. Usual care
2. Single bedside counselling session (motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioural and relapse prevention techniques), av 15 min, S‐H materials, chart prompts, 1‐3 telephone calls post‐discharge

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6m (PP, sustained abstinence reported based on self report)
Validation: saliva cotinine for people living in Mass (85% of quitters)

Notes

Use of validated PP rather than sustained abstinence gives more conservative treatment effect

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Each day's list of eligible smokers put in random order and patients recruited consecutively in this order. Randomized by research assistant

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Outcome was assessed by blinded interviewer.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

73 (22.4%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis, no evidence of differential loss. 35 (5.4%) deaths excluded.

Schmitz 1999

Methods

Setting: hospital, USA
Recruitment: women with or at risk of Coronary Artery disease (CAD)

Participants

Two separate samples recruited:
53 inpatients with CAD who stopped smoking during hospitalisation and wanted to stay quit.
107 women volunteering for cessation treatment who had > 1 CAD risk factor
Therapists: 2 smoking counsellors + 2 clinical psychology interns

Interventions

1. Coping skills, relapse prevention, 6 x1 hr including stress management, homework.
2. Health Belief model, 6 x1 hr. smoking‐related health information about disease state or CAD profile. Focus on benefits of stopping

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6m (PP)
Validation: CO < 9ppm, urine cotinine < 10ng/ml
Not all quitters tested, confirmation rates not reported

Notes

Post‐randomization drop‐outs who did not complete baseline and begin treatment were not included in any data.
Quit rates were lower in the CAD sample than in the at‐risk group

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'Randomly assigned', stratified on smoking rate and myocardial infarction status

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

Pretreatment drop outs were excluded, all others included in ITT analysis
Simon 1997

Methods

Setting: Veterans Administration hospital, USA
Recruitment: smokers undergoing non‐cardiac surgery

Participants

299 smokers (smoked within 2 wks of admission) (excl 25 deaths)
98% m, av. age 54, av. cpd 20
Therapist: public health educator

Interventions

1. Multicomponent: single counselling session (30‐60 min) prior to discharge (based on social learning theory and stages of change). Video, prescription for nicotine gum if no contraindications. 5 follow‐up counselling calls over 3m
2. Brief counselling (10 min) and S‐H materials.

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m
Validation: serum or saliva cotinine < 15ng/ml. 6 self reports confirmed only by 'significant other'.

Notes

65% of Group 1 and 17% of Group 2 reported using NRT, but use of NRT was not significantly associated with quitting in either group

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'Random list of assignments'

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

'Sealed opaque envelopes opened on formal enrollment'

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Therapists could not have been blind. No information on patients

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

25 (8%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis, 25 (8%) died, excluded from denominator
Simon 2003

Methods

Setting: Veterans Affairs hospital, USA
Recruitment: hospitalised smokers in contemplation or preparation stage of change

Participants

209 smokers, >= 20 cigs in total in week before hospitalisation, excludes 14 deaths during follow up
97% m, av. age 55, av cpd 23
Therapists: trained nurse or public health educator

Interventions

1. Intensive counselling: single counselling session (30‐60 min) prior to discharge (based on social learning theory and stages of change), 5 telephone counselling calls < 30 min, 1 & 3 wks, monthly for 3m + S‐H. Recycling encouraged. Nicotine patches begun in hospital, dose based on pre‐hospitalisation smoking rates. 2m supply at discharge.
2. Nicotine patches as 1. ˜10 min session on risks & benefits, S‐H.

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m (7 day PP)
Validation: saliva cotinine < 15ng/ml

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'Randomly assigned using computerized algorithm'

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

No details provided

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details provided; there was an active control

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

7 (3%) lost to follow up included in ITT analysis, 14 (6%) died & excluded from denominator
Stevens 1993

Methods

Setting: 2 Health Maintenance Organization hospitals, USA
Recruitment: All hospitalised smokers or recent ex‐smokers with stay > 36hrs

Participants

1119 smokers or recent quitters (5%)
av. age 44, av. cpd 20
Therapists: Masters level cessation counsellors

Interventions

1. 20 min counselling session, 12 min video, quit kit, choice of S‐H materials, 1‐2 follow‐up telephone calls, access to hotline, bimonthly newsletter mailings.
2. Usual care

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12m (2 PP, 3 & 12m)
Validation: due to low success in obtaining samples for cotinine analysis, data are based on self report only.

Notes

A sensitivity analysis on the effect of exclusion of this non‐random study is reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

High risk

Not random, intervention alternated between hospitals on a monthly basis in order to avoid contamination

Allocation concealment?

High risk

Intervention or control status of hospital known when patients recruited

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Patients in control arm were not identified to hospital staff, and were probably unaware of study design. Telephone assessments were by blinded assessors

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

6% loss to follow up, no difference by group, included in ITT analysis
Tonnesen 2006

Methods

Setting: 7 chest clinics, Denmark
Recruitment: outpatient attender

Participants

370 smokers of >1 cpd with COPD
52% female, av. age 61, av. cpd 20
Therapists: 20 nurses with cessation experience, trained to support medication use and provide standardised counselling

Interventions

Factorial trial. Nicotine sublingual tablet and placebo arms collapsed in meta‐analysis
1. High support: 7 x 20‐30min clinic visits (0, 2, 4, 8, 12 wks, 6m, 12m) & 5 x 10min phone calls (1, 6, 10 wks , 4½m. 9m), total contact time 4½ hrs.
2. Low support: 4 clinic visits (0, 2 wks, 6m, 12m) & 6 phone calls (1, 4, 6, 9, 12 wks, 9m), total time 2½ hrs

Outcomes

Sustained abstinence at 12m (validated at all visits from wk 2, PP also reported)
Validation: CO<10ppm

Notes

New for 2008 update. Compares higher and lower intensity counselling. Therapists were not full time specialist counsellors.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Block randomization list at each centre

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Allocation process not described

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Described as double blind, but unclear that this applied to behavioural components

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

82 (22%) lost to follow up, included in ITT analysis
Weissfeld 1991

Methods

Setting: Veterans Administration outpatient clinics, USA
Recruitment: veterans attending walk‐in and general medicine clinics invited to attend quit smoking programme
Randomization: Two stages; initially in 1:2 to control or intervention, then 1:1 to high or low intensity occurred after delivery of low intensity session.

Participants

466 male smokers
av. age 55 years, av. cpd 26
Therapists: smoking cessation counsellors

Interventions

1. Control ‐ pamphlet on hazards of smoking
2. Low Intensity counselling ‐ single session 20‐30 min and S‐H booklet
3. High intensity counselling ‐ same initial session, with sustained contact of 3m. One further face‐to‐face session, telephone calls and mailings, behavioural S‐H manual. Prescription and sample of nicotine gum and instructions for use.

Outcomes

Abstinence for 1m at 6m (9m for high intensity group, 6m after last contact)
Validation: nicotine metabolites in urine

Notes

Using validated quit rates there was no difference between 2 and 3, although self‐reported quitting was greater in 3.
Main analysis uses 2&3 vs 1 with sensitivity analysis of 2 vs 1. Comparison of intensity uses 3 vs 2
39% of group 3 used nicotine gum vs 8% and 7% in 2 and 1

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Random number table

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

Consecutively numbered envelopes containing treatment assignment.

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Therapists not blind, unclear whether participants were

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

34 (7.3%) died or lost to follow up included in ITT analysis. More lost in high intensity group.

Wiggers 2006

Methods

Setting: Cardiovascular outpatient department, Netherlands
Recruitment: patients attending regular consultation; consenting patients referred to nurse practitioner.

Participants

385 smokers (8 deaths excluded from outcomes)
37% female, av. age 59, av.cpd 21
Therapist: nurse practitioner

Interventions

In both groups, patients planning to quit received 8 wks nicotine patch with instruction from nurse.
1. 'Minimal Intervention Strategy for cardiology patients (C‐MIS). 15‐30 mins at baseline, 1 phone call at 2 wks, additional session on request. Assessment of dependency & motivation, barriers; TQD set for motivated patients
2. Usual care without motivational counselling.

Outcomes

Abstinence for 7 days at 12m
Validation: Urine or saliva nicotine/cotinine/thiocyanate. Self‐reported smokers also tested; validated rates include smokers with negative biochemical results, so self‐reported non‐smoking used in MA

Notes

New for 2008. Included on grounds that participants were referred to nurse practitioner for counselling; not part of usual care.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

'A computerized balanced randomization programme taking prognostic factors (e.g. clinic attendance, age and gender) into account.'

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

'While patients completed their baseline questionnaire (and signed a written informed consent) nurses randomly assigned ...'

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

'Patients were not informed about the behavioural intervention [before enrollment] in order to avoid a Hawthorne effect'.
Follow up was blind to allocation.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

One withdrawal due to cognitive problems and 8 deaths during follow up not included in analyses. At 12m 45 not reached by mail or phone, included in ITT. More unmarried patients lost.

Windsor 1988

Methods

Setting: University worksite, USA
Recruitment: Employees volunteering for a quit smoking programme

Participants

378 smokers
av. age 37, av. cpd 23‐27
Therapist: health educator

Interventions

All groups received a 10 min session of brief advice
1. + S‐H manuals
2. + S‐H and another session of counselling (20‐30 min) with skills training, buddy selection and a contract.
3. as 1. with monetary rewards for cessation
4. as 2. with monetary rewards for cessation

Outcomes

Abstinence at 1 yr (sustained at 6 wks, 6m, 1yr, no more than 2 cigs in period)
Validation: saliva thiocyanate < 100μg/ml at all follow ups.

Notes

There was no apparent effect of monetary incentives so this arm is collapsed. 4&2 vs 3&1. Number of quitters estimated from graphs

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Low risk

Computer‐generated assignment

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

Sealed numbered envelopes opened after informed consent & baseline questionnaire

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Therapists could not be blind, unlikely that participants were

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

37 lost to f‐up, included in ITT analysis

av ‐ average (mean)
CI ‐ confidence interval
CO ‐ carbon monoxide
COHb ‐ carboxyhaemoglobin
COPD ‐ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
cpd ‐ cigarettes per day
m ‐ month
MA ‐ meta‐analysis
MI ‐ myocardial infarction
min ‐ minute
NRT ‐ Nicotine Replacement Therapy
OR ‐ odds ratio
PP ‐ point prevalence (abstinent at defined period)
ppm ‐ parts per million
S‐H ‐ Self help materials
TQD ‐ Target Quit Date
wk ‐ week
yr ‐ year

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Study

Reason for exclusion

Alonso‐Pérez 2007

Allocation to behavioural treatment was by clinic attended; each of 3 primary care clinics provided different treatment.

Bolman 2002

Intervention provided by a nurse as part of usual care, included in Cochrane review of nursing interventions (Rice 2008).

Borrelli 2005

Intervention provided by a nurse during normal duties, included in Cochrane review of nursing interventions (Rice 2008).

Camarelles 2002

Compares Individual to group counselling, see Cochrane review of group based interventions (Stead 2005).

Canga 2000

Intervention provided by a nurse, included in Cochrane review of nursing interventions (Rice 2008).

Colby 1998

Short follow up (three months).

Emmons 2001

Data not available for intervention and control groups separately. No significant difference reported. Cessation was a secondary outcome in this trial using motivational interviewing to reduce passive smoke exposure. Participants were not selected by motivation to quit.

Froelicher 2004

Intervention provided by a nurse; included in Cochrane review of nursing interventions (Rice 2008)

Gifford 2004

Trial of an acceptance & commitment‐based treatment intervention that included multiple group sessions in addition to individual counselling. Comparator was nicotine patch therapy.

Hilberink 2005

Intervention provided by physicians & nurses in usual care setting, not specialist counselling.

Hyman 2007

Multiple risk factor intervention.

Kadowaki 2000

Intervention was multicomponent and included advice/counselling from a physician, nurse and a group programme. Follow up only 5 months.

Lando 1992

There was no face‐to‐face contact with counsellors. Contact was by pro‐active telephone calls.

Lopez 2007

Multiple risk factor intervention enrolling smokers and nonsmokers.

Malchodi 2003

Intervention specifically for pregnant women, see Cochrane review of smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy (Lumley 2004)

Marks 2002

Intervention was provided in a self‐help format.

Mildestvedt 2007

Multiple risk lifestyle intervention.

Mooney 2007

Short follow up (6 wks). Study added a pharmacotherapy compliance enhancing component to individual counselling using CBT.

Niaura 1999

All participants received individual counselling; Included in Cochrane NRT review (Stead 2008b).

Okuyemi 2006

Intervention combined group and individual counselling with pharmacotherapy.

Rabkin 1984

The health education arm of the trial included a group meeting with didactic lecture, film and discussion, followed by a single individual session with a therapist. We decided that this did not meet the criteria for individual counselling.

Rodriguez 2003

Intervention combined the systematic use of NRT with counselling; covered in Cochrane review of worksite interventions (Cahill 2008)

Sanz‐Pozo 2006

Intervention provided by nurses in a primary care clinic, included in Cochrane review of nursing interventions (Rice 2008)

Schnoll 2005

Short follow up (three months). Compared 2 counselling approaches, no difference detected.

Schwartz 1967

Success was defined as reduction in smoking of over 85%, not complete abstinence.

Sherman 2007

Primary outcome was not cessation; assessed rates of receiving counselling, referral and treatment.

Soria 2006

Motivational interviewing intervention by primary care physician during routine care

Stein 2006

Test of motivational interviewing; not all partipants attempted to quit

Stevens 2000

Intervention providers were respiratory therapists not counsellors. Included in Cochrane review of interventions in hospital inpatients, (Rigotti 2007).

Williams 2006

Study targeted multiple risk factors.

Woodruff 2002

Short follow up (three months).

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Niaura 2004

Trial name or title

Positive Paths

Methods

RCT

Participants

HIV+ smokers

Interventions

Brief intervention modeled on PHS guidelines versus a more intensive motivational counselling intervention, with both interventions providing 8 weeks of NRT to those setting a quit date.

Outcomes

Smoking cessation

Starting date

Completed

Contact information

Ray Niaura

Notes

NCT00551720

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

22

9587

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [1.24, 1.57]
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 1 Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Counselling versus control (no systematic pharmacotherapy)

18

7855

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.25, 1.65]

1.2 Counselling plus NRT versus NRT alone

4

1732

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.02, 1.59]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. More intensive versus less intensive counselling

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

5

1897

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.74, 1.25]
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 No pharmacotherapy

2

478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.53, 2.22]

1.2 Adjunct to pharmacotherapy

4

1419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.71, 1.25]

2 Sensitivity analyses for Alterman 2001 in intensive versus brief counselling comparison Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 2 Sensitivity analyses for Alterman 2001 in intensive versus brief counselling comparison.

Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 2 Sensitivity analyses for Alterman 2001 in intensive versus brief counselling comparison.

2.1 Using Alterman high versus low

5

1817

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.81, 1.37]

2.2 Using Alterman high versus moderate

5

1817

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.91, 1.58]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 3 Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Relapse Prevention versus Health Belief model

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.45, 1.98]

1.2 Motivational Interviewing versus Health Education

1

755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.34, 0.76]

1.3 Counselling versus equal sessions of psychoeducation

1

463

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.62, 1.39]

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control, outcome: 1.1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control, outcome: 1.1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 2 Sensitivity analyses for Alterman 2001 in intensive versus brief counselling comparison.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 More intensive versus less intensive counselling, Outcome 2 Sensitivity analyses for Alterman 2001 in intensive versus brief counselling comparison.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity, Outcome 1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Comparison 1. Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

22

9587

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [1.24, 1.57]

1.1 Counselling versus control (no systematic pharmacotherapy)

18

7855

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.25, 1.65]

1.2 Counselling plus NRT versus NRT alone

4

1732

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.02, 1.59]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Individual counselling compared to minimal contact control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. More intensive versus less intensive counselling

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

5

1897

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.74, 1.25]

1.1 No pharmacotherapy

2

478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.53, 2.22]

1.2 Adjunct to pharmacotherapy

4

1419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.71, 1.25]

2 Sensitivity analyses for Alterman 2001 in intensive versus brief counselling comparison Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Using Alterman high versus low

5

1817

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.81, 1.37]

2.2 Using Alterman high versus moderate

5

1817

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.91, 1.58]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. More intensive versus less intensive counselling
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Smoking cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Relapse Prevention versus Health Belief model

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.45, 1.98]

1.2 Motivational Interviewing versus Health Education

1

755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.34, 0.76]

1.3 Counselling versus equal sessions of psychoeducation

1

463

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.62, 1.39]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Comparisons between counselling approaches of similar intensity
Ir a la tabla de la revisión