Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Asesoramiento telefónico para el abandono del hábito de fumar

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Abdullah 2005 {published data only}

Abdullah AS, Lam TH, Mak YW, Loke AY. A randomized control trial of a smoking cessation intervention on parents of young children‐ a preliminary report (POS2‐011). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting 2004 February 18‐21 , Phoenix, Arizona. 2004. CENTRAL
Abdullah AS, Mak YW, Loke AY, Lam TH. Smoking cessation intervention in parents of young children: a randomised controlled trial. Addiction 2005;100(11):1731‐40. CENTRAL
Mak YW, Loke AY, Lam TH, Abdullah AS. Predictors of the participation of smoking parents in a proactive telephone‐based smoking cessation program. Addictive Behaviors 2006;31(10):1731‐43. CENTRAL

An 2006 {published data only}

An LC, Partin M, Zhu SH, Arikian NJ, Nelson DB, Nugent SM, et al. Delivery of bupropion SR as part of a telephone counseling intervention for veteran smokers (POS1‐040). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting 2005 February 18‐21, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004. CENTRAL
An LC, Zhu S‐H, Nelson DB, Arikian NJ, Nugent S, Partin MR, et al. Benefits of telephone care over primary care for smoking cessation. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006;166(5):536‐42. CENTRAL
An LC, Zhu SH, Arikian NJ, Nelson DB, Nugent SM, Partin M, et al. Telestop: a randomized trial of increased access to behavioral and pharmacological therapy for smoking cessation (abstract). Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2005;7(4):689. CENTRAL
Smith M, Fu S, Nugent S, Nelson D, Joseph A, An L. A cost‐effective telehealth intervention for smoking cessation. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2010;25(Suppl 3):S208. CENTRAL
Smith MW, An LC, Fu SS, Nelson DB, Joseph AM. Cost‐effectiveness of an intensive telephone‐based intervention for smoking cessation. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. England, 2011; Vol. 17, issue 8:437‐40. [; 4]CENTRAL

Aveyard 2003 {published data only}

Aveyard P, Griffin C, Lawrence T, Cheng KK. A controlled trial of an expert system and self‐help manual intervention based on the stages of change versus standard self‐help materials in smoking cessation. Addiction 2003;98(3):345‐54. CENTRAL

Bastian 2012 {published data only}

Bastian LA, Fish LJ, Gierisch JM, Rohrer L, Stechuchak KM, Grambow SC. Comparative effectiveness trial of family‐supported smoking cessation intervention versus standard telephone counseling for chronically ill veterans using proactive recruitment. Comparative Effectiveness Research 2012;2:45‐46. CENTRAL

Bastian 2013 {published data only}

Bastian LA, Fish LJ, Peterson BL, Biddle AK, Garst J, Lyna P, et al. Assessment of the impact of adjunctive proactive telephone counseling to promote smoking cessation among lung cancer patients' social networks. American Journal of Health Promotion 2013;27(3):181‐90. CENTRAL

Blebil 2014 {published data only}

Blebil AQ, Sulaiman SA, Hassali MA, Dujaili JA, Zin AM. Impact of additional counselling sessions through phone calls on smoking cessation outcomes among smokers in Penang State, Malaysia. BMC Public Health 2014;14:460. CENTRAL

Borland 2001 {published data only}

Borland R, Segan CJ, Livingston PM, Owen N. The effectiveness of callback counselling for smoking cessation: a randomized trial. Addiction 2001;96(6):881‐9. CENTRAL

Borland 2003 {published data only}

Balmford J, Borland R, Burney S. The role of prior quitting experience in the prediction of smoking cessation. Psychology & Health 2010;25(8):911‐24. CENTRAL
Borland R, Balmford J, Segan C, Livingston P, Owen N. The effectiveness of personalized smoking cessation strategies for callers to a Quitline service. Addiction 2003;98(6):837‐46. CENTRAL

Borland 2008 {published data only}

Borland R, Balmford J, Bishop N, Segan C, Piterman L, McKay‐Brown L, et al. In‐practice management versus quitline referral for enhancing smoking cessation in general practice: A cluster randomized trial. Family Practice 2008;25(5):382‐9. CENTRAL
McKay‐Brown L, Borland R, Balmford J, Segan CJ, Andrews C, Tasker C, et al. The challenges of recruiting and retaining GPs in research: Findings from a smoking cessation project. Australian Journal of Primary Health 2007;13(1):61‐7. CENTRAL

Boyle 2007 {published data only}

Boyle RG, Solberg LI, Asche SE, Boucher JL, Pronk NP, Jensen CJ. Offering telephone counseling to smokers using pharmacotherapy. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2005;7 Suppl 1:S19‐27. CENTRAL
Boyle RG, Solberg LI, Asche SE, Maciosek MV, Boucher JL, Pronk NP. Proactive recruitment of health plan smokers into telephone counseling. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(5):581‐9. CENTRAL

Bricker 2014 {published data only}

Bricker JB, Bush T, Zbikowski SM, Mercer LD, Heffner JL. Randomized trial of telephone‐delivered acceptance and commitment therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation: a pilot study.. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014;16(11):1446‐54. CENTRAL
Heffner JL, Mull K, Mercer L, Vilardaga R, Bricker J. Effects of two telephone‐delivered smoking cessation interventions on hazardous drinking rates: ACT vs. CBT. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 2014;38(Suppl. S1):137A. CENTRAL
Vilardaga R, Heffner JL, Mercer LD, Bricker JB. Do counselor techniques predict quitting during smoking cessation treatment? A component analysis of telephone‐delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2014;61:89‐95. CENTRAL

Brown 1992 {published data only}

Brown S, Hunt G, Owen N. The effect of adding telephone contact to self‐instructional smoking‐cessation materials. Behavior Change 1992;9:216‐22. CENTRAL

Brunette 2017 {published data only}

Brunette MF, Pratt SI, Bartels SJ, Scherer EA, Sigmon SC, Ferron JC, et al. Randomized trial of interventions for smoking cessation among medicaid beneficiaries with mental illness. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.) 2017;69(3):appips201700245. CENTRAL

Chan 2015 {published data only}

Chan SS, Wong DC, Cheung YT, Leung DY, Lau L, Lai V, et al. A block randomized controlled trial of a brief smoking cessation counselling and advice through short message service on participants who joined the Quit to Win Contest in Hong Kong. Health Education Research 2015;30(4):609‐21. CENTRAL

Chouinard 2005 {published data only}

Chouinard MC, Robichaud‐Ekstrand S. The effectiveness of a nursing inpatient smoking cessation program in individuals with cardiovascular disease. Nursing Research 2005;54(4):243‐54. CENTRAL

Collins 2018 {published data only}

Collins BN, Lepore SJ, Winickoff JP, Nair US, Moughan B, Bryant‐Stephens T, et al. An office‐initiated multilevel intervention for tobacco smoke exposure: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2018;141(Suppl 1):S75‐S86. CENTRAL
Lepore SJ, Winickoff JP, Moughan B, Bryant‐Stephens TC, Taylor DR, Fleece D, et al. Kids Safe and Smokefree (KiSS): a randomized controlled trial of a multilevel intervention to reduce secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in children. BMC Public Health 2013;13:792. CENTRAL

Cossette 2011 {published data only}

Cossette S, Frasure‐Smith N, Robert M, Chouinard MC, Juneau M, Guertin MC, et al. A pre‐assessment for nursing intervention to support tobacco cessation in patients hospitalized for cardiac problems: a pilot study (So‐Live) [Évaluation préliminaire d’une intervention infirmière de soutien à la cessation tabagique chez des patients hospitalisés pour un problème cardiaque : étude pilote (So‐Live)]. Recherche En Soins Infirmiers 2011;June(105):60‐75. CENTRAL

Cummins 2016a {published data only}

Cummins S, Zhu SH, Gamst A, Kirby C, Brandstein K, Klonoff‐Cohen H, et al. Nicotine patches and quitline counseling to help hospitalized smokers stay quit: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:128. CENTRAL
Cummins SE, Gamst AC, Brandstein K, Seymann GB, Klonoff‐Cohen H, Kirby CA, et al. Helping hospitalized smokers: a factorial RCT of nicotine patches and counseling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):578‐86. CENTRAL

Cummins 2016b {published data only}

Cummins SE, Tedeschi GJ, Anderson CM, Zhu SH. Telephone intervention for pregnant smokers: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(3):318‐26. CENTRAL
Zhu SH, Cummins S, Anderson C, Tedeschi G, Rosbrook B, Gutierrez‐Terrell E. Telephone intervention for pregnant smokers: a randomized trial (abstract). Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6(4):740–1. CENTRAL

Curry 1995 {published data only}

Britt J, Curry SJ, McBride C, Grothaus LC, Louie D. Implementation and acceptance of outreach telephone counseling for smoking cessation with nonvolunteer smokers. Health Education Quarterly 1994;21(1):55‐68. CENTRAL
Curry SJ, McBride C, Grothaus LC, Louie D, Wagner EH. A randomized trial of self‐help materials, personalized feedback, and telephone counselling with nonvolunteer smokers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1995;63(6):1005‐14. CENTRAL

Duffy 2006 {published data only}

Duffy SA, Ronis DL, Valenstein M, Lambert MT, Fowler KE, Gregory L, et al. A tailored smoking, alcohol, and depression intervention for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2006;15(11):2203‐8. CENTRAL

Ebbert 2007 {published data only}

Ebbert JO, Carr AB, Patten CA, Morris RA, Schroeder DR. Tobacco use quitline enrollment through dental practices: a pilot study. Journal of the American Dental Association 2007;138(5):595‐601. CENTRAL

Ellerbeck 2009 {published data only}

Cox LS, Cupertino AP, Mussulman LM, Nazir N, Greiner KA, Mahnken JD, et al. Design and baseline characteristics from the KAN‐QUIT disease management intervention for rural smokers in primary care. Preventive Medicine 2008;47(2):200‐5. CENTRAL
Cupertino AP, Mahnken JD, Richter K, Cox LS, Casey G, Resnicow K, et al. Long‐term engagement in smoking cessation counseling among rural smokers. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 2007;18(4 Suppl):39‐51. CENTRAL
Ellerbeck EF, Mahnken JD, Cupertino AP, Cox LS, Greiner KA, Mussulman LM, et al. Effect of varying levels of disease management on smoking cessation: a randomized trial.[see comment]. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;150(7):437‐46. CENTRAL

Emmons 2005 {published data only}

Emmons KM, Puleo E, Mertens A, Gritz ER, Diller L, Li FP. Long‐term smoking cessation outcomes among childhood cancer survivors in the Partnership for Health study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(1):52‐60. CENTRAL
Emmons KM, Puleo E, Park E, Gritz ER, Butterfield RM, Weeks JC, et al. Peer‐delivered smoking counseling for childhood cancer survivors increases rate of cessation: The Partnership for Health Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(27):6516‐23. CENTRAL
Park ER, Puleo E, Butterfield RM, Zorn M, Mertens AC, Gritz ER, et al. A process evaluation of a telephone‐based peer‐delivered smoking cessation intervention for adult survivors of childhood cancer: The Partnership for Health study. Preventive Medicine 2006;42(6):435‐42. CENTRAL

Ferguson 2012 {published data only}

Coleman T, McEwen A, Bauld L, Ferguson J, Lorgelly P, Lewis S. Protocol for the Proactive Or Reactive Telephone Smoking CeSsation Support (PORTSSS) trial. Trials [Electronic Resource] 2009;10:26. CENTRAL
Ferguson J, Docherty G, Bauld L, Lewis S, Lorgelly P, Boyd KA, et al. Effect of offering different levels of support and free nicotine replacement therapy via an English national telephone quitline: randomised controlled trial. BMJ March 2012;344:e1696. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e1696]CENTRAL
Taggar JS, Lewis S, Docherty G, Bauld L, McEwen A, Coleman T. Do cravings predict smoking cessation in smokers calling a national quit line: secondary analyses from a randomised trial for the utility of 'urges to smoke' measures. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 2015;10:15. CENTRAL

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(4):412‐20. CENTRAL

Flöter 2009 {published data only}

Flöter S, Kröger C. Effectiveness of telephone aftercare following a smoking cessation program for women on inpatient rehabilitation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 2009;134(47):2382‐7. CENTRAL

Fraser 2014 {published data only}

Fraser D, Kobinsky K, Smith SS, Kramer J, Theobald WE, Baker TB. Five population‐based interventions for smoking cessation: a MOST trial. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2014;4(4):382‐90. CENTRAL

Gilbert 2006 {published data only}

Gilbert H, Sutton S. Does adding tailored feedback to telephone counselling improve quit rates? (POS1‐033). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting 2004 February 18‐21, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004. CENTRAL
Gilbert H, Sutton S. Evaluating the effectiveness of proactive telephone counselling for smoking cessation in a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2006;101(4):590‐8. CENTRAL

Girgis 2011 {published data only}

Girgis S, Adily A, Velasco MJ, Zwar NA, Jalaludin BB, Ward JE. Feasibility, acceptability and impact of a telephone support service initiated in primary medical care to help Arabic smokers quit. Australian Journal of Primary Health 2011;17(3):274‐81. CENTRAL

Graham 2011 {published data only}

Cobb CO, Niaura RS, Donaldson EA, Graham AL. Quit now? Quit soon? Quit when you're ready? Insights about target quit dates for smoking cessation from an online quit date tool. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(2):e55. CENTRAL
Cobb CO, Graham AL. Use of non‐assigned interventions in a randomized trial of internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014;16(10):1289‐97. CENTRAL
Graham AL. A randomized trial of internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171(5):395. CENTRAL
Graham AL, Chang Y, Fang Y, Cobb NK, Tinkelman DS, Niaura RS, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation: an economic evaluation of The iQUITT Study. Tobacco Control 2013;22(6):e11. CENTRAL
Graham AL, Cobb NK, Papandonatos GD, Moreno JL, Kang H, Tinkelman DG, et al. A randomized trial of internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation.[Erratum in Arch Intern Med. 2011 Mar 14;171(5):395]. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171(1):46‐53. CENTRAL
Graham AL, Papandonatos GD. Reliability of internet‐ versus telephone‐administered questionnaires in a diverse sample of smokers. Journal of Medical Internet Research2008; Vol. 10, issue 1:e8. []CENTRAL
Graham AL, Papandonatos GD, Cobb CO, Cobb NK, Niaura RS, Abrams DB, et al. Internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation: mediators and moderators of short‐term abstinence. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(3):299‐308. CENTRAL
Graham AL, Papandonatos GD, Kang H, Moreno JL, Abrams DB. Development and validation of the online social support for smokers scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(3):427‐39. CENTRAL
Graham AL, Stanton CA, Papandonatos GD, Erar B. Use of an online smoking cessation community promotes abstinence: results of propensity score weighting. Health Psychology 2015;34S:1286‐95. CENTRAL
Papandonatos GD, Erar B, Stanton CA, Graham AL. Online community use predicts abstinence in combined internet/phone intervention for smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2016;84(7):633‐44. CENTRAL
Rigotti NA. Integrating comprehensive tobacco treatment into the evolving US health care system: it's time to act: comment on "A randomized trial of Internet and telephone treatment for smoking cessation". Archives of Internal Medicine2011; Vol. 171, issue 1:53‐5. []CENTRAL

Halpin 2006 {published data only}

Halpin HA, McMenamin S, Rideout J, Boyce‐Smith G. The effectiveness and costs of different benefit designs for treating tobacco dependence. Results from a randomized trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2005;7(4):681‐2. CENTRAL
Halpin HA, McMenamin SB, Rideout J, Boyce‐Smith G. The costs and effectiveness of different benefit designs for treating tobacco dependence: results from a randomized trial. Inquiry 2006;43(1):54‐65. CENTRAL

Hanssen 2009 {published data only}

Hanssen TA, Nordrehaug JE, Eide GE, Hanestad BR. Does a telephone follow‐up intervention for patients discharged with acute myocardial infarction have long‐term effects on health‐related quality of life? A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2009;18(9):1334‐45. CENTRAL
Hanssen TA, Nordrehaug JE, Eide GE, Hanestad BR. Improving outcomes after myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial evaluating effects of a telephone follow‐up intervention. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 2007;14(3):429‐37. CENTRAL

Hollis 2007 {published and unpublished data}

Hollis J, Fellows J, Aickin M, Riedlinger K, McAfee T, Zbikowski S, et al. Efficacy of six state‐level tobacco quitline interventions (POS1‐023). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting 2004 February 18‐21, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004. CENTRAL
Hollis J, McAfee T, Stark M, Fellows J, Zbikowski S, Riedlinger K. One‐year outcomes for six Oregon tobacco Quitline interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2005;29 Suppl:S056. CENTRAL
Hollis JF, McAfee TA, Fellows JL, Zbikowski SM, Stark M, Riedlinger K. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i53‐9. CENTRAL

Holmes‐Rovner 2008 {published data only}

Holmes‐Rovner M, Stommel M, Corser WD, Olomu A, Holtrop JS, Siddiqi A, et al. Does outpatient telephone coaching add to hospital quality improvement following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome?. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008;23(9):1464‐70. CENTRAL
Holtrop JS, Stommel M, Corser WD, Holmes‐Rovner M. Predictors of smoking cessation and relapse after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2009;4(3):e3‐9. CENTRAL

Hughes 2010 {published data only}

Hughes JR, Solomon LJ, Livingston AE, Callas PW, Peters EN. A randomized, controlled trial of NRT‐aided gradual vs. abrupt cessation in smokers actively trying to quit. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2010;111(1‐2):105‐13.. CENTRAL

Joyce 2008 {published data only}

Joyce GF, Niaura R, Maglione M, Mongoven J, Larson‐Rotter C, Coan J, et al. The effectiveness of covering smoking cessation services for medicare beneficiaries. Health Services Research 2008;43(6):2106‐23. CENTRAL
Niaura R, Joyce G, Maglione M, Morton S, Coan J, Lapin P, et al. Helping older smokers quit: The Medicare Stop Smoking Program (PA11‐6). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting 2006 February 15‐18, Orlando, Florida. 2006. CENTRAL

Klemperer 2017 {published data only}

Klemperer EM, Hughes J. Does perception of treatment predict outcome in interventions for smokers who are not ready to quit?. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2015;156:e114. CENTRAL
Klemperer EM, Hughes J. Reduction in cigarettes per day prospectively predicts quit attempts and cessation in smokers who are not ready to quit.. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Conference: 2016 Annual Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, CPDD 2016. United States CNO ‐ CN‐01423239. 2017; Vol. 171:e107. CENTRAL
Klemperer EM, Hughes JR, Callas PW, Solomon LJ. A mediation analysis of motivational, reduction, and usual care interventions for smokers who are not ready to quit. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2017;19(8):916‐21. CENTRAL
Klemperer EM, Hughes JR, Callas PW, Solomon LJ. Working alliance and empathy as mediators of brief telephone counseling for cigarette smokers who are not ready to quit. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2017;31(1):130‐5. CENTRAL
Klemperer EM, Hughes JR, Solomon LJ, Callas PW, Fingar JR. Motivational, reduction and usual care interventions for smokers who are not ready to quit: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction (Abingdon, England) 2017;112(1):146‐55. CENTRAL

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(1):41‐6. CENTRAL

Lando 1997 {published data only}

Lando HA, Rolnick S, Klevan D, Roski J, Cherney L, Lauger G. Telephone support as an adjunct to transdermal nicotine in smoking cessation. American Journal of Public Health 1997;87(10):1670‐4. CENTRAL
Rolnick SJ, Klevan D, Cherney L, Lando HA. Nicotine replacement therapy in a group model HMO. HMO Practice 1997;11(1):34‐7. CENTRAL

Lichtenstein 2000 {published data only}

Lee ME, Lichtenstein E, Andrews JA, Glasgow RE, Hampson SE. Radon‐smoking synergy: A population‐based behavioral risk reduction approach. Preventive Medicine 1999;29(3):222‐7. CENTRAL
Lichtenstein E, Andrews JA, Lee ME, Glasgow RE, Hampson SE. Using radon risk to motivate smoking reduction: evaluation of written materials and brief telephone counselling. Tobacco Control 2000;9(3):320‐6. CENTRAL

Lichtenstein 2008 {published data only}

Hampson SE, Andrews JA, Barckley M, Lichtenstein E, Lee ME. Personality traits, perceived risk, and risk‐reduction behaviors: A further study of smoking and radon. Health Psychology 2006;25(4):530‐6. CENTRAL
Lichtenstein E, Boles SM, Lee ME, Hampson SE, Glasgow RE, Fellows J. Using radon risk to motivate smoking reduction II: randomized evaluation of brief telephone counseling and a targeted video. Health Education Research 2008;23(2):191‐201. CENTRAL

Lindqvist 2013 {published data only}

Lindqvist H, Forsberg LG, Forsberg L, Rosendahl I, Enebrink P, Helgason AR. Motivational interviewing in an ordinary clinical setting: a controlled clinical trial at the Swedish National Tobacco Quitline. Addictive Behaviors 2013;38(7):2321‐4. CENTRAL

Lipkus 1999 {published data only}

Lipkus IM, Lyna PR, Rimer BK. Using tailored interventions to enhance smoking cessation among African‐Americans at a community health center. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 1999;1(1):77‐85. CENTRAL

Lipkus 2004 {published data only}

Lipkus IM, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Schwartz‐Bloom RD, Tilson E, Bloom PN. A randomized trial comparing the effects of self‐help materials and proactive telephone counseling on teen smoking cessation. Health Psychology 2004;23(4):397‐406. CENTRAL

MacLeod 2003 {published data only}

Macleod ZR, Charles MA, Arnaldi VC, Adams IM. Telephone counselling as an adjunct to nicotine patches in smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Journal of Australia 2003;179(7):349‐52. CENTRAL

McBride 1999a {published data only}

McBride CM, Scholes D, Grothaus LC, Curry SJ, Ludman E, Albright J. Evaluation of a minimal self‐help smoking cessation intervention following cervical cancer screening. Preventive Medicine 1999;29(2):133‐8. CENTRAL

McBride 1999b {published data only}

Lando HA, Valanis BG, Lichtenstein E, Curry SJ, McBride CM, Pirie PL, et al. Promoting smoking abstinence in pregnant and postpartum patients: a comparison of 2 approaches. American Journal of Managed Care 2001;7(7):685‐93. CENTRAL
McBride CM, Curry SJ, Lando HA, Pirie PL, Grothaus LC, Nelson JC. Prevention of relapse in women who quit smoking during pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health 1999;89(5):706‐11. CENTRAL

McBride 2004 {published data only}

McBride CM, Baucom DH, Peterson BL, Pollak KI, Palmer C, Westman E, et al. Prenatal and postpartum smoking abstinence ‐ A partner‐assisted approach. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2004;27(3):232‐8. CENTRAL

McClure 2005 {published data only}

McClure J, Wetter D, Curry SJ. Acceptability of proactive contact and counseling among female smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6(4):722. CENTRAL
McClure JB, Westbrook E, Curry SJ, Wetter DW. Proactive, motivationally enhanced smoking cessation counseling among women with elevated cervical cancer risk. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2005;7(6):881‐9. CENTRAL

McClure 2011 {published data only}

McClure JB, Catz SL, Ludman EJ, Richards J, Riggs K, Grothaus L. Feasibility and acceptability of a multiple risk factor intervention: the Step Up randomized pilot trial. BMC Public Health 2011;11:167. CENTRAL

McFall 1993 {published data only}

McFall SL, Michener A, Rubin D, Flay BR, Mermelstein RJ, Burton D, et al. The effects and use of maintenance newsletters in a smoking cessation intervention. Addictive Behaviors 1993;18(2):151‐8. CENTRAL

Metz 2007 {published data only}

Flöter S, Metz K, Kroeger C, Donath C, Piontek D, Gradi S. Evaluation of telephone booster sessions after intensive in‐patient treatment ‐ a randomized treatment control trial (POS1‐78). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting 2006 February 15‐18, Orlando, Florida. 2006. CENTRAL
Metz K, Flöter S, Kroger C, Donath C, Piontek D, Gradl S. Telephone booster sessions for optimizing smoking cessation for patients in rehabilitation centers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(8):853‐63. CENTRAL
Metz K, Kroeger C, Schuetz C, Flöter S, Donath C. Which smoking cessation intervention works for smokers with an alcohol addiction?. 68th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. 2006. CENTRAL

Miguez 2002 {published data only}

Miguez MC, Becoña E. Abstinence from smoking ten years after participation in a randomized controlled trial of a self‐help program. Addictive Behaviors 2008;33(10):1369‐74. CENTRAL
Miguez MC, Vázquez FL, Becoña E. Effectiveness of telephone contact as an adjunct to a self‐help program for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial in Spanish smokers. Addictive Behaviors 2002;27(1):139‐44. CENTRAL

Miguez 2008 {published data only}

Miguez MC, Becoña E. Evaluating the effectiveness of a single telephone contact as an adjunct to a self‐help intervention for smoking cessation in a randomized controlled trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10(1):129‐35. CENTRAL

Miller 1997 {published data only}

Miller NH, Smith PM, DeBusk RF, Sobel DS, Taylor CB. Smoking cessation in hospitalized patients ‐ Results of a randomized trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 1997;157(4):409‐15. CENTRAL

NCT00534404 {published data only}

NCT00534404. iQuit Smoking: a randomized trial of internet access to nicotine patches. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00534404 (first received 24 September 2007). CENTRAL

Nohlert 2014 {published data only}

Nohlert E, Öhrvik J, Helgason ÁR. Effectiveness of proactive and reactive services at the Swedish National Tobacco Quitline in a randomized trial. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2014;12(1):9. CENTRAL
Nohlert E, Öhrvik J, Helgason ÁR. Non‐responders in a quitline evaluation are more likely to be smokers – a drop‐out and long‐term follow‐up study of the Swedish National Tobacco Quitline. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2016;14:5. CENTRAL

Ockene 1991 {published data only}

Ockene JK, Kristeller J, Goldberg R, Amick TL, Pekow PS, Hosmer D, et al. Increasing the efficacy of physician‐delivered smoking interventions: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1991;6(1):1‐8. CENTRAL
Ockene JK, Kristeller J, Pbert L, Hebert JR, Luippold R, Goldberg RJ, et al. The physician‐delivered smoking intervention project: can short‐term interventions produce long‐term effects for a general outpatient population?. Health Psychology 1994;13(3):278‐81. CENTRAL

Orleans 1991 {published data only}

Orleans CT, Schoenbach VJ, Wagner EH, Quade D, Salmon MA, Pearson DC, et al. Self‐help quit smoking interventions: effects of self‐help materials, social support instructions, and telephone counseling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1991;59(3):439‐48. CENTRAL
Schoenbach VJ, Orleans CT, Wagner EH, Quade D, Salmon MAP, Porter CQ. Characteristics of smokers who enroll and quit in self‐help programs. Health Education Research 1992;7:369‐80. CENTRAL

Orleans 1998 {published data only}

Orleans CT, Boyd NR, Bingler R, Sutton C, Fairclough D, Heller D, et al. A self‐help intervention for African American smokers: tailoring cancer information service counseling for a special population. Preventive Medicine 1998;27(5):S61‐S70. CENTRAL

Osinubi 2003 {published data only}

Osinubi OY, Moline J, Rovner E, Sinha S, Perez‐Lugo M, Demissie K, et al. A pilot study of telephone‐based smoking cessation intervention in asbestos workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003;45(5):569‐74. CENTRAL

Ossip‐Klein 1991 {published data only}

Ossip Klein DJ, Giovino GA, Megahed N, Black PM, Emont SL, Stiggins J, et al. Effects of a smoker's hotline: results of a 10‐county self‐help trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1991;59(2):325‐32. CENTRAL

Ossip‐Klein 1997 {published data only}

Ossip Klein DJ, Carosella AM, Krusch DA. Self‐help interventions for older smokers. Tobacco Control 1997;6(3):188‐93. CENTRAL

Peterson 2016 {published data only}

Heffner JL, Kealey KA, Marek PM, Bricker JB, Ludman EJ, Peterson AV. Proactive telephone counseling for adolescent smokers: comparing regular smokers with infrequent and occasional smokers on treatment receptivity, engagement, and outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2016;165:229‐235. CENTRAL
Liu J, Peterson AV, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Bricker JB, Marek PM. Addressing challenges in adolescent smoking cessation: design and baseline characteristics of the HS group‐randomized trial. Preventive Medicine 2007;45(2‐3):215‐25. CENTRAL
Peterson AV, Marek PM, Kealey KA, Bricker JB, Ludman EJ, Heffner JL. Does effectiveness of adolescent smoking‐cessation intervention endure into young adulthood? 7‐year follow‐up results from a group‐randomized trial. PloS One 2016;11(2):e0146459. CENTRAL

Piper 2016 {published data only}

Baker TB, Collins LM, Mermelstein R, Piper ME, Schlam TR, Cook JW, et al. Enhancing the effectiveness of smoking treatment research: conceptual bases and progress. Addiction 2016;111(1):107‐16. CENTRAL
Piper ME, Cook JW, Schlam TR, Smith SS, Bolt DM, Collins LM, et al. Toward precision smoking cessation treatment II: proximal effects of smoking cessation intervention components on putative mechanisms of action. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2017;171:50‐8. CENTRAL
Piper ME, Fiore MC, Smith SS, Fraser D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, et al. Identifying effective intervention components for smoking cessation: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction 2016;111(1):129‐41. CENTRAL
Piper ME, Schlam TR, Cook JW, Smith SS, Bolt DM, Loh WY, et al. Toward precision smoking cessation treatment I: moderator results from a factorial experiment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2017;171:59‐65. CENTRAL
Schlam TR, Fiore MC, Smith SS, Fraser D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of intervention components for producing long‐term abstinence from smoking: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction 2016;111(1):142‐55. CENTRAL

Prochaska 1993 {published and unpublished data}

Prochaska JO, Di Clemente CC, Velicer WF, Rossi JS. Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self‐help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychology 1993;12(5):399‐405. CENTRAL

Prochaska 2001 {published data only}

Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Fava JL, Ruggiero L, Laforge RG, Rossi JS, et al. Counselor and stimulus control enhancements of a stage‐matched expert system intervention for smokers in a managed care setting. Preventive Medicine 2001;32(1):23‐32. CENTRAL

Rabius 2004 {published data only}

McAlister AL, Rabius V, Geiger A, Glynn TJ, Huang P, Todd R. Telephone assistance for smoking cessation: one year cost effectiveness estimations. Tobacco Control 2004;13(1):85‐6. CENTRAL
Rabius V, McAlister AL, Geiger A, Huang P, Todd R. Telephone counseling increases cessation rates among young adult smokers. Health Psychology 2004;23(5):539‐41. CENTRAL

Rabius 2007 {published data only}

Rabius V, Pike J, Geiger AT, McAlister AL. Telephone counseling for smoking cessation; effects of number and duration of counseling sessions and NRT use (PA2‐3). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting 2004 February 18‐21, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004. CENTRAL
Rabius V, Pike J, Hunter J, Wiatrek D, McAlister A. Optimizing telephone counseling for smoking cessation: Six‐month effects of varying the number and duration of counseling sessions. American Association for Cancer Research. Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research. 2006 November 12‐15, Boston, MA. 2006. CENTRAL
Rabius V, Pike KJ, Hunter J, Wiatrek D, McAlister AL. Effects of frequency and duration in telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i71‐4. CENTRAL
Rabius V, Villars P, Pike J, Geiger AT, Hunter J, McAlister AL. Depression and other factors in cost‐effective tailoring of telephone counseling. National Conference on Tobacco or Health 2005 May 4‐6, Chicago, Ill. 2005. CENTRAL

Ramon 2013 {published data only}

Ramon JM, Nerin I, Comino A, Pinet C, Abella F, Carreras JM, et al. A multicentre randomized trial of combined individual and telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Preventive Medicine 2013;57(3):183‐8. CENTRAL

Reid 1999a {published data only}

D'Angelo ME, Reid RD, Brown KS, Pipe AL. Gender differences in predictors for long‐term smoking cessation following physician advice and nicotine replacement therapy. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2001;92(6):418‐22. CENTRAL
Reid RD, Pipe A, Dafoe WA. Is telephone counselling a useful addition to physician advice and nicotine replacement therapy in helping patients to stop smoking? A randomized controlled trial. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1999;160(11):1577‐81. CENTRAL

Reid 2007 {published data only}

Reid RD, Pipe AL, Quinlan B, Oda J. Interactive voice response telephony to promote smoking cessation in patients with heart disease: A pilot study. Patient Education and Counseling 2007;66(3):319‐26. CENTRAL

Reid 2018 {published data only}

Reid RD, Aitken DA, McDonnell L, Armstrong A, MullenKA, Jones L, et al. Randomized trial of an automated telephone follow‐up system for smoking cessation insmokers with CHD. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 2011;27(5 Suppl 1):S67. CENTRAL
Reid RD, Aitken DA, Mullen KA, McDonnell L, Armstrong A, Leblanc AG, et al. Automated telephone follow‐up for smoking cessation in smokers with coronary heart disease: a randomized controlled trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research May 25 2018 [Epub ahead of print]. CENTRAL

Rigotti 2006 {published data only}

Park ER, Quinn VP, Chang Y, Regan S, Loudin B, Cummins S, et al. Recruiting pregnant smokers into a clinical trial: using a network‐model managed care organization versus community‐based practices. Preventive Medicine 2007;44(3):223‐9. CENTRAL
Rigotti NA, Park ER, Chang Y, Regan S. Smoking cessation medication use among pregnant and postpartum smokers. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;111(2 Pt 1):348‐55. CENTRAL
Rigotti NA, Park ER, Chang Y, Regan S, Perry K. Actual practice when evidence is unclear: how often do pregnant smokers use cessation medications and how often do obstetric providers recommend them? (PA6‐2). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 13th Annual Meeting; 2007 February 21‐24, Austin, Texas2007:25. []CENTRAL
Rigotti NA, Park ER, Regan S, Chang Y, Perry K, Loudin B, et al. Efficacy of telephone counseling for pregnant smokers: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;108(1):83‐92. CENTRAL

Rimer 1994 {published data only}

Rimer BK, Orleans CT, Fleisher L, Cristinzio S. Does tailoring matter? The impact of a tailored guide on ratings and short‐term smoking‐related outcomes for older smokers. Health Education Research 1994;9(1):69‐84. CENTRAL

Rogers 2016 {published data only}

Axtmayer A, Rogers E, Sherman S. Telephone‐based smoking cessation treatment for mental health patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2011;26:S353. CENTRAL
Parker L, Rogers E, Wang B, Sherman S. Smoking cessation in the elderly: Is it too late?. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014;62:S153. CENTRAL
Rogers E, Fernandez S, Gillespie C, Smelson D, Hagedorn HJ, Elbel B, et al. Telephone care coordination for smokers in VA mental health clinics: protocol for a hybrid type‐2 effectiveness‐implementation trial. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 2013;8:7. CENTRAL
Rogers E, Fernandez S, Smelson D, Axtmayer A, Sherman SE. Proactive telephone smoking cessation treatment in a VA mental health population: Preliminary treatment engagement and cessation outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2011;26:S343. CENTRAL
Rogers ES, Gillespie C, Zabar S, Sherman SE. Using standardized patients to train telephone counselors for a clinical trial. BMC Research Notes 2014;7:341. CENTRAL
Rogers ES, Smelson DA, Gillespie CC, Elbel B, Poole S, Hagedorn HJ, et al. Telephone smoking‐cessation counseling for smokers in mental health clinics: a patient‐randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;50(4):518‐27. CENTRAL

Schlam 2016 {published data only}

Baker TB, Collins LM, Mermelstein R, Piper ME, Schlam TR, Cook JW, et al. Enhancing the effectiveness of smoking treatment research: conceptual bases and progress. Addiction 2016;111(1):107‐16. CENTRAL
Piper ME, Fiore MC, Smith SS, Fraser D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, et al. Identifying effective intervention components for smoking cessation: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction 2016;111(1):129‐41. CENTRAL
Schlam TR, Fiore MC, Smith SS, Fraser D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of intervention components for producing long‐term abstinence from smoking: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction 2016;111(1):142‐55. CENTRAL

Schuck 2014 {published data only}

Schuck K, Bricker JB, Otten R, Kleinjan M, Brandon TH, Engels RC. Effectiveness of proactive quitline counselling for smoking parents recruited through primary schools: results of a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2014;109(5):830‐41. CENTRAL
Schuck K, Otten R, Kleinjan M, Bricker JB, Engels RC. Effectiveness of proactive telephone counselling for smoking cessation in parents: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2011;11:732. CENTRAL

Sherman 2017 {published data only}

Sherman SE, Cummins S, Finney J, Kalra P, Kuschner W, York L, et al. Preliminary results from a study of telephone care coordination for smoking cessation. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008;23((Suppl 2)):376‐7. CENTRAL
Sherman SE, Krebs P, York LS, Cummins SE, Kuschner W, Guvenc‐Tuncturk S, et al. Telephone care co‐ordination for tobacco cessation: randomised trials testing proactive versus reactive models. Tobacco Control 2017;27(1):78‐82. CENTRAL

Sims 2013 {published data only}

Sims T, Smith SS, McAfee T, Baker TB, Fiore M, Sheffer M. Randomized clinical trial to evaluate quitline cessation counseling for 18 to 24 year‐old smokers [PA2‐1]. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 17th Annual Meeting, 2011 February 16‐19, Toronto. 2011:17. CENTRAL
Sims TH, McAfee T, Fraser DL, Baker TB, Fiore MC, Smith SS. Quitline cessation counseling for young adult smokers: a randomized clinical trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(5):932‐41. CENTRAL

Skov‐Ettrup 2016 {published data only}

Skov‐Ettrup LS, Dalum P, Bech M, Tolstrup JS. The effectiveness of telephone counselling and internet‐ and text‐message‐based support for smoking cessation: results from a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2016;111(7):1257‐66. CENTRAL
Skov‐Ettrup LS, Dalum P, Ekholm O, Tolstrup JS. Reach and uptake of Internet‐ and phone‐based smoking cessation interventions: results from a randomized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine 2014;62:38‐43. CENTRAL
Skov‐Ettrup LS, Dalum P, Tolstrup JS. Internet‐based intervention and telephone counselling for smoking cessation: Results from a 4‐arm randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Epidemiology 2013;28(1 Suppl 1):S48‐S49. CENTRAL

Smith 2004 {published data only}

Smith PM, Cameron R, McDonald PW, Kawash B, Madill C, Brown KS. Telephone counseling for population‐based smoking cessation. American Journal of Health Behavior 2004;28(3):231‐41. CENTRAL
Smith PM, Cameron R, Payne B, Madill C, McDonald P, Brown S. Randomised controlled trial of a telephone smoking cessation program: effect of 3 vs 7 calls. 11th World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2000 August 6‐11, Chicago, Illinois. 2000; Vol. 1. CENTRAL

Smith 2013 {published data only}

Smith SS, Keller PA, Kobinsky KH, Baker TB, Fraser DL, Bush T, et al. Enhancing tobacco quitline effectiveness: Identifying a superior pharmacotherapy adjuvant. Nicotine & Tobacco Research2013; Vol. 15, issue 3:718‐28. []CENTRAL

Solomon 2000 {published data only}

Solomon LJ, Scharoun GM, Flynn BS, Secker‐Walker RH, Sepinwall D. Free nicotine patches plus proactive telephone peer support to help low‐income women stop smoking. Preventive Medicine 2000;31(1):68‐74. CENTRAL

Solomon 2005 {published data only}

Solomon LJ, Marcy TW, Howe KD, Skelly JM, Reinier K, Flynn BS. Does extended proactive telephone support increase smoking cessation among low‐income women using nicotine patches?. Preventive Medicine 2005;40(3):306‐13. CENTRAL

Sood 2009 {published data only}

Coleman T. Adding live, reactive telephone counselling to self‐help literature does not increase smoking cessation. Evidence‐Based Medicine 2010;15(2):53‐4. CENTRAL
Gilbert H. Adding live, reactive telephone counselling to self‐help literature does not increase smoking cessation. Evidence‐Based Nursing 2010;13(2):42. CENTRAL
Pbert L. Enhancing the effect of telephone quitline counseling through proactive call‐back counseling. Chest 2009;136(5):1199‐200. CENTRAL
Sood A, Andoh J, Verhulst S, Ganesh M, Edson B, Hopkins‐Price P. "Real‐world" effectiveness of reactive telephone counseling for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Chest 2009;136(5):1229‐36. CENTRAL

Sorensen 2007a {published and unpublished data}

Hunt MK, Harley AE, Stoddard AM, Lederman RI, MacArthur MJ, Sorensen G. Elements of external validity of tools for health: an intervention for construction laborers. American Journal of Health Promotion 2010;24(5):e11‐20. CENTRAL
Sorensen G, Barbeau EM, Stoddard AM, Hunt MK, Goldman R, Smith A, et al. Tools for health: the efficacy of a tailored intervention targeted for construction laborers. Cancer Causes & Control 2007;18(1):51‐9. CENTRAL

Stotts 2002 {published data only}

Stotts AL, Diclemente CC, Dolan‐Mullen P. One‐to‐one ‐ A motivational intervention for resistant pregnant smokers. Addictive Behaviors 2002;27(2):275‐92. CENTRAL

Sumner 2016 {published data only}

Sumner W, Walker MS, Highstein GR, Fischer I, Yan Y, McQueen A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline. BMC Public Health 2016;16:550. CENTRAL

Swan 2003 {published data only}

Jack LM, Swan GE, Thompson E, Curry SJ, McAfee T, Dacey S, et al. Bupropion SR and smoking cessation in actual practice: methods for recruitment, screening, and exclusion for a field trial in a managed‐care setting. Preventive Medicine 2003;36(5):585‐93. CENTRAL
Javitz HS, Swan GE, Zbikowski SM, Curry SJ, McAfee TA, Decker DL, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of different combinations of bupropion SR dose and behavioral treatment for smoking cessation: a societal perspective. American Journal of Managed Care 2004;10(3):217‐26. CENTRAL
McAfee T, Zbikowski SM, Bush T, McClure J, Swan G, Jack LM, et al. The effectiveness of bupropion SR and phone counseling for light and heavy smokers [abstract]. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6:721. CENTRAL
Swan GE, Jack LM, Curry S, Chorost M, Javitz H, McAfee T, et al. Bupropion SR and counseling for smoking cessation in actual practice: Predictors of outcome. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2003;5(6):911‐21. CENTRAL
Swan GE, Jack LM, Javitz HS, McAfee T, McClure JB. Predictors of 12‐month outcome in smokers who received bupropion sustained‐release for smoking cessation. Central Nervous System Drugs 2008;22(3):239‐56. CENTRAL
Swan GE, Javitz HS, Jack LM, Curry SJ, McAfee T. Heterogeneity in 12‐month outcome among female and male smokers. Addiction 2004;99(2):237‐50. CENTRAL
Swan GE, McAfee T, Curry SJ, Jack LM, Javitz H, Dacey S, et al. Effectiveness of bupropion sustained release for smoking cessation in a health care setting: a randomized trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 2003;163(19):2337‐44. CENTRAL

Swan 2010 {published data only}

Halperin AC, McAfee TA, Jack LM, Catz SL, McClure JB, Deprey TM, et al. Impact of symptoms experienced by varenicline users on tobacco treatment in a real world setting. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2009;36(4):428‐34. CENTRAL
Javitz HS, Zbikowski SM, Deprey M, McAfee TA, McClure JB, Richards J, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of varenicline and three different behavioral treatment formats for smoking cessation. Translational Behavioral Medicine2011; Vol. 1, issue 1:182‐90. []CENTRAL
Swan GE, McClure JB, Jack LM, Zbikowski SM, Javitz HS, Catz SL, et al. Behavioral counseling and varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010;38(5):482‐90. CENTRAL
Zbikowski SM, Jack LM, McClure JB, Deprey M, Javitz HS, Mcafee TA, et al. Utilization of services in a randomized trial testing phone‐ and web‐based interventions for smoking cessation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2011;13(5):319‐27. CENTRAL

Thomas 2016 {published data only}

Thomas JL, Luo X, Bengtson J, Wang Q, Ghidei W, Nyman J, et al. Enhancing Quit & Win contests to improve cessation among college smokers: a randomized clinical trial. Addiction 2016;111(2):331‐9. CENTRAL

Thompson 1993 {published data only}

Kinne S, Thompson B, Wooldridge JA. Response to a telephone smoking information line. American Journal of Health Promotion 1991;5(6):410‐3. CENTRAL
Thompson B, Kinne S, Lewis FM, Wooldridge JA. Randomized telephone smoking‐intervention trial initially directed at blue‐collar workers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 1993;1993(14):105‐12. CENTRAL

Tzelepis 2011a {published data only}

Carpenter MJ. Proactive recruitment in clinical trials: an idea whose time has come. Tobacco Control 2011;20(4):317. CENTRAL
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Walsh RA, Knight J, Wiggers J. Who enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of quitline support? Comparison of participants versus nonparticipants. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(12):2107‐13. CENTRAL
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Walsh RA, Wiggers J, Duncan SL, Knight J. Active telephone recruitment to quitline services: are nonvolunteer smokers receptive to cessation support?. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009;11(10):1205‐15. CENTRAL
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Walsh RA, Wiggers J, Duncan SL, Knight J. Predictors of abstinence among smokers recruited actively to quitline support. Addiction2013; Vol. 108, issue 1:181‐5. []CENTRAL
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Walsh RA, Wiggers J, Knight J, Lecathelinais C, et al. Telephone recruitment into a randomized controlled trial of quitline support. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009;37(4):324‐9. CENTRAL
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Wiggers J, Walsh RA, Knight J, Duncan SL, et al. A randomised controlled trial of proactive telephone counselling on cold‐called smokers' cessation rates. Tobacco Control 2011;20(1):40‐6. CENTRAL

Vander Weg 2016 {published data only}

Vander Weg MW, Cozad AJ, Howren MB, Cretzmeyer M, Scherubel M, Turvey C, et al. An individually‐tailored smoking cessation intervention for rural Veterans: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Public Health 2016;16(1):811. CENTRAL

Velicer 2006 {published data only}

Velicer WF, Friedman RH, Fava JL, Gulliver SB, Keller S, Sun X, et al. Evaluating nicotine replacement therapy and stage‐based therapies in a population‐based effectiveness trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2006;74(6):1162‐72. CENTRAL

Warner 2016 {published data only}

Warner DO, Nolan MB, Kadimpati S, Burke MV, Hanson AC, Schroeder DR. Quitline tobacco interventions in hospitalized patients: a randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):473‐84. CENTRAL

Wu 2017 {published data only}

Wu L, He Y, Jiang B, Zhang D, Tian H, Zuo F, et al. Very brief physician advice and supplemental proactive telephone calls to promote smoking reduction and cessation in Chinese male smokers with no intention to quit: a randomized trial. Addiction 2017;112(11):2032‐40. CENTRAL

Young 2008 {published data only}

Young JM, Girgis S, Bruce TA, Hobbs M, Ward JE. Acceptability and effectiveness of opportunistic referral of smokers to telephone cessation advice from a nurse: a randomised trial in Australian general practice. BMC Family Practice 2008;9:16. CENTRAL

Zhu 1996 {published data only}

Zhu SH, Stretch V, Balabanis M, Rosbrook BP, Sadler G, Pierce JP. Telephone counseling for smoking cessation ‐ effects of single‐session and multiple‐session interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1996;64(1):202‐11. CENTRAL

Zhu 2002 {published data only}

Zhu SH, Anderson CM, Tedeschi GJ, Rosbrook B, Johnson CE, Byrd M, et al. Evidence of real‐world effectiveness of a telephone quitline for smokers. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(14):1087‐93. CENTRAL

Zhu 2012 {published data only}

Tedeschi GJ, Zhu S‐H, Cummins SE, Shin H, Nguyen MH. Counselling Asian smokers: key considerations for a telephone intervention. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2013;8(1):2‐10. CENTRAL
Zhu SH, Cummins SE, Wong S, Gamst AC, Tedeschi GJ, Reyes‐Nocon J. The effects of a multilingual telephone quitline for Asian smokers: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2012;104(4):299‐310. CENTRAL

Zwar 2015 {published data only}

Halcomb EJ, Furler JS, Hermiz OS, Blackberry ID, Smith JP, Richmond RL, et al. Process evaluation of a practice nurse‐led smoking cessation trial in Australian general practice: Views of general practitioners and practice nurses. Family Practice 2015;32(4):468‐73. CENTRAL
Zwar N, Richmond R, Halcomb E, Furler J, Smith J, Hermiz O, et al. Supporting smoking cessation in primary care: Results of the quit in general practice study. Respirology 2014;19(Suppl 2):23. CENTRAL
Zwar N, Richmond RL, Halcomb E, Furler J, Smith J, Hermiz O, et al. Supporting smoking cessation in Australian primary care: Results of the quit in general practice study. Global Heart 2014;9(1 Suppl):e232. CENTRAL
Zwar NA, Richmond RL, Halcomb EJ, Furler JS, Smith JP, Hermize O, et al. Quit in general practice: A cluster randomized trial of enhanced in‐practice support for smoking cessation. Family Practice 2015;32(2):173‐80. CENTRAL

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Abroms 2014 {published data only}

Abroms LC, Boal AL, Simmens SJ, Mendel JA, Windsor RA. A randomized trial of Text2Quit: a text messaging program for smoking cessation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;47(3):242‐50. CENTRAL
Heminger CL, Boal AL, Zumer M, Abroms LC. Text2Quit: an analysis of participant engagement in the mobile smoking cessation program. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2016;42(4):450‐8. CENTRAL
Hoeppner BB, Hoeppner SS, Abroms LC. How do text‐messaging smoking cessation interventions confer benefit? A multiple mediation analysis of Text2Quit. Addiction 2017;112(4):673‐82. CENTRAL

Ahijevych 1995 {published data only}

Ahijevych K, Wewers ME. Low‐intensity smoking cessation intervention among African‐ American women cigarette smokers ‐ a pilot study. American Journal of Health Promotion 1995;9(5):337‐9. CENTRAL

Alonso‐Perez 2007 {published data only}

Alonso‐Perez F, Secades‐Villa R, Duarte CG. Are psychological treatments effective to stop smoking?. Trastornos Adictivos 2007;9(1):21‐30. CENTRAL

Amos 1995 {published data only}

Amos A, White DA, Elton RA. Is a telephone helpline of value to the workplace smoker?. Occupational Medicine 1995;45(5):234‐8. CENTRAL

An 2008 {published data only}

An LC, Bluhm JH, Foldes SS, Alesci NL, Klatt CM, Center BA, et al. A randomized trial of a pay‐for‐performance program targeting clinician referral to a state tobacco quitline. Archives of Internal Medicine 2008;168(18):1993‐9. CENTRAL

Asfar 2010 {published data only}

Asfar T, Klesges RC, Sanford SD, Sherrill‐Mittleman D, Robison LL, Hudson MM, et al. Trial design: The St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Cancer Survivors Tobacco Quit Line study. Contemporary Clinical Trials2010; Vol. 31, issue 1:82‐91. []CENTRAL
Berger VW. Randomization, permuted blocks, masking, allocation concealment, and selection bias in the Tobacco Quit Line Study. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2010;31(3):201. CENTRAL
Klesges RC, Krukowski RA, Klosky JL, Liu W, Srivastava DK, Boyett JM, et al. Efficacy of a tobacco quitline among adult cancer survivors. Preventive Medicine 2015;73:22‐7. CENTRAL
Klesges RC, Krukowski RA, Klosky JL, Liu W, Srivastava DK, Boyett JM, et al. Efficacy of a tobacco quitline among adult survivors of childhood cancer. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(6):710‐8. CENTRAL

Augustine 2015 {published data only}

Augustine MR, Strauss H, Levine DM, Chugh P, Wang B, Grossman E, et al. Predictors of adherence to telephone counseling for smoking cessation amongst veterans presenting to VA mental health clinics. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015;30:S232‐S233. CENTRAL

Baker 2015 {published data only}

Baker A, Richmond R, Kay‐Lambkin F, Castle D, Filia S, Williams J, et al. Smoking and other cardiovascular disease risk behaviours among people with severe mental disorders. Schizophrenia Research 2012;136:S175. CENTRAL
Baker A, Richmond R, Kay‐Lambkin F, Filia S, Castle D, Williams J, et al. A smoking intervention among people with psychotic disorders‐preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 2012;8:339. CENTRAL
Baker AL, Richmond R, Kay‐Lambkin FJ, Filia SL, Castle D, Williams JM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention among smokers With psychotic disorders. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(8):946‐54. CENTRAL

Balanda 1999 {published data only}

Balanda KP, Lowe JB, O'Connor‐Fleming ML. Comparison of two self‐help smoking cessation booklets. Tobacco Control 1999;8(1):57‐61. CENTRAL

Berndt 2014 {published data only}

Berndt N, Bolman C, Froelicher ES, Mudde A, Candel M, De Vries H, et al. Effectiveness of a telephone delivered and a face‐to‐face delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: a 6‐month follow‐up. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2014;37(4):709‐24. CENTRAL
Berndt N, Bolman C, Lechner L, Max W, Mudde A, De Vries H, et al. Economic evaluation of a telephone‐ and face‐to‐face‐delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease. European Journal of Health Economics 2016;17(3):269‐85. CENTRAL
Berndt N, Bolman C, Lechner L, Mudde A, Verheugt FW, De Vries H. Effectiveness of two intensive treatment methods for smoking cessation and relapse prevention in patients with coronary heart disease: study protocol and baseline description. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2012;12:33. CENTRAL
Berndt N, De Vries H, Lechner L, Van Acker F, Froelicher ES, Verheugt F, et al. High intensity smoking cessation interventions: cardiac patients of low socioeconomic status and low intention to quit profit most. Netherlands Heart Journal 2017;25(1):24‐32. CENTRAL
Berndt N, Lechner L, De Vries H, Van Acker F, Mudde A, Froelicher E, et al. Effectiveness of two intensive smoking cessation interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: Benefits for patients with low socioeconomic status and low quit motivations. European Heart Journal 2013;34:475. CENTRAL
Berndt N, Lechner L, Mudde A, De Vries H, Bolman C. Feasibility and acceptability of a telephone‐ and face‐to‐face‐delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in Dutch patients with coronary heart disease. Research in Nursing & Health 2017;40(5):444‐58. CENTRAL

Bernstein 2018 {published data only}

Bernstein SL, Dziura J, Weiss J, Miller T, Vickerman KA, Grau LE, et al. Tobacco dependence treatment in the emergency department: a randomized trial using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2018;66:1‐8. CENTRAL

Best 1977 {published data only}

Best JA, Bass F, Owen LE. Mode of service delivery in a smoking cessation program for public health. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1977;68(6):469‐73. CENTRAL

Bliksrud 2002 {published data only}

Bliksrud T, Nygaard E. Telephone Quitline and changed smoking behavior [Royketelefonen og endret roykeatferd]. Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening2002; Vol. 122, issue 27:2616‐8. []CENTRAL

Bock 2008 {published data only}

Bock BC, Becker BM, Niaura RS, Partridge R, Fava JL, Trask P. Smoking cessation among patients in an emergency chest pain observation unit: outcomes of the Chest Pain Smoking Study (CPSS). Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10(10):1523‐31. CENTRAL

Borland 1989 {published data only}

Borland R. Three‐month follow‐up on callers to a telephone counselling service in 1987. Quit Evaluation Studies: Volume 3 Chapter 6 www.quit.org.au 1989 (accessed 18 July 2000). CENTRAL

Borland 2004 {published data only}

Borland R, Balmford J, Hunt D. The effectiveness of personally tailored computer‐generated advice letters for smoking cessation. Addiction 2004;99(3):369‐77. CENTRAL

Boyle 2004 {published data only}

Boyle RG, Pronk NP, Enstad CJ. A randomized trial of telephone counseling with adult moist snuff users. American Journal of Health Behavior 2004;28(4):347‐51. CENTRAL

Boyle 2008 {published data only}

Boyle RG, Enstad C, Asche SE, Thoele MJ, Sherwood NE, Severson HH, et al. A randomized controlled trial of telephone counseling with smokeless tobacco users: the ChewFree Minnesota study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10(9):1433‐40. CENTRAL

Brandon 2000 {published data only}

Brandon TH, Collins BN, Juliano LM, Lazev AB. Preventing relapse among former smokers: A comparison of minimal interventions through telephone and mail. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2000;68(1):103‐13. CENTRAL

Bronshtein 2016 {published and unpublished data}

Bronshtein E, Ondersma SJ, Sokol RJ. Optimizing ehealth for smoking in pregnancy: a pilot factorial evaluation of providing single vs multiple options. Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) 2016;Conference: 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Gynecologic Investigation, SGI 2016 Montreal, QC Canada(Suppl 1):195A. CENTRAL

Brunner‐Frandsen 2010 {published data only}

Brunner‐Frandsen NS, Bak S. Smoking cessation intervention after stroke or transient ischemic attack. A randomised controlled trial. Cerebrovascular Diseases 2010;29:323. CENTRAL

Buchanan 2004 {published data only}

Buchanan LM, El Banna M, White A, Moses S, Siedlik C, Wood M. An exploratory study of multicomponent treatment intervention for tobacco dependency. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2004;36(4):324‐30. CENTRAL

Buller 2012 {published data only}

Buller D, Borland R, Severson H, Bettinghaus E, Halperin A, Tinkelman D, et al. Results of a randomized trial comparing an online smoking cessation program to a self‐help booklet and telephone quit line among young adults (POS2‐17). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16, Houston, Texas. 2012:66. []CENTRAL

Burns 2010 {published data only}

Burns EK, Tong S, Levinson AH. Reduced NRT supplies through a quitline: smoking cessation differences. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2010;12(8):845‐9. CENTRAL

Bush 2012 {published data only}

Bush T, Levine MD, Beebe LA, Cerutti B, Deprey M, McAfee T, et al. Addressing weight gain in smoking cessation treatment: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Health Promotion 2012;27(2):94‐102. []CENTRAL

Bush 2016 {published data only}

Bush T, Lovejoy J, Javitz H, Magnusson B, Torres AJ, Mahuna S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of adding weight control simultaneously or sequentially to smoking cessation quitlines: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2016;16:615. CENTRAL

Carlini 2008 {published data only}

Carlini BH, Zbikowski SM, Javitz HS, Deprey TM, Cummins SE, Zhu SH. Telephone‐based tobacco‐cessation treatment: re‐enrollment among diverse groups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;35(1):73‐6. CENTRAL

Carlini 2012 {published data only}

Carlini BH, McDaniel A, Weaver M, Kauffman R, Cerutti B, Stratton RM, et al. No smokers left behind: using interactive voice response technology to recycle low income smokers back to quitline treatment ‐ a randomized control trial (POS2‐21). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16, Houston, Texas. 2012:67. []CENTRAL
Carlini BH, McDaniel AM, Weaver MT, Kauffman RM, Cerutti B, Stratton RM, et al. Reaching out, inviting back: using Interactive voice response (IVR) technology to recycle relapsed smokers back to Quitline treatment‐‐a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2012;12(1):507. []CENTRAL

Carlin‐Menter 2011 {published data only}

Carlin‐Menter S, Cummings KM, Celestino P, Hyland A, Mahoney MC, Willett J, et al. Does offering more support calls to smokers influence quit success?. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice 2011;17(3):E9‐15. CENTRAL

Carreras 2007 {published data only}

Carreras Castellet JM, Fletes DI, Quesada LM, Sanchez TB, Sanchez AL. Design and early results of a proactive telephone‐based smoking cessation treatment compared with face‐to‐face group sessions. Medicina Clinica 2007;128(7):247‐50. CENTRAL

Cheung 2013 {published data only}

Cheung K, Wong I, Brubacher J, Abu‐Laban R, Schulzer M. Emergency department tobacco cessation counseling: implementation and evaluation of a community‐based program: a pilot study (conference abstract). Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 2013;15(S79):S3. CENTRAL

Cheung 2017 {published data only}

Cheung KW, Wong IW, Fingrut W, Tsai APY, Ke SR, Shojaie S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of emergency department initiated smoking cessation counselling and referral to a community counselling service. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 2018;20(4):556‐64. CENTRAL

Choi 2014 {published data only}

Choi SH, Waltje AH, Ronis DL, Noonan D, Hong O, Richardson CR, et al. Web‐enhanced tobacco tactics with telephone support versus 1‐800‐QUIT‐NOW telephone line intervention for operating engineers: randomized controlled trial. Journal Medical Internet Research 2014;16(11):e255. CENTRAL
Duffy SA, Ronis DL, Richardson C, Waltje AH, Ewing LA, Noonan D, et al. Protocol of a randomized controlled trial of the Tobacco Tactics website for operating engineers. BMC Public Health 2012;12:335. []CENTRAL

Conway 2004 {published data only}

Conway TL, Woodruff SI, Edwards CC, Elder JP, Hurtado SL, Hervig LK. Operation Stay Quit: evaluation of two smoking relapse prevention strategies for women after involuntary cessation during US Navy recruit training. Military Medicine 2004;169(3):236‐42. CENTRAL

Cooper 2004 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Cooper TV, Debon MW, Stockton M, Klesges RC, Steenbergh TA, Sherrill‐Mittleman D, et al. Correlates of adherence with transdermal nicotine. Addictive Behaviors 2004;29(8):1565‐78. CENTRAL

Cummings 1988 {published data only}

Cummings KM, Emont SL, Jaen C, Sciandra R. Format and quitting instructions as factors influencing the impact of a self‐administered quit smoking program. Health Education Quarterly 1988;15(2):199‐216. CENTRAL
Jaen CR, Cummings KM, Zielezny M, O'Shea R. Patterns and predictors of smoking cessation among users of a telephone hotline. Public Health Reports 1993;108(6):772‐8. CENTRAL

Cummings 1989 {published data only}

Cummings KM, Sciandra R, Davis S, Rimer B. Response to anti‐smoking campaign aimed at mothers with young children. Health Education Research 1989;4:429‐37. CENTRAL

Cummings 2006a {published data only}

Cummings KM, Hyland A, Fix B, Bauer U, Celestino P, Carlin‐Menter S, et al. Free nicotine patch giveaway program 12‐month follow‐up of participants. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006;31(2):181‐4. CENTRAL
Miller N, Frieden TR, Liu SY, Matte TD, Mostashari F, Deitcher DR, et al. Effectiveness of a large‐scale distribution programme of free nicotine patches: a prospective evaluation. Lancet 2005;365(9474):1849‐54. CENTRAL

Cummings 2010 {published data only}

Cummings KM, Fix BV, Celestino P, Hyland A, Mahoney M, Ossip DJ, et al. Does the number of free nicotine patches given to smokers calling a quitline influence quit rates: results from a quasi‐experimental study. BMC Public Health 2010;10:181. []CENTRAL

Cummings 2011 {published data only}

Cummings KM, Hyland A, Carlin‐Menter S, Mahoney MC, Willett J, Juster HR. Costs of giving out free nicotine patches through a telephone quit line. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice 2011;17(3):E16‐23. CENTRAL

Curry 2003 {published data only}

Curry SJ, Ludman EJ, Graham E, Stout J, Grothaus L, Lozano P. Pediatric‐based smoking cessation intervention for low‐income women: a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2003;157(3):295‐302. CENTRAL

Danaher 2011 {published data only}

Danaher BG, Severson HH, Zhu S‐H, Lichtenstein E, Andrews JA, Yearick C. Evaluating the relative efficacy of web‐based intervention and helpline in smokeless tobacco cessation: the CHEWFREE II RCT [SM 12C]. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2011 February 16‐19, Toronto. 2011:15. CENTRAL

Danaher 2015 {published data only}

Danaher BG, Severson HH, Zhu S‐H, Andrews JA, Cummins SE, Lichtenstein E, Tedeschi GJ, Hudkins C, Widdop C, Crowley R, Seeley JR. Randomized controlled trial of the combined effects of Web and Quitline interventions for smokeless tobacco cessation. Internet Interventions 2015;2(2):143‐151. CENTRAL

Davis 1992 {published data only}

Davis SW, Cummings KM, Rimer BK, Sciandra R. The impact of tailored self‐help smoking cessation guides on young mothers. Health Education Quarterly 1992;19(4):495‐504. CENTRAL

De Azevedo 2010 {published data only}

De Azevedo RC, Mauro ML, Lima DD, Gaspar KC, Da Silva VF, Botega NJ. General hospital admission as an opportunity for smoking‐cessation strategies: A clinical trial in Brazil. General Hospital Psychiatry 2010;32(6):599‐606. CENTRAL

DeBusk 1994 {published data only}

DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko HR, Dennis CA, Thomas RJ, Lew HT, et al. A case‐management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Annals of Internal Medicine 1994;120(9):721‐9. CENTRAL

Decker 1989 {published data only}

Decker BD, Evans RG. Efficacy of a minimal contact version of a multimodal smoking cessation program. Addictive Behaviors 1989;14(5):487‐91. CENTRAL

Dent 2009 {published data only}

Dent LA, Harris KJ, Noonan CW. Randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of a pharmacist‐delivered program for smoking cessation. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2009;43(2):194‐201. CENTRAL

Dubren 1977 {published data only}

Dubren R. Self‐reinforcement by recorded telephone messages to maintain non‐smoking behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1977;45(3):358‐60. CENTRAL

Edelman 2014 {published data only}

Edelman D, Coffman CJ, Dolor R, Lindquist JH, Pereira KC, Granger BB, et al. Randomized trial of telephone nurse case co‐management of diabetes and hypertension in community practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014;29(1 Supplement):S193. CENTRAL
Edelman D, Dolor RJ, Coffman CJ, Pereira KC, Granger BB, Lindquist JH, et al. Nurse‐led behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension in community practices: a randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015;30(5):626‐33. CENTRAL

Fellows 2016 {published data only}

Fellows JL, Mularski R, Waiwaiole L, Funkhouser K, Mitchell J, Arnold K, et al. Health and economic effects from linking bedside and outpatient tobacco cessation services for hospitalized smokers in two large hospitals: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:129. CENTRAL
Fellows JL, Mularski RA, Leo MC, Bentz CJ, Waiwaiole LA, Francisco MC, et al. Referring hospitalized smokers to outpatient quit services: a randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):609‐19. CENTRAL

Fu 2016 {published data only}

Fu SS, Van Ryn M, Burgess DJ, Nelson D, Clothier B, Thomas JL, et al. Proactive tobacco treatment for low income smokers: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2014;14:337. CENTRAL
Fu SS, Van Ryn M, Nelson D, Burgess DJ, Thomas JL, Saul J, et al. Proactive tobacco treatment offering free nicotine replacement therapy and telephone counselling for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers: a randomised clinical trial. Thorax 2016;71(5):446‐53. CENTRAL

Garvey 2012 {published data only}

Garvey AJ, Kalman D, Hoskinson RA, Kinnunen T, Armour CD, Copp S, et al. Effects of extended‐duration counseling vs. shorter‐duration counseling after 1.5 years of follow‐up (POS4‐49). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16, Houston, Texas. 2012:139. CENTRAL

Gianos 2015 {published data only}

Gianos E, Schoenthaler A, Mushailov M, Fisher EA, Berger JS. Rationale and design of the Investigation of Motivational Interviewing and Prevention Consults to Achieve Cardiovascular Targets (IMPACT) trial. American Heart Journal 2015;170(3):430‐7.e9. CENTRAL

Gies 2008 {published data only}

Gies CE, Buchman D, Robinson J, Smolen D. Effect of an inpatient nurse‐directed smoking cessation program. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2008;30(1):6‐19. CENTRAL

Glasgow 2009 {published data only}

Glasgow RE, Estabrooks PA, Marcus AC, Smith TL, Gaglio B, Levinson AH, et al. Evaluating initial reach and robustness of a practical randomized trial of smoking reduction. Health Psychology 2008;27(6):780‐8. CENTRAL
Glasgow RE, Gaglio B, Estabrooks PA, Marcus AC, Ritzwoller DP, Smith TL, et al. Long‐term results of a smoking reduction program. Medical Care 2009;47:115‐20. CENTRAL
Levinson AH, Glasgow RE, Gaglio B, Smith TL, Cahoon J, Marcus AC. Tailored behavioral support for smoking reduction: development and pilot results of an innovative intervention. Health Education Research 2008;23(2):335‐46. CENTRAL

Gong 2016 {published data only}

Gong J, Baker CL, Zou KH, Bruno M, Jumadilova Z, Lawrence D, et al. A pragmatic randomized trial comparing telephone‐based enhanced pharmacy care and usual care to support smoking cessation. Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy 2016;22(12):1417‐25. CENTRAL

Gordon 2010 {published data only}

Gordon JS, Andrews JA, Crews KM, Payne TJ, Severson HH. The 5A's vs 3A's plus proactive quitline referral in private practice dental offices: preliminary results. Tobacco Control 2007;16(4):285‐8. CENTRAL
Gordon JS, Andrews JA, Crews KM, Payne TJ, Severson HH, Lichtenstein E. Do faxed quitline referrals add value to dental office‐based tobacco‐use cessation interventions?. Journal of the American Dental Association 2010;141(8):1000‐7. CENTRAL

Gritz 2012 {published data only}

Gritz ER, Vidrine DJ, Marks RM, Danysh MH, Arduino RC. A cell phone‐delivered intervention for HIV‐positive smokers: Project Reach Out [POS3‐113]. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16, Houston, Tx. 2012:123. []CENTRAL

Haas 2015 {published data only}

Haas JS, Linder JA, Park ER, Gonzalez I, Rigotti NA, Klinger EV, et al. Proactive tobacco cessation outreach to smokers of low socioeconomic status: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine 2015;175(2):218‐26. CENTRAL

Hackbarth 2006 {published data only}

Hackbarth D, Cohen RA, Preckwinkel L, Younker L, Mckee C, Solinski J, et al. Spirometry screening and an invitation to quit from a state tobacco quit line as motivators for smoking cessation among community dwelling adults. Chest 2006;130(4):145S. CENTRAL

Hammett 2018 {published data only}

Hammett P, Fu SS, Nelson D, Clothier B, Saul JE, Widome R, et al. A proactive smoking cessation intervention for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers: the role of smoking‐related stigma. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2018;20(3):286‐94. CENTRAL

Han 2010 {published data only}

Han HR, Kim J, Kim KB, Jeong S, Levine D, Li C, et al. Implementation and success of nurse telephone counseling in linguistically isolated Korean American patients with high blood pressure. Patient Education and Counseling 2010;80(1):130‐4. CENTRAL

Harris 2015 {published data only}

Harris M, Reynolds B. A pilot study of home‐based smoking cessation programs for rural, Appalachian, pregnant smokers. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 2015;44(2):236‐45. CENTRAL

Hasuo 2004 {published data only}

Hasuo S, Tanaka H, Oshima A. Efficacy of a smoking relapse prevention program by postdischarge telephone contacts: a randomized trial. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi [Japanese Journal of Public Health] 2004;51(6):403‐12. CENTRAL

Hawkes 2013 {published data only}

Hawkes AL, Chambers SK, Pakenham KI, Patrao TA, Baade PD, Lynch BM, et al. Effects of a telephone‐delivered multiple health behavior change intervention (CanChange) on health and behavioral outcomes in survivors of colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013;31(18):2313‐21. CENTRAL

Hebert 2011 {published data only}

Hebert Kiandra K. Effects of proactive telephone counseling on cessation rates of smokers with major depression. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2011;71(9‐B):5791. CENTRAL

Hennrikus 2002 {published data only}

Hennrikus DJ, Jeffery RW, Lando HA, Murray DM, Brelje K, Davidann B, et al. The SUCCESS Project: The effect of program format and incentives on participation and cessation in worksite smoking cessation programs. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92(2):274‐9. CENTRAL

Hokanson 2006 {published data only}

Hokanson JM, Anderson RL, Hennrikus DJ, Lando HA, Kendall DM. Integrated tobacco cessation counseling in a diabetes self‐management training program: a randomized trial of diabetes and reduction of tobacco. Diabetes Educator 2006;32(4):562‐70. CENTRAL

Holtrop 2005 {published data only}

Holtrop JS, Wadland WC, Vansen S, Weismantel D, Fadel H. Recruiting health plan members receiving pharmacotherapy into smoking cessation counseling. American Journal of Managed Care 2005;11(8):501‐7. CENTRAL

Johnson 1999 {published data only}

Johnson JL, Budz B, Mackay M, Miller C. Evaluation of a nurse‐delivered smoking cessation intervention for hospitalized patients with cardiac disease. Heart & Lung 1999;28(1):55‐64. CENTRAL

Joseph 2011 {published data only}

Joseph AM, Fu SS, Lindgren B, Rothman AJ, Kodl M, Lando H, et al. Chronic disease management for tobacco dependence: a randomized, controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine2011; Vol. 171, issue 21:1894‐900. [; 9400123000011861]CENTRAL

Katz 2004 {published data only}

Katz DA, Muehlenbruch DR, Brown RL, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Effectiveness of implementing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality smoking cessation clinical practice guideline: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004;96(8):594‐603. CENTRAL

Keten 2013 {published data only}

Keten E, Golbasi Z. The effect of three different smoking cessation intervention for smoker pregnant women. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin 2013;12(5):553‐62. CENTRAL

Killen 2008 {published data only}

Killen JD, Fortmann SP, Schatzberg AF, Arredondo C, Murphy G, Hayward C, et al. Extended cognitive behavior therapy for cigarette smoking cessation. Addiction 2008;103(8):1381‐90. CENTRAL

Kim 2013 {published data only}

Kim H, Kim O. The lifestyle modification coaching program for secondary stroke prevention. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2013;43(3):331‐40. CENTRAL

Kim 2016 {published data only}

Kim SS, Sitthisongkram S, Bernstein K, Fang H, Choi WS, Ziedonis D. A randomized controlled trial of a videoconferencing smoking cessation intervention for Korean American women: preliminary findings. International Journal of Women's Health 2016;8:453‐62. CENTRAL

Kim 2017 {published data only}

Kim SS, Darwish S, Lee SA, Demarco RF. A pilot study of a smoking cessation intervention for women living with HIV: study protocol. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials 2017;9:11‐20. CENTRAL

Klesges 2015 {published data only}

Klesges RC, Ebbert JO, Talcott GW, Thomas F, Richey PA, Womack C, et al. Efficacy of a tobacco quitline in active duty military and TRICARE beneficiaries: a randomized trial. Military Medicine 2015;180(8):917‐25. CENTRAL
Richey PA, Klesges RC, Talcott GW, Debon M, Womack C, Thomas F, et al. Efficacy of a smoking quit line in the military: baseline design and analysis. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2012;33(5):959‐68. CENTRAL

Koffman 1998 {published data only}

Koffman DM, Lee JW, Hopp JW, Emont SL. The impact of including incentives and competition in a workplace smoking cessation program on quit rates. American Journal of Health Promotion 1998;13:105‐11. CENTRAL

Lando 1996 {published data only}

Lando HA, Pirie PL, Roski J, McGovern PG, Schmid LA. Promoting abstinence among relapsed chronic smokers: The effect of telephone support. American Journal of Public Health 1996;86(12):1786‐90. CENTRAL

Leed‐Kelly 1996 {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(6):877‐87. CENTRAL
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(3):203‐10. CENTRAL

Lichtenstein 2002b {published data only}

Lichtenstein E, Lee ME, Boles SM, Foster L, Hampson SE. Using radon risk to motivate smoking reduction: replication and extension (PO3 21). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 8th Annual Meeting; 2002 February 20‐23, Savannah, Georgia. 2002. CENTRAL

Linder 2014 {published data only}

Linder JA, Haas J, Rigotti NA, Park ER, Kontos E, Gonzalez I, et al. Proactive outreach of tobacco cessation treatment to disadvantaged smokers after a primary care visit: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014;29(1 Supplement):S184. CENTRAL

Lindinger 2012 {published data only}

Lindinger P, Strunk M, Nubling M, Lang P. Protocol and effectiveness of telephone counselling for smoking cessation [Arbeitsweise und Wirksamkeit einer Telefonberatung fur Tabakentwohnung]. Sucht: Zeitschrift Fur Wissenschaft Und Praxis2012; Vol. 58, issue 1:33‐43. []CENTRAL

Little 2009 {published data only}

Little SJ, Hollis JF, Fellows JL, Snyder JJ, Dickerson JF. Implementing a tobacco assisted referral program in dental practices. Journal of Public Health Dentistry2009; Vol. 69, issue 3:149‐55. []CENTRAL

Mahabee‐Gittens 2008 {published data only}

Mahabee‐Gittens EM, Gordon J, Krugh M, Henry B, Leonard AC. A smoking cessation intervention plus proactive quitline referral in the pediatric emergency department: A pilot study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10(12):1745‐51. CENTRAL

Manfredi 1999 {published data only}

Manfredi C, Crittenden KS, Warnecke R, Engler J, Cho YI, Shaligram C. Evaluation of a motivational smoking cessation intervention for women in public health clinics. Preventive Medicine 1999;28(1):51‐60. CENTRAL

Manfredi 2011 {published data only}

Manfredi C, Cho YI, Warnecke R, Saunders S, Sullivan M. Dissemination strategies to improve implementation of the PHS smoking cessation guideline in MCH public health clinics: experimental evaluation results and contextual factors. Health Education Research 2011;26(2):348‐60. CENTRAL

Mayer 2010 {published data only}

Mayer C, Vandecasteele H, Bodo M, Primo C, Slachmuylder J‐L, Kaufman L, et al. Smoking relapse prevention programs and factors that predict abstinence: A controlled study comparing the efficacy of workplace group counselling and proactive phone counseling. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2010;5(1):83‐94. CENTRAL

McAfee 2008 {published data only}

McAfee TA, Bush T, Deprey TM, Mahoney LD, Zbikowski SM, Fellows JL, et al. Nicotine patches and uninsured Quitline callers. A randomized trial of two versus eight weeks. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;35(2):103‐10. CENTRAL

McBride 2002 {published data only}

McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, Lyna P, Samsa G, Albright J, et al. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African‐American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2002;11(6):521‐8. CENTRAL

McClure 2018 {published data only}

McClure JB, Blasi PR, Cook A, Bush T, Fishman P, Nelson J, et al. Oral health 4 life: design and methods of a semi‐pragmatic randomized trial to promote oral health care and smoking abstinence among tobacco quitline callers. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2017;57:90‐7. CENTRAL
McClure JB, Bush T, Anderson ML, Blasi P, Thompson E, Nelson J, et al. Oral health promotion and smoking cessation program delivered via tobacco quitlines: the Oral Health 4 Life Trial. American Journal of Public Health 2018;108(5):689‐95. CENTRAL

McDaniel 2015 {published data only}

McDaniel AM, Vickerman KA, Stump TE, Monahan PO, Fellows JL, Weaver MT, et al. A randomised controlled trial to prevent smoking relapse among recently quit smokers enrolled in employer and health plan sponsored quitlines. BMJ Open 2015;5(6):e007260. CENTRAL

McGrath 2014 {published data only}

McGrath CA, Zak CL, Baldwin K, Lutfiyya MN. Smoking cessation in primary care: implementation of a proactive telephone intervention. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 2014;26(5):248‐54. CENTRAL

Mermelstein 2003 {published data only}

Mermelstein R, Hedeker D, Wong SC. Extended telephone counseling for smoking cessation: does content matter?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2003;71(3):565‐74. CENTRAL

Miller 2009 {published data only}

Miller CL, Sedivy V. Using a quitline plus low‐cost nicotine replacement therapy to help disadvantaged smokers to quit. Tobacco Control 2009;18(2):144‐9. CENTRAL

Morris 2011 {published data only}

Morris CD, Waxmonsky JA, May MG, Tinkelman DG, Dickinson M, Giese AA. Smoking reduction for persons with mental illnesses: 6‐month results from community‐based interventions. Community Mental Health Journal. United States, 2011; Vol. 47, issue 6:694‐702. []CENTRAL

Mullen 2016 {published data only}

Mullen PD, Savas LS, Bundy LT, Haardorfer R, Hovell M, Fernandez ME, et al. Minimal intervention delivered by 2‐1‐1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke‐free homes among 2‐1‐1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial. Tobacco Control 2016;25(Supplement 1):i10‐i18. CENTRAL

Nair 2017 {published data only}

Nair US, Patterson F, Rodriguez D, Collins BN. A telephone‐based intervention to promote physical activity during smoking cessation: a randomized controlled proof‐of‐concept study. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2017;7(2):138‐47. CENTRAL

Ockene 1992 {published data only}

Ockene J, 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(2):119‐26. CENTRAL

Oddone 2017 {published data only}

Oddone EZ, Damschroder LJ, Gierisch J, Olsen M, Fagerlin A, Sanders L, et al. A Coaching by Telephone Intervention for Veterans and Care Team Engagement (ACTIVATE): a study protocol for a hybrid type I effectiveness‐implementation randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2017;55:1‐9. CENTRAL

Owen 2000 {published data only}

Owen L. Impact of a telephone helpline for smokers who called during a mass media campaign. Tobacco Control 2000;9(2):148‐54. CENTRAL

Papadakis 2013 {published data only}

Papadakis S, McDonald PW, Pipe AL, Letherdale ST, Reid RD, Brown KS. Effectiveness of telephone‐based follow‐up support delivered in combination with a multi‐component smoking cessation intervention in family practice: a cluster‐randomized trial. Preventive Medicine 2013;56(6):390‐7. CENTRAL

Parker 2007 {published data only}

Parker DR, Windsor RA, Roberts MB, Hecht J, Hardy NV, Strolla LO, et al. Feasibility, cost, and cost‐effectiveness of a telephone‐based motivational intervention for underserved pregnant smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(10):1043‐51. CENTRAL

Partin 2006 {published data only}

Partin MR, An LC, Nelson DB, Nugent S, Snyder A, Fu SS, et al. Randomized trial of an intervention to facilitate recycling for relapsed smokers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006;31(4):293‐9. CENTRAL

Patten 2009 {published data only}

Patten CA, Petersen LR, Hughes CA, Ebbert JO, Morgenthaler Bonnema S, Brockman TA, et al. Feasibility of a telephone‐based intervention for support persons to help smokers quit: a pilot study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009;11(4):427‐32. CENTRAL
Patten CA, Smith CM, Brockman TA, Decker PA, Anderson KJ, Hughes CA, et al. Support person intervention to promote smoker utilization of the QUITPLAN Helpline. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;35(6 Suppl):S479‐85. CENTRAL

Patten 2011 {published data only}

Patten CA, Smith CM, Brockman TA, Decker PA, Hughes CA, Nadeau AM, et al. Support‐person promotion of a smoking quitline: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011;41(1):117‐23. [3141328]CENTRAL

Peng 2011 {published data only}

Peng W‐D. Evaluation of a web‐phone intervention system on preventing smoking relapse. Dissertation Abstracts International2011; Vol. 72, issue 3‐A:1083. []CENTRAL

Peterson 2009 {published data only}

Bricker JB, Liu J, Comstock BA, Peterson AV, Kealey KA, Marek PM. Social cognitive mediators of adolescent smoking cessation: results from a large randomized intervention trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2010;24(3):436‐45. CENTRAL
Liu J, Peterson AV, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Bricker JB, Marek PM. Addressing challenges in adolescent smoking cessation: design and baseline characteristics of the HS Group‐Randomized trial. Preventive Medicine 2007;45(2‐3):215‐25. CENTRAL
Peterson AV, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Marek PM, Ludman EJ, Liu J, et al. Group‐randomized trial of a proactive, personalized telephone counseling intervention for adolescent smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009;101(20):1378‐92. CENTRAL

Peterson 2015 {published data only}

Peterson J, Prochazka AV, Battaglia C. Smoking cessation and care management for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research 2015;15:46. CENTRAL

Platt 1997 {published data only}

Platt S, Tannahill A, Watson J, Fraser E. Effectiveness of antismoking telephone helpline: Follow up survey. BMJ 1997;314(7091):1371‐5. CENTRAL

Prue 1983 {published data only}

Prue DM, Davis CJ, Martin JE, Moss RA. An investigation of a minimal contact brand fading program for smoking treatment. Addictive Behaviors 1983;8(3):307‐10. CENTRAL

Racelis 1998 {published data only}

Racelis MC, Lombardo K, Verdin J. Impact of telephone reinforcement of risk reduction education on patient compliance. Journal of Vascular Nursing 1998;16(1):16‐20. CENTRAL

Ratner 2004 {published data only}

Bottorff JL, Johnson JL, Moffat B, Fofonoff D, Budz B, Groening M. Synchronizing clinician engagement and client motivation in telephone counseling. Qualitative Health Research 2004;14(4):462‐77. CENTRAL
Ratner PA, Johnson JL, Richardson CG, Bottorff JL, Moffat B, Mackay M, et al. Efficacy of a smoking‐cessation intervention for elective‐surgical patients. Research in Nursing and Health 2004;27(3):148‐61. CENTRAL

Reid 1999b {published data only}

Reid RD, Pipe AL. A telephone‐based support program for over‐the‐counter nicotine patch users. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1999;90(6):397‐8. CENTRAL

Richter 2015 {published data only}

Lambart L, Casey G, Nazir N, Richter K. Satisfaction with video versus phone couseling in a rural smoking cessation trial. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16,Houston, Texas. 2012:105. CENTRAL
Leon‐Salas A, Hunt JJ, Richter KP, Nazir N, Ellerbeck EF, Shireman TI. Pharmaceutical assistance programs to support smoking cessation medication access. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 2017;57(1):67‐71. CENTRAL
Mussulman L, Ellerbeck EF, Cupertino AP, Preacher KJ, Spaulding R, Catley D, et al. Design and participant characteristics of a randomized‐controlled trial of telemedicine for smoking cessation among rural smokers. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2014;38(2):173‐81. CENTRAL
Richter KP, Shireman TI, Ellerbeck EF, Cupertino AP, Catley D, Cox LS, et al. Comparative and cost effectiveness of telemedicine versus telephone counseling for smoking cessation.[Erratum appears in J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6): e124]. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2015;17(5):e113. CENTRAL

Rigotti 2014 {published data only}

Japuntich SJ, Regan S, Viana J, Tymoszczuk J, Reyen M, Levy DE, et al. Comparative effectiveness of post‐discharge interventions for hospitalized smokers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:124. CENTRAL
Regan S, Reid ZZ, Kelley JH, Reyen M, Korotkin M, Japuntich SJ, et al. Smoking status confirmation by proxy: validation in a smoking cessation trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2016;18(1):34‐40. CENTRAL
Rigotti NA, Japuntich S, Regan S, Kelley JH, Chang Y, Reyen M, et al. Promoting smoking cessation after hospital discharge: The helping hand randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2013;28(1 Suppl):S160. CENTRAL
Rigotti NA, Regan S, Levy DE, Japuntich S, Chang Y, Park ER, et al. Sustained care intervention and postdischarge smoking cessation among hospitalized adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312(7):719‐28. CENTRAL

Rigotti 2016 {published data only}

Rigotti NA, Tindle H, Regan S, Levy D, Chang Y, Carpenter KM, et al. Adapting a post‐discharge intervention for hospitalized smokers to enhance scalability: the helping hand 2 randomized controlled trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2016;31(2 Suppl. 1):S112‐S113. CENTRAL
Rigotti NA, Tindle HA, Regan S, Levy DE, Chang Y, Carpenter KM, et al. A post‐discharge smoking‐cessation intervention for hospital patients: Helping Hand 2 randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):597‐608. CENTRAL

Rigotti 2017 {published data only}

Rigotti NA, Chang Y, Rosenfeld LC, Japuntich SJ, Park ER, Tindle HA, et al. Interactive voice response calls to promote smoking cessation after hospital discharge: pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2017;32(9):1‐9. CENTRAL

Ringen 2002 {published data only}

Ringen K, Anderson N, McAfee T, Zbikowski SM, Fales D. Smoking cessation in a blue‐collar population: results from an evidence‐based pilot program. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2002;42(5):367‐77. CENTRAL

Rodgers 2005 {published data only}

Bramley D, Riddell T, Whittaker R, Corbett T, Lin RB, Wills M, et al. Smoking cessation using mobile phone text messaging is as effective in Maori as non‐Maori. New Zealand Medical Journal 2005;118(1216):U1494. CENTRAL
Rodgers A, Corbett T, Bramley D, Riddell T, Wills M, Lin RB, et al. Do u smoke after txt? Results of a randomised trial of smoking cessation using mobile phone text messaging. Tobacco Control 2005;14(4):255‐61. CENTRAL

Rogers 2018 {published data only}

Rogers ES, Fu SS, Krebs P, Noorbaloochi S, Nugent SM, Gravely A, et al. Proactive tobacco treatment for smokers using Veterans Administration mental health clinics. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2018;54(5):620‐9. CENTRAL
Rogers ES, Fu SS, Krebs P, Noorbaloochi S, Nugent SM, Rao R, et al. Proactive outreach for smokers using VHA mental health clinics: protocol for a patient‐randomized clinical trial. BMC Public Health 2014;14:1294. CENTRAL

Roski 2003 {published data only}

Roski J, Jeddeloh R, An L, Lando H, Hannan P, Hall C, et al. The impact of financial incentives and a patient registry on preventive care quality: increasing provider adherence to evidence‐based smoking cessation practice guidelines. Preventive Medicine 2003;36(3):291‐9. CENTRAL

Rothemich 2010 {published data only}

Rothemich SF, Woolf SH, Johnson RE, Devers KJ, Flores SK, Villars P, et al. Promoting primary care smoking‐cessation support with quitlines: the QuitLink randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine2010; Vol. 38, issue 4:367‐74. []CENTRAL

Schiebel 2007 {published data only}

Schiebel NE, Ebbert JO. Quitline referral vs. self‐help manual for tobacco use cessation in the Emergency Department: A feasibility study. BMC Emergency Medicine 2007;7:15. CENTRAL

Schneider 1995 {published data only}

Schneider SJ, Schwartz MD, Fast J. Computerized, telephone‐based health promotion.1: Smoking cessation program. Computers and Human Behavior 1995;11:135‐48. CENTRAL

Segan 2011 {published data only}

Segan CJ, Borland R. Does extended telephone callback counselling prevent smoking relapse?. Health Education Research 2011;26(2):336‐47. CENTRAL

Sharifirad 2012 {published data only}

Sharifirad GR, Eslami AA, Charkazi A, Mostafavi F, Shahnazi H. The effect of individual counseling, line follow‐up, and free nicotine replacement therapy on smoking cessation in the samples of Iranian smokers: Examination of transtheoretical model. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2012;17(12):1128‐36. CENTRAL

Sherman 2008 {published data only}

Sherman SE, Takahashi N, Kalra P, Gifford E, Finney JW, Canfield J, et al. Care coordination to increase referrals to smoking cessation telephone counseling: a demonstration project. American Journal of Managed Care 2008;14(3):141‐8. CENTRAL

Sherman 2016 {published data only}

Grossman E, Shelley D, Braithwaite RS, Lobach I, Goffin A, Rogers E, et al. Effectiveness of smoking‐cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13(13):126. CENTRAL
Rogers ES, Friedes R, Jakes A, Grossman E, Link A, Sherman SE. Long‐term abstinence and predictors of tobacco treatment uptake among hospitalized smokers with serious mental illness enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2017;40(5):750‐9. CENTRAL
Sherman S, Link AR, Rogers E, Krebs P, Ladapo JA, Shelley D, et al. Smoking cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015;30(2 Suppl):S253. CENTRAL
Sherman SE, Link AR, Rogers ES, Krebs P, Ladapo JA, Shelley DR, et al. Smoking‐cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;51(4):566‐77. CENTRAL

Shiffman 2000 {published data only}

Shiffman S, Paty JA, Rohay JM, Di Marino ME, Gitchell J. The efficacy of computer‐tailored smoking cessation material as a supplement to nicotine polacrilex gum therapy. Archives of Internal Medicine 2000;160(11):1675‐81. CENTRAL

Sidhu 2015 {published data only}

Sidhu MS, Daley A, Jordan R, Coventry PA, Heneghan C, Jowett S, et al. Patient self‐management in primary care patients with mild COPD ‐ protocol of a randomised controlled trial of telephone health coaching. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2015;15(1):16. CENTRAL

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(12):1371‐6. CENTRAL

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(7):555‐62. CENTRAL

Sivarajan 2004 {published data only}

Sivarajan Froelicher ES, 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(5):587‐93. CENTRAL

Sorensen 2007b {published data only}

Sorensen LT, Hemmingsen U, Jorgensen T. Strategies of smoking cessation intervention before hernia surgery ‐ Effect on perioperative smoking behavior. Hernia 2007;11(4):327‐33. CENTRAL

Stevens 1993 {published data only}

Stevens VJ, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, Lichtenstein E, Vogt TM. A smoking‐cessation intervention for hospital patients. Medical Care 1993;31(1):65‐72. CENTRAL

Stoltzfus 2011 {published data only}

Stoltzfus K, Ellerbeck EF, Hunt S, Rabius V, Carlini B, Ayers C, et al. A pilot trial of proactive versus reactive referral to tobacco quitlines. Journal of Smoking Cessation2011; Vol. 6, issue 2:133‐7. []CENTRAL

Strong 2012 {published data only}

Strong DR, Taylor AN, Abrantes A, Kahler CW, Miller V, Brown RA, et al. Mood management phone counseling for smokers with recurrent depression (POS3‐22). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16, 2012, Houston, Texas2012:98. []CENTRAL

Sutton 2007 {published data only}

Gilbert H, Sutton S. Does adding tailored feedback to telephone counselling improve quit rates? (POS1‐033). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting; 2004 February 18‐21, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004. CENTRAL
Sutton S, Gilbert H. Effectiveness of individually tailored smoking cessation advice letters as an adjunct to telephone counselling and generic self‐help materials: Randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2007;102(6):994‐1000. CENTRAL

Szklo 2010 {published data only}

Szklo AS, Coutinho ES. The influence of smokers' degree of dependence on the effectiveness of message framing for capturing smokers for a Quitline. Addictive Behaviors2010; Vol. 35, issue 6:620‐4. [; 214]CENTRAL

Taylor 1990 {published data only}

Taylor CB, Houston‐Miller N, Killen JD, DeBusk RF. Smoking cessation after acute myocardial infarction: effects of a nurse‐managed intervention. Annals of Internal Medicine 1990;113(2):118‐23. CENTRAL

Terazawa 2001 {published data only}

Terazawa T, Mamiya T, Masui S, Nakamura M. The effect of smoking cessation counseling at health checkup. Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi [Journal of Occupational Health]2001; Vol. 43, issue 6:207‐13. []CENTRAL

Terry 2011 {published data only}

Terry PE, Seaverson EL, Staufacker MJ, Tanaka A. The effectiveness of a telephone‐based tobacco cessation program offered as part of a worksite health promotion program. Population Health Management 2011;14(3):117‐25. CENTRAL

Toll 2010 {published data only}

Croyle RT. Increasing the effectiveness of tobacco quitlines. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010;102(2):72‐3. CENTRAL
Fucito LM, Latimer AE, Carlin‐Menter S, Salovey P, Cummings KM, Makuch RW, et al. Nicotine dependence as a moderator of a quitline‐based message framing intervention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2011;114(2‐3):229‐32. CENTRAL
Latimer‐Cheung AE, Fucito LM, Carlin‐Menter S, Rodriguez J, Raymond L, Salovey P, et al. How do perceptions about cessation outcomes moderate the effectiveness of a gain‐framed smoking cessation telephone counseling intervention?. Journal of Health Communication 2012;17(9):1081‐98. []CENTRAL
Toll BA, Martino S, Latimer A, Salovey P, O'Malley S, Carlin‐Menter S, et al. Randomized trial: Quitline specialist training in gain‐framed vs standard‐care messages for smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010;102(2):96‐106. CENTRAL

Tseng 2016 2015 {published data only}

Tseng TY, Krebs P, Schoenthaler A, Wong S, Sherman S, Gonzalez M, et al. Combining text messaging and telephone counseling to increase varenicline adherence and smoking abstinence among cigarette smokers living with HIV: a randomized controlled study. AIDS and Behavior 2016;21(7):1964‐74. CENTRAL

Urso 2003 {published data only}

Urso PP. Augmenting tobacco cessation treatment outcomes with telephone‐delivered interventions. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2003;64(5‐B):2133. CENTRAL

Van der Meer 2010 {published data only}

Schippers G, Van der Meer R, Willemsen M, Smit PH, Cuypers P. Preliminary results from a RCT of a smoking cessation intervention for smokers with a history of major depression. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2006;16:S201. CENTRAL
Van der Meer RM, Willemsen MC, Smit F, Cuijpers P, Schippers GM. Effectiveness of a mood management component as an adjunct to a telephone counselling smoking cessation intervention for smokers with a past major depression: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2010;105(11):1991‐9. CENTRAL

Vidrine 2006 {published data only}

Vidrine DJ, Arduino RC, Gritz ER. Impact of a cell phone intervention on mediating mechanisms of smoking cessation in individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006;8 Suppl 1:S103‐8. CENTRAL
Vidrine DJ, Arduino RC, Lazev AB, Gritz ER. A randomized trial of a proactive cellular telephone intervention for smokers living with HIV/AIDS. AIDS 2006;20(2):253‐60. CENTRAL

Wadland 1999 {published data only}

Wadland WC, Stoffelmayr B, Berger E, Crombach A, Ives K. Enhancing smoking cessation rates in primary care. Journal of Family Practice 1999;48(9):711‐8. CENTRAL

Wadland 2001 {published data only}

Wadland WC, Stoffelmayr B, Ives K. Enhancing smoking cessation of low‐income smokers in managed care. Journal of Family Practice 2001;50(2):138‐44. CENTRAL

Wadland 2007 {published data only}

Holtrop JS, Malouin R, Weismantel D, Wadland WC. Clinician perceptions of factors influencing referrals to a smoking cessation program. BMC Family Practice 2008;9:18. CENTRAL
Wadland WC, Holtrop JS, Weismantel D, Pathak PK, Fadel H, Powell J. Practice‐based referrals to a tobacco cessation quit line: assessing the impact of comparative feedback vs general reminders. Annals of Family Medicine 2007;5(2):135‐42. CENTRAL

Walker 2011a {published data only}

Walker N, Howe C, Bullen C, Grigg M, Glover M, McRobbie H, et al. Does improved access and greater choice of nicotine replacement therapy affect smoking cessation success? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2011;106(6):1176‐85. CENTRAL

Walker 2011b {published data only}

Walker NK, Howe C, Bullen C, Grigg M, Glover M, McRobbie H, et al. Study protocol for a randomised trial of nicotine‐free cigarettes as an adjunct to usual NRT‐based cessation practice, in people who wish to stop smoking. BMC Public Health 2011;11(1):37. CENTRAL

Wang 2017 {published data only}

Wang MP, Suen YN, Li WH‐C, Lam CO‐B, Wu SY‐D, Kwong AC‐S, et al. Intervention with brief cessation advice plus active referral for proactively recruited community smokers: a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine 2017;177(12):1790‐7. CENTRAL

Warner 2011 {published data only}

Warner DO, Klesges RC, Dale LC, Offord KP, Schroeder DR, Shi Y, et al. Clinician‐delivered intervention to facilitate tobacco quitline use by surgical patients. Anesthesiology 2011;114(4):847‐55. CENTRAL

Weaver 2015 {published data only}

Weaver K, Kaplan S, Urbanic J, Case D, Zbikowski S, Dakhil CS, et al. Incorporating evidence‐based smoking cessation into community oncology practices: Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an enhanced quitline‐based smoking cessation intervention for cancer survivors. Psycho‐Oncology 2015;24(Suppl. 2):32. CENTRAL
Weaver KE, Kaplan S, Griffin L, Urbanic J, Zbikowski S, Danhauer SC. Satisfaction with a quitline‐based smoking cessation intervention among cancer survivors. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 39th Annual Conference of the American Society of Preventive Oncology, ASPO 2015. United States 2015;24(4):759. CENTRAL
Weaver KE, Urbanic JJ, Case D, Kaplan SG, Lesser GJ, Zbikowski S, et al. Preliminary efficacy of an enhanced quitline smoking cessation intervention for cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015;33(15 Suppl. 1):e20671. CENTRAL

Westman 1993 {published data only}

Westman EC, Levin ED, Rose JE. The nicotine patch in smoking cessation. A randomized trial with telephone counseling. Archives of Internal Medicine 1993;153(16):1917‐23. CENTRAL

Wetter 2007 {published data only}

Daza P, Nguyen L, Mazas C, Mejia C, Wetter D. Smoking cessation among hispanic smoker: ¡adios al fumar! (POS3‐065). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 11th Annual Meeting; 2005 March 20‐23, Prague. Czech Republic. 2005. CENTRAL
Mazas C, Li Y, Cofta‐Woerpel L, Wetter DW, Daza P, Nguyen L, et al. Disparities and smoking cessation among Latinos (SYM 2B). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 13th Annual Meeting; 2007 February 21‐24, Austin, Texas. 2007. CENTRAL
Reitzel LR, Costello TJ, Mazas CA, Vidrine JI, Businelle MS, Kendzor DE, et al. Low‐level smoking among Spanish‐speaking Latino smokers: relationships with demographics, tobacco dependence, withdrawal, and cessation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009;11(2):178‐84. CENTRAL
Wetter DW, Mazas C, Daza P, Nguyen L, Fouladi RT, Li Y, et al. Reaching and treating Spanish‐speaking smokers through the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service. A randomized controlled trial. Cancer 2007;109(2 Suppl):406‐13. CENTRAL

Wewers 2017 {published data only}

Nemeth JM, Cooper S, Wermert A, Shoben A, Wewers ME. The relationship between type of telephone service and smoking cessation among rural smokers enrolled in quitline tobacco dependence treatment. Preventive Medicine Reports 2017;8:226‐231. CENTRAL
Wewers ME, Shoben A, Conroy S, Curry E, Ferketich AK, Murray DM, et al. Effectiveness of two community health worker models of tobacco dependence treatment among community residents of Ohio Appalachia. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2017;19(12):1499‐507. CENTRAL

Willemsen 2008 {published data only}

Willemsen MC, Van der Meer RM, Bot S. Description, effectiveness, and client satisfaction of 9 European Quitlines:Results of the European Smoking Cessation Helplines Evaluation Project (ESCHER). https://www.alliantienederlandrookvrij.nl/wp‐content/uploads/2012/docs/rapporten/stoppenmetroken/ESCHER%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed 25/06/2013). Stivoro, 2008. CENTRAL

Wolfenden 2008a {published data only}

Wolfenden L, Wiggers J, Campbell E, Knight J. Pilot of a preoperative smoking cessation intervention incorporating post‐discharge support from a Quitline. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2008;19(2):158‐60. CENTRAL

Zanis 2011 {published data only}

Zanis DA, Hollm RE, Derr D, Ibrahim JK, Collins BN, Coviello D, et al. Comparing intervention strategies among rural, low SES, young adult tobacco users. American Journal of Health Behavior 2011;35(2):240‐7. CENTRAL

Zawertailo 2013 {published data only}

Zawertailo L, Dragonetti R, Bondy SJ, Victor JC, Selby P. Reach and effectiveness of mailed nicotine replacement therapy for smokers: 6‐month outcomes in a naturalistic exploratory study. Tobacco Control 2013;22(3):e4. CENTRAL

Zhu 2000 {published and unpublished data}

Zhu SH, Rosbrook B, Anderson C, Tedeschi GJ, Gutierrez E, Johnson C, et al. Use of nicotine patch and its effects for smokers calling a statewide telephone counseling helpline. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 1999;1(1):113. CENTRAL
Zhu SH, Tedeschi GJ, Anderson CM, Rosbrook B, Byrd M, Johnson CE, et al. Telephone counseling as adjuvant treatment for nicotine replacement therapy in a "Real‐World" setting. Preventive Medicine 2000;31(4):357‐63. CENTRAL

Argyropoulou 2005 {published data only}

Argyropoulou P, Pataka A, Pitsiou G, Zisi P, Manolakoglou N, Kontakiotis T. Smoking cessation: data for two years from two different interventions. European Respiratory Journal 2005;26(Suppl 49):388s. CENTRAL

Humfleet 2012 {published data only}

Humfleet G, Hall SM. Using telephone‐based and internet‐based smoking treatments with LGBT smokers: preliminary findings (PA7‐3). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 18th Annual Meeting; 2012 March 13‐16, Houston Texas2012:26. []CENTRAL

Mak 2015 {published data only}

Mak YW, Lee PH, Loke AY. Predictors of participation in a telephone‐based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for smoking cessation study. BMC Public Health 2015;23(15):1288. CENTRAL
Mak YW, Loke AY. The acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation in the primary health care setting: a study protocol. BMC Public Health 2015;15:105. CENTRAL

NCT00311948 {published data only}

NCT00311948. Telephone and web‐based teen tobacco cessation in HMOs. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00311948 (First received 6 April 2006). CENTRAL

NCT00851357 {published data only}

NCT00851357. Telephone counseling and the distribution of nicotine patches to smokers. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00851357 (First received 25 February 2009). CENTRAL

NCT01892813 {published data only}

NCT01892813. Dissemination of a tailored tobacco quitline for rural veteran smokers. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01892813 (First received 4 July 2013). CENTRAL

NCT01893502 {published data only}

NCT01893502. Duration of follow‐up counselling on smoking cessation outcomes. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01893502 (First received 9 July 2013). CENTRAL

NCT02157610 {published data only}

NCT02157610. Smoking cessation for cervical cancer survivors. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02157610 (First received 4 June 2014. CENTRAL

NCT02397369 {published data only}

NCT02397369. Evaluation of efficacy of different methods of tobacco cessation interventions among BEST employees in Mumbai. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02397639 (First received 24 March 2015). CENTRAL

NCT02421991 {published data only}

NCT02421991. Telephone‐delivered interventions for smoking cessation (TALK). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02421991 (First received 21 April 2015). CENTRAL

NCT03002883 {published data only}

NCT03002883. STAND community college tobacco cessation trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03002883 (First received 26 December 2016). CENTRAL

NCT03194958 {published data only}

NCT03194958. Helping poor smokers quit. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03194958 (First received 21 June 2017). CENTRAL

NCT03236025 {published data only}

NCT03236025. A video‐led smoking cessation intervention in helping male smokers who is planning to have a baby to quit. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03236025 (First received 1 August 2017). CENTRAL

NCT03538938 {published data only}

NCT03538938. Improving quitline support study (IQS). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03538938 (First received 28 May 2018). CENTRAL

NTR6092 {published data only}

NTR6092. Recruitment strategies for an effective smoking cessation programme for parents (De implementatie van een effectieve interventie om te stoppen met roken voor ouders). www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6092 (First received 15 September 2016). CENTRAL

Salgado Garcia 2018 {published data only}

Salgado Garcia FI, Derefinko KJ, Bursac Z, Hand S, Klesges RC. Planning a Change Easily (PACE): a randomized controlled trial for smokers who are not ready to quit. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2018;68:14‐22. CENTRAL

Sienkiewicz‐Jarosz 2015 {published data only}

Sienkiewicz‐Jarosz H, Glebicka A, Restel M, Kurkowska‐Jastrzebska I, Bozek M, Ryglewicz D, et al. Antismoking interventions in stroke patients‐polish perspective. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 2015;357:e410‐e411. CENTRAL

An 2006a

An LC, Schillo BA, Kavanaugh AM, Lachter RB, Luxenberg MG, Wendling AH, et al. Increased reach and effectiveness of a statewide tobacco quitline after the addition of access to free nicotine replacement therapy. Tobacco Control 2006;15(4):286‐93.

Anderson 2007

Anderson CM, Zhu SH. Tobacco quitlines: looking back and looking ahead. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i81‐86.

Anon 2005

Anon. HHS 'Quitline' helps Americans stop smoking. FDA Consumer 2005;39:4‐5.

Boldemann 2006

Boldemann C, Gilljam H, Lund KE, Helgason AR. Smoking cessation in general practice: the effects of a quitline. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006;8(6):785‐90.

Borland 2006

Borland R, Segan CJ. The potential of quitlines to increase smoking cessation. Drug and Alcohol Review 2006;25(1):73‐8.

Bush 2008

Bush TM, McAfee T, Deprey M, Mahoney L, Fellows JL, McClure, J, et al. The impact of a free nicotine patch starter kit on quit rates in a state quit line. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10(9):1511‐6.

Campbell 2008

Campbell SL, Lee L, Haugland C, Helgerson SD, Harwell TS. Tobacco quitline use: enhancing benefit and increasing abstinence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;35(4):386‐8.

Chamberlain 2017

Chamberlain C, O'Mara‐Eves A, Porter J, Coleman T, Perlen SM, Thomas J, et al. Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub5]

Chan 2008

Chan SS, Wong DC, Fong DY, Leung AY, Lam DO, Mak YW, et al. The establishment and promotion of the first Youth Quitline in Hong Kong: challenges and opportunities. Evaluation & the Health Professions 2008;31(3):258‐71.

Cummings 2006b

Cummings KM, Fix B, Celestino P, Carlin‐Menter S, O'Connor R, Hyland A. Reach, efficacy, and cost‐effectiveness of free nicotine medication giveaway programs. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 2006;12(1):37‐43.

Cummins 2007

Cummins SE, Bailey L, Campbell S, Koon‐Kirby C, Zhu SH. Tobacco cessation quitlines in North America: a descriptive study. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i9‐15.

Davis 2013

Davis KA, Coady MH, Mbamalu IG, Sacks R, Kilgore EA. Lessons learned from the implementation of a time‐limited, large‐scale nicotine replacement therapy giveaway program in New York City. Health Promotion Practice2013; Vol. 14, issue 5:767‐76.

Doll 2004

Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004;328(7455):1519.

Fanshawe 2017

Fanshawe TR, Halliwell W, Lindson N, Aveyard P, Livingstone‐Banks J, Hartmann‐Boyce J. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub6]

Farley 2012

Farley AC, Hajek P, Lycett D, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006219.pub3]

Fellows 2007

Fellows JL, Bush T, McAfee T, Dickerson J. Cost effectiveness of the Oregon quitline "free patch initiative". Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i47‐52.

Fiore 2008

Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB, Bailey WC, Benowitz NL, Curry SJ, 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.

Gilbert 2005

Gilbert H, Sutton S, Sutherland G. Who calls QUIT? The characteristics of smokers seeking advice via a telephone helpline compared with smokers attending a clinic and those in the general population. Public Health 2005;119(10):933‐9.

Glasgow 1991

Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, McRae SG, Lando HA, LaChance P. Providing an integrated program of low intensity tobacco cessation services in a health maintenance organization. Health Education Research 1991;6(1):87‐9.

Hall 2001

Hall SM, Delucchi KL, Velicer WF, Kahler CW, Ranger‐Moore J, Hedeker D, et al. Statistical analysis of randomized trials in tobacco treatment: longitudinal designs with dichotomous outcome. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2001;3(3):193‐202.

Higgins 2003

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60.

La Porta 2007

La Porta M, Hagood H, Kornfeld J, Treiman K. Evaluating the NCI's Cancer Information Service Contact Centers: meeting and exceeding the expectations of the public. Journal of Cancer Education 2007;22(1 Suppl):S18‐25.

Lancaster 2017

Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001292.pub3]

Lichtenstein 1996

Lichtenstein E, Glasgow RE, Lando HA, Ossip Klein DJ, Boles SM. Telephone counseling for smoking cessation ‐ rationales and metaanalytic review of evidence. Health Education Research 1996;11(2):243‐57.

Lichtenstein 2002a

Lichtenstein E. The effectiveness of telephone counseling for smoking cessation. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 4th European Conference; 2002 October 3‐5, Santander, Spain. 2002.

Lichtenstein 2007

Lichtenstein E. Quitlines. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i1‐12.

Livingstone‐Banks 2019a

Livingstone‐Banks J, Ordóñez‐Mena JM, Hartmann‐Boyce J. Print‐based self‐help interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001118.pub4]

Livingstone‐Banks 2019b

Livingstone‐Banks J, Norris E, Hartmann‐Boyce J, West R, Jarvis M, Hajek P. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub5]

McAfee 2007

McAfee TA. Quitlines a tool for research and dissemination of evidence‐based cessation practices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2007;33(6 Suppl):S357‐67.

Mons 2015

Mons U, Müezzinler A, Gellert C, Schöttker B, Abnet CC, Bobak M, et al. Impact of smoking and smoking cessation on cardiovascular events and mortality among older adults: meta‐analysis of individual participant data from prospective cohort studies of the CHANCES consortium. BMJ 2015;350:h1551.

Müezzinler 2015

Müezzinler A, Mons U, Gellert C, Schöttker B, Jansen E, Kee F, et al. Smoking and all‐cause mortality in older adults: results from the CHANCES consortium. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;49(5):e53‐63.

O'Connor 2008

O'Connor RJ, Carlin‐Menter SM, Celestino PB, Bax P, Brown A, Cummings KM, et al. Using direct mail to prompt smokers to call a quitline. Health Promotion Practice 2008;9(3):262‐70.

Ordóñez‐Mena 2016

Ordóñez‐Mena JM, Schöttker B, Mons U, Jenab M, Freisling H, Bueno‐de‐Mesquita B, et al. Quantification of the smoking‐associated cancer risk with rate advancement periods: meta‐analysis of individual participant data from cohorts of the CHANCES consortium. BMC Medicine 2016;14(1):62.

Ossip‐Klein 2003

Ossip‐Klein DJ, McIntosh S. Quitlines in North America: Evidence base and applications. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 2003;326(4):201‐5.

Perry 2005

Perry RJ, Keller PA, Fraser D, Fiore MC. Fax to quit: a model for delivery of tobacco cessation services to Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin Medical Journal 2005;104(4):37‐40.

Pirie 2013

Pirie K, Peto R, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V, Million Women Study Collaborators. The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK. Lancet 2013;12(381):9861.

R 2018 [Computer program]

R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.5.0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018.

Schwarzer 2007

Schwarzer G. meta: An R package for meta‐analysis. R News 2007;7(3):40‐45.

Schwindt 2018

Schwindt R, Hudmon KS, Knisely M, Davis L, Pike C. Impact of tobacco quitlines on smoking cessation in persons with mental illness: a systematic review. Journal of Drug Education 2018;47(1‐2):68‐81.

Stead 2015

Stead LF, Koilpillai P, Lancaster T. Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub3]

Stead 2017

Stead LF, Carroll AJ, Lancaster T. Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001007.pub3]

Tinkelman 2007

Tinkelman D, Wilson SM, Willett J, Sweeney CT. Offering free NRT through a tobacco quitline: impact on utilisation and quit rates. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i42‐6.

Tzelepis 2011b

Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Walsh RA, McElduff P, Knight J. Proactive telephone counseling for smoking cessation: meta‐analyses by recruitment channel and methodological quality. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011;103(12):922‐41.

Tzelepis 2017

Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Williams CM, Gilligan C, Regan T, Daly J, et al. Real‐time video counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012659]

USDHHS 2014

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.

Van Deusen 2007

Van Deusen AM, Hyland A, Abrams SM, Celestino P, Mahoney MC, Cummings KM. Smokers' acceptance of "cold calls" offering quitline services. Tobacco Control 2007;16(Suppl 1):i30‐32.

Vidrine 2011

Vidrine DJ, Vidrine JI. Active vs passive recruitment to quitline studies: public health implications. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011;103(12):909‐10.

Viechtbauer 2010

Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta‐analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010;36(3):1‐48.

Wakefield 2000

Wakefield M, Borland R. Saved by the bell: the role of telephone helpline services in the context of mass‐media anti‐smoking campaigns. Tobacco Control 2000;9(2):117‐9.

Whittaker 2016

Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Rodgers A, Gu Y. Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub4]

WHO 2018

World Health Organization. Tobacco: Key Facts. World Health Organization Fact Sheets 9 March 2019:www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/tobacco.

Winickoff 2006

Winickoff JP, Tanski SE, McMillen RC, Hipple BJ, Friebely J, Healey EA. A national survey of the acceptability of quitlines to help parents quit smoking. Pediatrics 2006;117(4):e695‐700.

Wolfenden 2008

Wolfenden L, Wiggers J, Campbell E, Knight J, Kerridge R, Moore K, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and cost of referring surgical patients for postdischarge cessation support from a quitline. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10(6):1105‐8.

Zhu 2000a

Zhu SH, Anderson CM, Johnson CE, Tedeschi G, Roeseler A. A centralised telephone service for tobacco cessation: the California experience. Tobacco Control 2000;9 (Suppl 2):ii48‐ii55.

Zhu 2006

Zhu SH, Nguyen QB, Cummins S, Wong S, Wightman V. Non‐smokers seeking help for smokers: a preliminary study. Tobacco Control 2006;15(2):107‐13.

Referencias de otras versiones publicadas de esta revisión

Stead 2000

Stead LF, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 4.

Stead 2001

Stead LF, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850]

Stead 2003

Stead LF, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850]

Stead 2006

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

Stead 2007

Stead LF, Perera R, Lancaster T. A systematic review of interventions for smokers who contact quitlines. Tobacco Control 2007;16 Suppl 1:i3‐8.

Stead 2009

Stead LF, Perera R, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub2]

Stead 2013

Stead LF, Hartmann‐Boyce J, Perera R, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub3]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [author‐defined order]

Abdullah 2005

Methods

Setting: Parents of children in a birth cohort study, Hong Kong
Recruitment: Active; by mail, current smokers, not selected for motivation

Participants

903 current smokers with young children (49 recent quitters not included here); 84% M, > 50% aged 36 to 45, 91% smoked ≤ 20/day

Interventions

1. Single mailing of stage‐matched S‐H (either preparation/action or contemplation/precontemplation)
2. As 1, plus 20 to 30 mins of TC at time of enrolment by trained nurse counsellor. Hotline number, further counselling at 1 month and 3 months. Average duration of counselling 38 mins over 3 contacts

Outcomes

Validated abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP).
Validation: CO < 9 ppm or urine cotinine < 100 mmol/mol

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Numbered sealed opaque envelopes

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Independent interviewer...was unaware of subjects' group allocation... All respondents who reported they were not smoking during the preceding 7 days were invited to attend the research centre for biochemical validation."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Losses to follow‐up 11% intervention/ 4% control. Included as continuing smokers

An 2006

Methods

Setting: 5 Veterans Administration medical centres, USA
Recruitment: By mail, planning to quit in next 30 days

Participants

821 smokers interested in quitting (excludes 16 deaths, 1 withdrawal); 91% M, av. age 57, av. cigs/day 26. 26% had > 7‐day abstinence in previous year, 44% ever use of bupropion, 82% ever use NRT

Interventions

1. Mailed S‐H and standard care; opportunity for intervention during routine health care and referral to individual or group cessation programmes. NRT and bupropion avail on formulary
2. As 1, plus proactive TC, modified California helpline protocol, 7 calls over 2 m, relapse‐sensitive schedule. NRT and bupropion available, could be mailed directly after screening and primary provider approval for bupropion

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (sustained > 6 m, 7‐day PP also reported)
Validation: none

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Losses to follow‐up included as smokers, 16 deaths excluded

Aveyard 2003

Methods

Setting: 65 general practices, UK
Recruitment: Active; volunteers from random selection of smoking patients, not selected for motivation
Randomisation: Centralised, minimisation to balance SoC, addiction and SES

Participants

2471 smokers (2058 in relevant arms); > 80% in precontemplation or contemplation, 10% to 14% in preparation, 46% M, av. age 41, av. cigs/day 20

Interventions

1. Standard S‐H materials, single mailing
2. S‐H manual based on Transtheoretical model, expert‐system letter tailored on baseline questionnaire. Further questionnaires at 3 and 6 m for additional letters (approx 50% received 3 letters)
3. As 2, plus proactive TC after receipt of each questionnaire (max 3 calls). Designed as reminders, scripted, delivered by trained postgraduate students

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (sustained for 6 m)
Validation: saliva cotinine < 14.2 ng/ml

Notes

We included arms 3 vs 2 in the analyses. Sensitivity analysis comparing arms 3 vs 2+1. 66% received 1st phone call, 36% 2nd, 31% 3rd

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Centralised randomisation procedure, with minimisation to balance SoC, addiction and SES

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Centralised

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

12 m PP "was confirmed with salivary cotinine, so that we had unconfirmed and confirmed prevalence of quitting." Confirmed figures used in analysis

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up 24% in group 1, 31% in 2 and 3. All included as smokers. Sensitivity analysis allowing for differential dropout did not change findings

Bastian 2012

Methods

Setting: North Carolina, USA; Medical Center

Recruitmenet: Mailed smokers an introductory letter from the Chief of Cardiology, Chief of Oncology, or a primary care physician (the Principal Investigator (PI)) informing them of the study and encouraging smoking cessation

Participants

471 smokers enrolled in Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, receiving treatment for chronic illnesses (i.e. cancer, cardiovascular disease, HTN, diabetes, COPD) and wanting to quit in the next 30 days; 91.5% M, av. age 59.2, av. cigs/day not reported

Interventions

1. Standard telephone counselling, a letter from a VA physician encouraging smoking cessation, NRT, if not contra‐indicated, a S‐H cessation kit, and up to 5 TC calls (every 3 ‐ 4 weeks, av. duration 20 minutes)

2. "Family‐supported telephone counseling, included all components of the standard TC arm plus an enhanced family‐supported intervention that included a support skills booklet and additional telephone counseling content focusing on social support skills [...] The main distinction between the two arms of this comparative effectiveness study was the family‐supported intervention that aimed to help increase positive interactions between the participant and their designated support person, to facilitate smoking cessation [...] Participants randomized to family support‐based intervention also received an 8‐page disease‐specific family support booklet."

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: available for only 50.5% of the participants

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, and Health Services Research and Development. IIR‐05‐202."

Declarations of interest: "SCG serves as a consultant to Gilead Sciences and Watermark Research Partners. Although these relationships are not perceived to represent a conflict with the present work, it is included in the spirit of full disclosure. Presented in part at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, Phoenix AZ May 2011."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "blocked randomization, stratified by sex and disease type"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The investigators mailed participants saliva‐sampling kits to measure cotinine, but the return rates for saliva samples were low at all follow‐ups. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Follow‐up rates were 86% and 81.1% at 5 months and 12 months, respectively. Loss to follow‐up was similar in both arms."

Bastian 2013

Methods

Setting: North Carolina, USA; Academic setting

Recruitment: Investigators asked lung cancer patients’ permission to contact members of their social networks who smoked and were aged 18 and older; these received a letter describing the study and providing them a toll‐free number to call to decline participation

Participants

496 relatives of lung cancer patients, 41.5% M, av. age 46.9, av. cigs/day 19.5. More than half the participants have made more than 3 quit attempts before inclusion in the study

Interventions

1. Tailored self‐directed materials and nicotine patches

2. As above, plus proactive TC, 6 x weekly sessions scheduled over an intervention period of 12 weeks, with an av. duration of each session of 30 mins. The mean number of sessions completed was 2.4. 81 participants in this group (33%) did not complete at least 1 session

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: saliva cotinine, not possible due to low return rates

Notes

New for 2018 update.

Funding: "This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant 5U01‐CA‐92622. This research was also supported in part by the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health."

Declarations of interest: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomization was blocked by patient, with entire social network units stratified by site and size of social network enrolled (one vs. two or more) assigned to the same condition."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Large withdrawal of participants after 12 months of follow‐up (> 50%), although similar across arms

Blebil 2014

Methods

Setting: Malaysia; Outpatient Quit Smoking Clinic based at 2 hospitals
Recruitment: Quote: "All individuals who attended the clinics during the period under review were invited to participate in the research."

Participants

231 outpatient smokers, 96.1% M, av. age 48.3, av. cigs/day 13.8

Interventions

1. Usual care, which included a combination of nicotine gum and CBT (4 counselling sessions during the 1st month, 2 counselling sessions during the 2nd month + 2 phone calls (av. duration 20 ‐ 30 mins), and 1 counselling session during the 3rd month plus 2 phone calls (av. duration 20 ‐ 30 mins))

2. As above, + 1 extra weekly proactive call (av. duration 10 ‐ 15 mins) during the first month of the quit attempt

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 months (4‐week PP)

Validation: exhaled CO level < 7 ppm

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: not reported

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Even though "urn design was used to achieve balanced groups", participants walking in the study and being referred from outpatient clinics at the hospitals were more likely to be assigned to the intervention than those coming from other hospitals

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "the assignments of treatment within a sequence created by the urn design are not as predictable as those of other types of restricted randomisation processed"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation of self‐reported outcome. The data were collected by another research member not connected with counselling and the data analysis

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Percentage lost to follow‐up was overall low (8%), although larger in the usual‐care (12%) than in the intervention group (4%).

Borland 2001

Methods

Setting: Community, Australia
Recruitment: Callers to a quitline

Participants

998 smokers interested in quitting; 48% M, 37% aged 15 ‐ 29, 26% aged 30 ‐ 39, av. cigs/day 23

Interventions

1. Proactive call‐back TC following initial call to quitline: Multiple calls, first pre‐quit, quit, then according to need. Up to 6 m. Mailed materials
2. Control: Mailed materials
Both groups also received the standard motivational counselling in response to their first call

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained for 9 m)
Validation: none

Notes

Average number of calls 2.8, 67% received 1 or more. 20% refused call‐back or wanted to initiate the calls, further 7% did not receive any

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up 37% intervention, 30% control. All participants included as smokers in the meta‐analysis

Borland 2003

Methods

Setting: Community, Australia
Recruitment: Callers to a quitline

Participants

1578 smokers; 46% M, modal age 30 ‐ 49, av. cigs/day 23

Interventions

1. Standard S‐H quit pack based around SoC
2. Additional tailored letters at baseline, and at 3 and 6 m based on mailed assessments
3. As 2, plus proactive cognitive behavioural stage‐base TC, calls at negotiated times, ˜10 ‐ 15 mins. Usually over 2 ‐ 3 weeks, could extend further.
Some participants in all groups received brief reactive counselling before enrolment

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained for 9 m)
Validation: none

Notes

3 vs 2, sensitivity analysis 3 vs 2+1
68% received calls, av. 4.8 for those receiving any, 23% received ≥ 7

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Allocation by shuffling questionnaires

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Author states "no opportunity for interviewers to influence choice"; baseline characteristics balanced, likelihood of bias judged low

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up 21% in 1, 23% in 2, 26% in 3. All participants included as smokers in the MA

Borland 2008

Methods

Setting: General practice, Australia
Recruitment: 45 participating GPs recruiting patients who smoked

Participants

1039 smokers, not selected for motivation but ˜80% had previously tried to quit; 45% M, av. age: 41, av. cigs/day 17

Interventions

1. Referral: Smokers with any interest in quitting referred by fax to Victorian Quitline. Proactive contact attempted with up to 2 pre‐quit and 4 post‐quit sessions typically using relapse‐sensitive schedule. Internet support available as an alternative (4.4% reported use)
2. In‐practice support, could include external referral if this was clinical preference
All participants given guideline‐based assessment of readiness to quit and offer of pharmacotherapy if appropriate

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained ≥ 10 m)
Validation: none

Notes

TC as adjunct to face‐to‐face intervention.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Cluster‐randomised by GP (1:2 ratio). Computer allocation before GPs attended education session for their assigned intervention

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Initially concealed but 13 referral (30%) and 11 (42%) control GPs failed to recruit participants. Allocation not blind at time of recruitment of individual participants, so further selection bias possible. Measured characteristics at baseline were similar

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "Three‐ and 12‐month questionnaires were administered...by trained interviewers who were blind to treatment condition until after the outcome data were collected." However, reliant on self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

33% lost in referral condition, 39% in control, all included as smokers in MA. Excluding losses does not affect MA

Boyle 2007

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Proactive recruitment of members filling a prescription for cessation medications (motivated)

Participants

1329 HMO members; 42% M, av. age 47, 66% smoked > pack/day

Interventions

All participants had filled a prescription. Almost 95% used; ˜51% only bupropion, 26% only NRT, remainder both
1. No further intervention
2. Proactive call to offer counselling, up to 9 calls, given choice of structured course or unstructured format

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (repeated 7‐day PP at 3 and 12 m)
Validation: none

Notes

49% of intervention group reached, 36% of those declined, 31% of total accepted counselling. Average no of calls 5.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, stratified by presence of chronic disease. Method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "The follow‐up survey was conducted by the Data Collection Center within the Health Partners Research Foundation, using staff not involved in the intervention." However, reliant on self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

˜33% lost to follow‐up, balanced across groups, included in MA as smokers

Bricker 2014

Methods

Setting: South Carolina, USA
Recruitment: Staff advertised the study to the quitline callers

Participants

121 uninsured callers to the South Carolina State Quitline who wanted to quit in the following 30 days

Interventions

1. Telephone counselling (CBT) + NRT

2. Telephone counselling (ACT) + NRT

5 weekly calls, 30‐min first session and 15‐min subsequently, were offered. All participants received standard 2‐week NRT (patch or gum) of choice

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (30‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (T32MH082709 to RV, K23DA026517 to JLH, R21DA030646 to JB) and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center."

Declarations of interest: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomized study arm assignments were computer generated"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomized study arm assignments were [...] concealed"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated, but same level of personal contact in different study arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportion of individuals lost to follow‐up was greater in CBT than in ACT arm (39% and 27%, respectively) but less than 50% overall

Brown 1992

Methods

Setting: Community, Australia
Recruitment: Advertising for smokers interested in cessation

Participants

45 smokers attending an information evening on smoking cessation; 38% M, av. age 40, av. cigs/day 23

Interventions

1. S‐H manual
2. S‐H manual and proactive TC; 6 calls at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 weeks which asked about use of manual, and gave additional information about any techniques or skills proving difficult

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: Saliva samples collected but not apparently tested ‐ 1 participant refusing to provide a sample was classified as smoking

Notes

Effect of TC compared to S‐H and single information session alone

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Saliva samples collected but not apparently tested

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No details given

Brunette 2017

Methods

Setting: New Hampshire, USA; community mental health centres
Recruitment: Through flyers, clinician referral, and direct mail

Participants

661 medicaid beneficiaries with mental illness and low income (< USD 1317 a month) willing to initiate cessation treatment within 30 days, 36% M, av. age 45, av. cigs/day 17.3

Interventions

1. Usual care, a prescriber visit for smoking cessation (NRT or cessation medications, i.e. bupropion/varenicline)

2. As in 1, plus referral to New Hampshire Tobacco Helpline which provides an average of 3 manualised TC sessions

3. As in 1, plus TC (av. 9 sessions) CBT initiated by a CBT therapist

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: breath CO ≤ 4 ppm and urine cotinine < 100 ng/ml (or solely breath CO if using NRT)

Notes

New for 2018 update.

Funding: "This research received financial support from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Medicaid Incentives for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases grant 1B1CMS330880) and from the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (NHDHHS)."

Declarations of interest: "Dr. Brunette reports receipt of research funding from Alkermes. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Computer‐generated tables for each strata within each site were used for random assignment."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "We used equipoise randomization [...] that allowed participants to opt out of one of the cessation treatment conditions or allowed randomization to any of the three options. [...] Randomization strata were defined by conditions to which the participant was willing to be randomly assigned. Within the stratum, a participant was then randomly assigned with equal probability to the selected treatment condition options." Not a true randomisation method; participants can choose what intervention they do not want to be allocated to and this can lead to selection bias. This led to different numbers between arms, and significant baseline age differences

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Biochemical validation for only half of the participants in the trial (those receiving an incentive), and there are significant differences between those receiving and not receiving an incentive. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportion of participants lost to follow‐up was lower than 50% overall

Chan 2015

Methods

Setting: Hong‐Kong, China; community‐based

Recruitment: Participants were approached by investigators at shopping malls or public areas in 16 out of the 18 districts in Hong Kong. Participants who expressed an interest in joining the contest were screened for eligibility and tested on their exhaled CO to ascertain their smoking status

Participants

1003 Hong Kong residents aged 18 or older, who smoked 1 or more cig/day in the past 6 months, 82% M; 38% 18 – 39 years, 49% 40 – 59 years, 13% 60+ years, 42% 1 – 10 cigs/day, 43% 11 – 20 cigs/day, 15% > 20 cigs/day

Interventions

1. S‐H booklet and the contact information of the smoking cessation services at the enrolment

2. As 1, plus 8 mobile phone text messages corresponding to the 8 pages of the S‐H booklet (not used in review)

3. As 1, plus 4 sessions (within 1 week, after 2, 6 and 12 m) of 5‐min smoking cessation telephone counselling provided by a trained nurse, using the AWARD Protocol

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: exhaled CO < 4 ppm and salivary cotinine level < 10 ng/ml

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This work was funded by Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health."

Declarations of interest: "Prof. Tai‐hing Lam is the principal investigator of the FAMILY project, which was funded by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. All other authors do not have connection with the tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical or gaming industries, and nobody was substantially funded by these organizations."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Block randomisation was used to ensure similar group sizes.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The randomization and allocation were conducted by the author who did not participate in subject recruitment to ensure allocation concealment"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Abstinence biochemically validated

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Efforts were made to minimise loss to follow‐up:

Quote: "at least seven call attempts at different times were made before participants were considered as loss to follow‐up." In the end follow‐up was comparable across arms. Reasons for losses to follow‐up are provided

Chouinard 2005

Methods

Setting: Canada
Recruitment setting: Inpatients with cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, congestive heart failure) or peripheral vascular disease, unselected by motivation

Participants

168 past‐month smokers; 27% M, av. age 56, 60 % in preparation or action SoC

Interventions

1. Counselling by research nurse (1 x 10 ‐ 60 mins, av. 40 mins, based on Transtheoretical Model, included component to enhance social support from a significant family member)
2. As 1, plus telephone follow‐up, 6 calls over 2 m post‐discharge
3. Usual care cessation advice (not used in review)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (sustained at 2 and 6m)
Validation: Urine cotinine or CO

Notes

TC as adjunct to face‐to‐face counselling. 75% received 6 calls

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Cluster‐randomised in groups of 3 ‐ 6 "to prevent contamination between groups", method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Individuals not familiar with the study were in charge of the randomization procedure which included inserting the information into envelopes that were sealed and would be opened by the investigator only at the time of recruitment."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation used

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

4 deaths (3 in Grp 1, 1 in Grp 2) and 3 not meeting follow‐up criteria excluded from MA denominators. Other losses to follow‐up included

Collins 2018

Methods

Setting: North and West Philadelphia, PA, US; 4 paediatric clinics
Recruitment: Clinic providers referred smoking parents of children exposed to SHS to the cessation resources, including the current study

Participants

327 smoking parents from predominantly low‐income, racial‐ and ethnic‐minority families of children under the age of 11, 16.5% M, av. age 33, av. cigs/day 11.5

Interventions

1. Individual TC health education attention control (AC) intervention that focuses on improving family nutrition on a budget

2. Individual behavioural TC intervention that focuses on reducing child SHS exposure and parent smoking cessation

The TC dosage (5 sessions over 12 weeks) was similar between arms

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: cotinine‐verified (cut‐off not reported)

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "Supported by Temple University. Funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, grant CA158361. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)."

Declarations of interest: "The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomization was seeded using values obtained from random.org."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The project biostatistician provided the allocations to the data collection team in opaque sealed security envelopes."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Cotinine‐verified smoking cessation

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

The percentage of participants lost to follow‐up is minimal (12%), although slightly different between intervention (17%) and control (8%) arms.

Cossette 2011

Methods

Setting: Specialised cardiac hospital, Canada

Recruitment: All smokers who were hospitalised were asked to participate by the study nurse (not selected by motivation)

Participants

40 current daily smokers with cardiovascular disease, 60% M, av. age 57. Most in preparation stage

Therapists: nurse specialised in smoking cessation

Interventions

All participants had 1 or more sessions with the study nurse during hospitalisation. Conditions differed after discharge

1. Intervention: 6 phone calls by study nurse at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12. If needed additional phone calls could be arranged between 3 and 6m post‐discharge. At week 3 appointment with the study nurse if requested by participant

2. Control: referral to a national quitline or a community centre for smoking cessation

Pharmacotherapy: NRT, bupropion or varenicline were suggested during hospitalisation and follow‐up

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: only for 1 participant

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified, but generated by a centre for randomised controlled trials

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Opaque sealed envelopes

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

High loss to follow‐up, but missing data similar in both groups and analyses are ITT, participants lost to follow‐up considered smokers

Cummins 2016a

Methods

Setting: California, USA; hospital‐based

Recruitment: Quote: "Recruitment procedures differed between healthcare systems based on the personnel involved and the hospital’s reliance on electronic medical records (EMRs)". In 1 study site recruitment was part of the therapists' workflow, while in another academic site, research staff were involved instead

Participants

1270 hospitalised adult smokers who smoked 6 or more cigs/day, were interested in quitting, spoke English or Spanish, and were not pregnant, 56.7% M, av. age 49.9, av. cigs/day 14.6

Interventions

Factorial 2 x 2 design comparing TC vs no TC, and NRT vs no NRT

1. No TC (usual care) ± NRT patches. In general usual care consisted of providing smokers with the quitline number, but some hospitals may have also provided counselling or prescribed quitting aids

2. TCg ± NRT patches, with 10 calls scheduled, but on av. 3.6 completed. The av. number of calls in the usual care arm was 1.7

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: saliva cotinine < 10 ng/mL

Notes

New for 2018 update. Previously listed under ongoing studies as Cummins 2012

Funding: "This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (CA159533)."

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "randomly assigned by computer"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemically‐confirmed abstinence

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Similar loss to follow‐up across arms (˜33%)

Cummins 2016b

Methods

Setting: California USA; pregnant women

Recruitment: Callers to University of California San Diego California Smokers' Helpline

Participants

1173 pregnant (< 27 weeks) women, willing to quit within 1 month or recent quitters, av. age 26.3, av. cigs/day 11.2

Interventions

1. Self‐help American Cancer Society's Make Yours a Fresh Start Family fact sheets, and additional tips for quitting while pregnant
2. As 1, plus proactive TC specifically developed for pregnant smokers, including 9 x 30 ‐ 45‐min sessions on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 after quit date, at 32 weeks of gestation, and 2 and 4 weeks after delivery

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m post‐partum (180‐day abstinence)
Validation: saliva cotinine < 13 ng/mL

Notes

New for 2018 update. Previously listed under studies awaiting assignment as Zhu 2004

Funding: "This research was supported by the Tobacco‐Related Disease Research Program (Grant 8RT‐0103) and First 5 California (Contract CCFC‐6810) and by funds received from the California Department of Health Services Tobacco Control Section (Contract 00–90605)."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Random allocation to condition was done by computer using blocks of 20"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "staff were blind to group assignment until the end of the intake, when the appropriate script was presented"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Abstinence biochemically validated

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Higher % lost to follow‐up in intervention arm

Curry 1995

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Active; smokers identified through a telephone survey of health behaviour in a random sample of HMO members, not selected for motivation

Participants

1137 smokers, 479 in relevant arms, not selected by motivation to quit; 48% M, av. age 41, av. cigs/day 17

Interventions

1. Control ‐ no materials or counselling
2. S‐H booklet (Breaking Away)
3. As 2, plus feedback based on computer analysis of initial survey
4. As 3, plus proactive TC; up to 3 calls at 2, 6, 10 weeks

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (sustained from 3 m ‐ 12 m)
Validation: saliva cotinine requested but not obtained for all self‐reported quitters. Disconfirmation rates (cut off > 20 ng/ml) not significantly different between groups

Notes

4 vs 3, effect of TC compared to S‐H and feedback alone.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Quote: "Collecting saliva cotinine...was challenging because participants had neither explicitly volunteered for a study of smoking behavior nor requested treatment for smoking cessation... nearly one fourth of those contacted refused to provide a sample." Higher disconfirmation in control group but difference was not significant

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

88% provided data at all 3 and 12 m. No difference in response rates across groups. Missing counted as smoking in MA

Duffy 2006

Methods

Setting: ENT clinics at 4 hospitals, USA
Recruitment: Patients with head and neck cancer who screened positive for smoking, alcohol problem or depression, not selected for motivation

Participants

89 current smokers used in MA, out of 184 trial participants who also included 26 quit within last month and 21 within last 6 m . Demographics are for all participants; 84% M, av. age 57

Interventions

1. Proactive counselling; 9 ‐ 11 CBT‐based calls from trained nurses, linked to use of CBT workbook. Smokers with problem drinking or depression received counselling for these too
2. Enhanced usual care with assessment and referral

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (sustained)
Validation: none

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given. Smokers were a higher proportion of the intervention than control groups, and a higher proportion of those randomised than those who refused, raising possibility of selection bias

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

22 in total (including non‐smokers) lost to follow‐up, evenly distributed. Losses appear to have been included as smokers

Ebbert 2007

Methods

Setting: 8 dental practices, USA
Recruitment: Patients screened by questionnaire at routine hygiene appointments, not selected for motivation

Participants

82 smokers (60 intervention, 22 control). No baseline data for controls

Interventions

1. Control: Brief counselling (10 mins) from hygienist, reinforced by dentist
2. As 1 plus faxed referral to quitline, proactive counselling, 45 mins baseline, 20 mins at 1 week and 2 weeks, further calls if requested

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Cluster‐randomised by practice, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Hygienists who recruited participants after screening not blind, large difference in numbers recruited, not possible to establish baseline similarity

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No description of number lost at follow‐up

Ellerbeck 2009

Methods

Settng: Primary care patients, 50 rural practices, Kansas, USA
Recruitment: Smokers not selected for motivation, but 67% of those eligible enrolled, only 8.7% in precontemplation stage of change

Participants

750 smokers of > 10 cigs/day, 41% M, av. age 47, av. cigs/day 24, 61% contemplation, 30% preparation

Interventions

All participants mailed an offer of free pharmacotherapy every 6 m, 4 times in total. Nicotine patch 21 mg for 6 weeks or bupropion SR (150 mg twice daily) for 7 weeks

1. Control. No other contact.

2. Moderate‐intensity disease management: up to 2 calls from counsellor in each cycle encouraging uptake of pharmacotherapy, newsletter mailings and periodic progress reports with counselling suggestions faxed to physician

3. High‐intensity disease management, up to 6 calls at approx 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 weeks from start of each cycle

Outcomes

Abstinence at 24 m (PP). Study also reported analysis based on combination of effects at all follow‐up points. Sustained abstinence not a suitable outcome since no quit date and repeated intervention

Validation: attempted saliva cotinine (< 15 ng/ml) by mail at 12 and 24 m. Proxy report used at 24 m for non‐returners. Rate of validation similar across groups

Notes

For analysis on counselling intensity, classified on basis of average calls; moderate in 3 ‐ 6 sessions, high in 7+ subgroups

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer generated random‐number table" in blocks of 24

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "To conceal allocation, we placed these cards in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation used

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Differential rates of loss to follow‐up (1: 22.0%; 2: 31.3%; 3: 31.1%). Participants lost to follow‐up counted as smokers but sensitivity analysis shows no significant difference in analysis outcome if excluding those lost to follow‐up

Emmons 2005

Methods

Setting: Childhood Cancer Survivors Study cohort, USA
Recruitment: Smokers contacted by telephone to assess eligibility and enrol, not selected for motivation

Participants

794 smokers (excludes 2 deaths in control); 53% M, av. age 31, av. cigs/day 12

Interventions

1. S‐H control. Mailed manual (Clearing the Air) and letter from study physician
2. Peer counselling. Up to 6 calls in 7‐m period, by trained cancer survivor. Motivational, tailored to SoC. Free NRT available. Individually‐tailored materials before 1st call and other materials during intervention

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none (warning that samples might be requested)

Notes

No data on average number of calls. Longer‐term follow‐up, assessed at 2 ‐ 4 years, reported in Emmons 2009. Not used in MA ‐ sustained rates not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Bogus pipeline procedure used, no further details provided

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

19% lost in intervention vs 24% in control at 12 m. All included as smokers in MA. Excluding losses does not affect MA

Ferguson 2012

Methods

Setting: English Quitline

Recruitment: Callers to the NHS Smoking Helpline from any location in England

Participants

2591 smokers aged 16 or older, motivated to quit in 4 days ‐ 4 weeks. 45% M; av. age 38; 47% smoking 11 ‐ 20 cigs/day

Interventions

1. Standard telephone support (after call, further support by email, letter or text message, offer of proactive contact)

2. As 1 plus additional proactive telephone support (up to 2 calls pre‐quit date, 1 call on quit date, then calls at 3, 7, 14 and 21 days post‐quit date).  Structured call content using MI template (except for 7‐ and 14‐day calls)

3. As 1, plus offer of free NRT

4. As 2, plus offer of free NRT

Outcomes

Prolonged abstinence at 6 m (allowing grace period of up to 5 cigs smoked). 7‐day PP also recorded

Validation: exhaled CO < 10 ppm

Notes

Arms 1 and 3 combined and compared with arms 2 and 4 combined. No difference in cessation outcomes between participants offered NRT and those not offered NRT

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer generated random number sequence"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Subjects allocated by central computerised system

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation rates used

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

High rates of dropout but similar across groups (standard 43%, proactive 45%). Dropouts counted as smokers

Quote: "this conservative supposition could possibly mask variation...and we explored this possibility by trying alternative associations between missingness and smoking status. This analysis did not change our findings."

Fiore 2004

Methods

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

Participants

961 smokers of ≧ 10 cigs/day. (643 in relevant arms, a further 908 were allowed to select treatment. Demographic details based on 1869); 42% M, av. age 40, av. cigs/day 22

Interventions

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

Outcomes

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

Notes

Arms 2 vs 1, TC as adjunct to pharmacotherapy
69% of those randomised to group 2 enrolled in CQ programme

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemically‐validated cessation

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

19% lost at 1 year, no difference by condition

Flöter 2009

Methods

Setting: Germany

Recruitment: 21 prevention or rehabilitation clinics

Participants

527 hospitalised female smokers ≥ 1 cig during the 30 days preceding hospitalisation. Av. age 35.9, motivation to quit not required

Interventions

1. 3 face‐to‐face courses (60 mins each) in groups during clinic hospitalisation featuring CBT and MI

2. As 1, plus 3 proactive phone calls (10 mins duration) post‐discharge in a structured and directive style

3. As 2, but calls delivered in non‐directive style

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (30‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

Intervention arms combined

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcome with participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Number lost to follow‐up unclear (conflicting data available)

Fraser 2014

Methods

Setting: USA; population‐based
Recruitment: 5‐step process: (1) clicked link to study; (2) completed eligibility screening questions; (3) reviewed consent and confirm willingness to participate; (4) completed baseline questionnaire; (5) call to an automated answering machine to confirm their participation

Participants

1034 smokers of ≥ 5 cigs/day, aged 17 or older, interest in quitting smoking within the next 30 days, 32% M, av. age 39.3, av. cigs/day 19.3

Interventions

Factorial design of the following 5 conditions: website (active/lite), S‐H brochure (full/lite), text messaging, NRT, and proactive TC ‐ 5 sessions of a duration of 30 mins upon enrolment, and 15 mins on quit day or day after, and weekly for 3 weeks

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 7 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The project was funded through a contract to our university from Matthews Media Group, underwritten by ARRA funding to the National Cancer Institute. Additional funding was provided by the National Cancer Institute (5K05CA139871)."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No detail on exactly how the participants were randomised:

Quote: “Randomization occurred immediately after the confirmation call, and participants completing this step were sent an automated email welcoming them to the study and outlining services they would receive (based on their randomization).”

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

As above

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Small percentage of lost to follow‐up in each arm

Gilbert 2006

Methods

Setting: Quitline, UK
Recruitment: Quitline callers who engaged in counselling

Participants

1457 smokers planning quit attempt within 2 weeks; 34% M, av. age 39, av. cigs/day NS

Interventions

1. Standard QUIT information pack and counselling at initial contact.
2. As 1, plus offered 5 proactive calls, starting TQD if possible, 2 in week 1, 1 in weeks 2 and 4. Client‐centred

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained for 6 m, also 7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

26% received no additional calls, 42% had 4+ calls, 31% had 1 ‐ 3 calls

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Pseudo‐random by day of week

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Recruiters blind so concealment judged adequate

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

37% lost to follow‐up in both groups. Missing counted as smoking in MA

Girgis 2011

Methods

Setting: Australia

Recruitment: Arabic‐speaking GPs in 29 practices in southwest Sydney

Participants

407 Arabic smokers, aged 18 ‐ 65

48% M, av. age 29, av. cigs/day 19

Interventions

1. Offer of free referral by GP to proactive TC provided by bilingual psychologist. If accepted offer, participants called by counsellor for 20‐min initial session. If prepared to quit, called again on quit date, 1, 3, 6 weeks and 3 m after specified quit date. If not ready to set quit date, assigned "less intensive schedule." Mailed quit kit and materials in Arabic and English 

2. Usual care

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 and 12 m (1‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

Low uptake: 101 of 213 participants agree to receive call, 46 receive at least 1 call, 8 completed all calls. Described narratively in 'Other studies' section

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "From each participating GP, we recruited a consecutive sample of patients of Arabic background aged 18‐65 years during a specified 4‐week period, irrespective of their smoking status" using an "unobtrusive mark visible to only the GP to convey group randomization" on the baseline questionnaire. Suggests allocation not concealed

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No biochemical validation, but research assistants conducting follow‐up blind to assignment, low uptake of actual contact suggests risk of differential misreport low

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Significantly more participants in intervention group lost to follow‐up at 12 m than control (45% vs 34%), all dropouts counted as smokers in ITT analysis

Graham 2011

Methods

Setting: USA

Recruitment: US residents searching for stop‐smoking advice on a major internet search engine who clicked on a link to www.quitnet.com, assumed to be motivated

Participants

2005 adult smokers of 5 or more cigs/day. 48.9% , av. age 35.9, av. cigs/day 20, av. FTND 5.0. 1326 contribute to this review

Interventions

1. Free 6 m access to www.quitnet.com (interactive commercial cessation website)

2. As 1, + up to 5 sessions of proactive TC for 3 m; counsellors had access to www.quitnet.com info and encouraged participants’ use of it; counsellors sent individual emails after counselling sessions to reinforce key points

3. Control: access to static, info‐only (non‐interactive) version of the content on QuitNet (not used in this review)

Outcomes

Multiple 30‐day PP (at 3, 6, 12 and 18 m).

Validation: none

Notes

Arm 2 versus 1

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random numbers table…stratified by sex and baseline motivation to quit"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method not specified

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcome measure from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Participants missing data counted as smokers. Sustained PP data not available for 46% EI, 49% EI+P 49% and 43% BI. Difference due to differential rate of follow‐up at 3 m.

Quote: "The lower follow‐up assessment rate among EI+P participants at 3 months may have been owing to ‘telephone fatigue’...Telephone counselling was providing within the first 3 months of the study, which was the only assessment period for which higher loss to follow‐up was observed. If present, this bias could have attenuated the effectiveness of the combined intervention."

Halpin 2006

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Health plan members without current smoking cessation benefit, recruited for a study giving access to coverage

Participants

388 smokers; 34% M, 67% age 40+, 84% smoked < a pack/day

Interventions

1. Coverage for TC and pharmacotherapy (bupropion or NRT, USD 15 co‐pay)
2. Coverage for TC; coverage for pharmacotherapy (bupropion or NRT, USD 15 co‐pay) only if enrolled in TC
3. Coverage for pharmacotherapy only (control)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Not included in MA, results discussed separately, alongside trials for TC as adjunct to pharmacotherapy

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Number lost to follow‐up not described, all participants included in analyses

Hanssen 2009

Methods

Setting: Hospital/community, Norway
Recruitment: Inpatients with diagnosis of myocardial infarction, not selected for motivation

Participants

133 daily smokers amongst 288 participants. Demographics not given for smoking subgroup

Interventions

1. Usual care; outpatient visit at 6 ‐ 8 weeks and primary care follow‐up
2. Structured but individualised proactive TC addressing lifestyle issues including smoking, diet and exercise. Nurse‐initiated calls at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24 weeks post‐discharge. Smoking not explicitly addressed at each call. Reactive phone support line available 6 hours/week

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6, 12 and 18 m (assumed PP, not defined). Primary trial outcome was health‐related quality of life
Validation: none

Notes

18‐m follow‐up data added in 2013. Smoking was addressed as part of a multicomponent intervention. TC as adjunct to brief/minimal intervention

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised by computer‐generated list

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Sequence in sealed opaque envelopes but not stated to be numbered. Fewer control group participants raises possibility of selection bias, so not classified as low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

At 18 m, losses amongst baseline smokers 29% in 1, 30% in 2 . Losses reincluded as smokers in this MA

Hollis 2007

Methods

Setting: Quitline, Oregon, USA
Recruitment: Callers to quitline

Participants

4500 smokers willing to make a quit attempt; 40% M, av. age 41, av. cigs/day 22

Interventions

Factorial design; 3 levels of counselling, ± offer of nicotine patch (5‐week supply, 80% accepted, option for 3 weeks more, 25 ‐ 28% requested)
1. Brief counselling (usual care), 15 mins + referral information and tailored S‐H
2. Moderate TC: 30 ‐ 40 mins MI, brief call to encourage use of community services, tailored S‐H
3. Intensive; as 2, plus offer of up to 4 further calls (Free & Clear)

Outcomes

Abstinence > 30 days at 12 m
Validation: none

Notes

First included as Hollis 2005, based on unpublished abstract.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

69% reached at 12 m. Losses assumed smoking in main analysis, sensitivity analyses reported

Holmes‐Rovner 2008

Methods

Setting: 5 hospitals, Michigan, USA
Recruitment: Inpatients with acute coronary syndrome, not selected for motivation

Participants

525 participants, including 136 who smoked at admission and could be followed up. Smoker demographics not given

Interventions

1. In‐hospital care according to American College of Cardiology Guideline Applied to Practice quality improvement (QI) programme, including written discharge contract
2. Heart After‐Hospital Recovery Planner (HARP), 6 session telephone coaching, 15 ‐ 30‐min weekly sessions initiated 0 ‐ 4 weeks post‐discharge. Pharmacotherapy encouraged for cessation. Intervention could address multiple behaviours

Outcomes

Abstinence at 8 m ("remained quit for the period")
Validation: none

Notes

Data on smoking outcomes provided by authors from in‐press paper by Holtrop et al

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Blocked randomisation, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Change in methodology from randomisation at recruitment/consent to randomisation after baseline interview due to initial imbalance in numbers. Data collectors were blind to group

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

15 people whose smoking status not confirmed and 15 losses to follow‐up excluded because group not stated. ITT analysis said not to alter results

Hughes 2010

Methods

Setting: Columbia, SC, Albuquerque, NM and Florence, SC;

Recruitment: Through newspaper and radio ads

Participants

746 adult smokers of ≥ 15 cigs/day, interested in quitting gradually in the next 30 days, 46% M, av. age 46, av. cigs/day 23

Interventions

1. Brief advice TC (2 sessions ‐ 5 mins before, and 10 mins after quit day)

2. Abrupt cessation TC (5 sessions ‐ 30 mins between 7 and 21 days before quit day, 10 mins subsequently 2 days before, 2, 7 and 14 days after quit day)

3. Gradual cessation TC (not used in this review due NRT being administered before and after quit day)

In arms 1 and 2, participants were sent the US National Cancer Institute’s Clearing the Air booklet, as well as nicotine lozenges after quit day

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (prolonged 2 weeks post‐quit day to 6 m abstinence)
Validation: CO level (cut‐off not reported)

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The conduct of this study and preparation of the manuscript was funded by grant DA‐017825 (JH), Senior Scientist Award DA‐00490 (JH) and Institutional Training Grant DA‐07242 (EP) from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse."

Declarations of interest: "Since 1/1/2007, Dr Hughes has received research grants from the National Institute on Health and Pfizer. Pfizer develops and sells smoking cessation medications. During this time, he has accepted honoraria or consulting fees from several non‐profit and for‐profit organizations and companies that develop, sell or promote smoking cessation products or services or educate/advocate about smoking cessation: Abbot Pharmaceuticals; Acrux; Aradigm; American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry; American Psychiatric Association; Begbies Traynor; Cambridge Hospital, Cline, Davis and Mann; Constella Group; Consultants in Behavior Change; Dean Foundation, DLA Piper, EPI‐Q, European Respiratory Society, Evotec; Exchange Limited; Fagerstrom Consulting; Free and Clear Glaxo‐Smith Kline; Golin Harris; Healthwise; Insyght; Informed, Invivodata; Johns Hopkins University; JL Reckner; Maine Medical Center; McNeil Pharmaceuticals; Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Oglivy Health PR, Ottawa Heart Institute, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; Pinney Associates; Propagate Pharmaceuticals. Reuters; Scientia, Selecta; Temple University of Health Sciences; University of Arkansas; University of California‐San Francisco; University of Cantabria; University of Kentucky, US National Institutes on Health; Wolters Publishing, and Xenova."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "statistician generated a concealed allocation sequence and randomized participants to the gradual, abrupt, or minimal treatment conditions in a 2:2:1 ratio using blocked randomization (stratified by city and counselor) based on the SAS procedure PLAN"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical verification

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Similar low percentage (˜21%) lost to follow‐up between groups

Joyce 2008

Methods

Setting: 7 states, USA
Recruitment: Smokers responding to mailings and media coverage of new service for Medicare beneficiaries

Participants

7354 smoking Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ (4295 contribute to review), ˜40% M, ˜69% contemplation, 30% preparation

Interventions

Trial of 4 levels of Medicare benefit. All participants mailed a S‐H kit
1. Usual care (not used in MA)
2. Provider counselling benefit; up to 4 sessions of 3 ‐ 10 mins of stage‐based counselling (not used in MA)
3. As 2, plus pharmacotherapy benefit; nicotine patch or bupropion for USD 5 co‐pay, up to 2 x 12‐week courses
4. Quitline benefit; choice of a reactive hotline with prerecorded messages/ad hoc counselling, or a proactive helpline of up to 5 calls per 12‐week cycle, up to 2 cycles in the year. Also S‐H manual and coverage for nicotine patch for USD 5 co‐pay

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Main comparison 4 vs 3, which had similar levels of self‐reported use of any pharmacotherapy (60% vs 63.4%). Participants were not called unless they enrolled, so treated as trial of quitline availability

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Cluster‐randomised, states divided into quarters balancing smoking prevalence and aged, restricted randomisation to different conditions

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Participants unaware of programme differences when enrolling and allocation determined by address. Low enrolment in 1 condition does not seem to have been due to bias

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

25% lost to follow‐up at 12 m, absolute differences between groups small. Main analysis includes losses as smokers

Klemperer 2017

Methods

Setting: USA, population‐based
Recruitment: Through email invitations to a nationally representative consumer panel

Participants

560 adult smokers of ≥ 10 cigs/day with a desire to quit some day, but not in the next 30 days, 33% M, av. age 51, av. cigs/day 20

Interventions

1. Usual care 5‐min TC
2. Brief motivational TC

3. Smoking reduction TC

Groups 2 and 3 were dosage‐matched with 1 x 15‐min call (week 0), followed by 2 x 10 – 15‐min calls (weeks 2 and 4)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This work was supported by research grant NCI CA163176 from the National Cancer Institute (J.R.H.) and training grant T32 DA 7242–23 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (E.M.K.)."

Declarations of interest: "One of the authors received consulting and speaking fees from several companies that develop or market pharmacological and behavioral treatments for smoking cessation or harm reduction and from several non‐profit organizations that promote tobacco control. He also consults (without payment) for Swedish Match."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

One of the investigators designed a computer‐generated block randomisation schedule stratified by counsellor to assign participants to receive either intervention

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported abstinence. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Large percentage (> 50%) of participants lost to follow‐up but according to authors:

Quote: "The amount of missing data for all outcomes did not differ among conditions, nor were baseline characteristics associated with missing data". Sensitivity analyses were used to confirm robustness of their findings

Lando 1992

Methods

Setting: Community, Minnesota, USA
Recruitment: From 4 groups of previously identified smokers

Participants

1827 smokers, not selected by motivation to quit; 50% M, av. age 47, av. cigs/day 22

Interventions

1. Proactive TC, 2 calls over 3 weeks. Offered S‐H materials
2. No intervention, contacted at follow‐up only

Outcomes

Abstinence at 18 m (no puff, > 3 m and validated abstinent at 6 m)
Validation: Saliva cotinine < 10 ng/ml at 6 m

Notes

High level of cotinine disconfirmation. 70% agreed to second call

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Minimal contact intervention, likelihood of bias small but since control group participants were not contacted at baseline and a large number of intervention group participants could not be reached, impossible to compare baseline characteristics

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No biochemical validation at 18 m. At 6 m, validated abstinence rates "considerably lower" than self‐report

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Only a sample of intervention and control participants were selected for follow‐up. Of this sample, 91% reached at 18 m in both groups. Numbers followed up used as denominator in MA

Lando 1997

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Physician referral and HMO clinic newsletters

Participants

509 smokers of > 20 cigs/day, motivated to quit; 44% M, av. age 42, av. cigs/day 28

Interventions

All participants received prescriptions for free nicotine patch (Prostep), 22 mg for a maximum of 6 weeks plus 2 weeks 11 mg. Proactive vs Reactive
Attended 90‐min group orientation session describing study, use of patch, behavioural information, set quit date. Standard written materials with patch included description of a toll‐free telephone help line
1. No further support
2. Orientation session included encouragement to call toll‐free number and a registration card
3. Additional proactive TC, 4 10 ‐ 15‐min calls (approx 1, 4, 7 ‐ 9, 12 weeks from quit date). Reinforced success or negotiated a new quit date

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (from quit date)
Validation: CO at 6 m. 96% of quitters were confirmed

Notes

Arms 3 vs 1+2, effect of proactive TC compared to contact and quitline alone. (1 & 2 combined since fewer than 1% called quitline and no difference between quit rates). Participants who did not return questionnaires at 2, 5, 8, 12 weeks were called by telephone.
Average number of calls completed 3.76

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Cluster‐randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Allocation by orientation session attended; participants did not know condition in advance, so risk of selection bias probably low

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemically‐validated quit rates

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

82% response rate at 12 m, no difference between groups, missing treated as smoking

Lichtenstein 2000

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Active; by electric utility mailing to identify households with smokers and low radon concentrations

Participants

1006 smokers in 714 households (651 in relevant arms); av. cigs/day 20

Interventions

1. Standard Environmental Protection Agency leaflet on risks of radon (this arm not used in review)
2. Pamphlet highlighting risk of smoking in low concentrations of radon, with tips for quitting, or not smoking indoors
3. Pamphlet as 2, plus up to 2 brief (mean about 6 mins) proactive TC sessions

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained at 3 and 12 m)
Validation: none

Notes

Arms 3 vs 2, effect of TC versus S‐H alone
Cluster‐randomisation, 54% of smokers lived with another smoker. Intraclass correlation coefficient for sustained abstinence was .010. Analyses did not correct for this.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised by household, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

80% of households reached at 3 and 12 m, no difference across conditions. Missing treated as smoking

Lichtenstein 2008

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Active; by electric utility mailing with offer of radon test kit to identify households with smokers

Participants

1364 households with 1821 smokers, ˜18 cigs/day

Interventions

Factorial design crossing ± brief phone counselling with 15‐min video S‐H materials. All households given A Citizens Guide to Radon and letter tailored to results of radon level test
1. 1 ‐ 2 calls after receipt of radon test results. Clarified risk and encouraged quitting or no smoking in house. Second call scheduled if interested
2. No calls

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained at 3 and 12 m)
Validation: none

Notes

Results of analyses accounting for clustering of multiple smokers in households reported to yield results generally consistent with simple analyses

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Responding households sequentially randomised to 4 conditions subject to stratification on radon test status

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

83% of households completed 12 m assessment, 76% completed both 3 and 12 m

Lindqvist 2013

Methods

Setting: Sweden; clinic‐based

Recruitment: Callers to Swedish National Tobacco Quitline were invited to participate in the study, if consented to participate, they were sent a postal baseline registration questionnaire

Participants

772 smokers distributed among 9 and 8 counsellors, missing baseline patients' characteristics, only characteristics of completers at 12 m are provided, 20% M, av. age 48, > 80% used NRT or other medications

Interventions

1. Standard TC

2. Motivational interviewing TC

Total contact was similar between arms, with a duration ˜50', and av. number of sessions 3

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (continuous)
Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The research was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Stockholm County Council, the Swedish Heart and Lung Association, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research and the Swedish National Institute of Public Health."

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Allocation of counsellors was semi‐randomised (with a flip of a coin)

Quote: "The allocation of the counsellors resulted in an uneven distribution of total working hours between the groups. In order to achieve a more equal distribution between the two arms, the groups were readjusted (again by coin flip)"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Self‐reported abstinence, but same level of personal contact in different study arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "In total, 9 counsellors were allocated to ST and 8 counsellors to MI. During the study period, 2 (out of 8 ‐ 25%) of the MI counsellors left SNTQ. Consequently, the MI arm eventually came to consist of six counsellors."

Lipkus 1999

Methods

Setting: Health centre, USA
Recruitment: From telephone survey of patients

Participants

Low‐income African‐American smokers, 266 randomised, 160 followed up, 107 in relevant arms. Unselected by motivation; 48% M, 49% aged > 50

Interventions

1. Physician prompts attached to chart (included other screening tests). Providers trained to use 4As (Ask/ Advise/ Assist/ Arrange follow‐up) model. Only received if participants visited doctor
2. As 1, plus 1 mailing of tailored print communication around birthday
3. As 2, plus proactive TC; 1 or 2 (for women also due other screening), stage‐based, barriers and reasons for quitting, approx 6 mins

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence 16 m after last intervention (30‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Arms 3 vs 2, TC without face‐to‐face contact; physician advice was not an integral part of the intervention ‐ participants not required to have visited the doctor or received advice during the intervention period

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

38% loss to follow‐up primarily due to disconnected phone numbers. Reported rates based on numbers followed up. Authors report that an analysis with missing treated as smoking did not alter findings

Lipkus 2004

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Proactive in shopping malls

Participants

412 teenage smokers (aged 15 ‐ 18, smoked in past 7 days); 49% M, 56% aged ≥ 17, av cigs/day 10, 21% contemplation

Interventions

1. S‐H, 2 booklets for teen smokers and video
2. as 1, plus proactive TC, 3 calls (12 ‐ 15 mins) using MI and problem‐solving

Outcomes

Abstinence at 8 m (7‐day PP)
Validation method: Saliva cotinine ≤ 10 ng/mL at 4 m only. Low response, high failure to confirm. Abstinence based on self report only

Notes

TC as adjunct to targeted S‐H.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described, stratified by SoC

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Biochemical validation done but final outcome figures based on self‐report only. High failure to confirm and low response rate. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

46% Intervention and 51% Control reached at both follow‐ups. Losses included as smokers

MacLeod 2003

Methods

Setting: Community, Australia
Recruitment: Community volunteers

Participants

854 smokers interested in quitting; 49% M, av. age 42, av. cigs/day 24

Interventions

1. Free 2‐week supply of nicotine patch by mail, instructed to purchase further supply. 14 or 21 mg depending on body weight
2. As 1, + 5 proactive TC sessions at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10 weeks. 20‐min session 1, 10 mins others. Toll‐free hotline, S‐H materials

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (90‐day continuous)
Validation: none, warning of CO test only

Notes

TC as adjunct to NRT
Average number of calls 4.7. 9% of participants called hotline

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

"randomized" by shuffling folders each day after participants to be included were listed

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Potential for bias, since allocation sequence not fixed in advance. Baseline characteristics similar across groups

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "To minimise misleading reports of abstinence, a bogus pipeline technique was used, with the possibility of carbon monoxide breath testing mentioned in the consent form and at the 3‐ and 6‐month monitoring calls."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

17% lost in NRT only, 15% in + counselling. Missing treated as smoking in MA

McBride 1999a

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Active; health survey of women following a cervical smear (pap) test

Participants

580 current women smokers, not selected for motivation to quit; av. age 36, av. cigs/day 13

Interventions

1. Usual care; no smoking cessation intervention
2. Mailed cessation kit, letter personalised to SoC and quit motivation, proactive TC, 3 counselling calls (13 ‐ 15 min) 2 weeks after mailing, then monthly. Motivational‐ and stage‐based

Outcomes

Abstinence at 15 m (7‐day PPA) obtained by telephone interview
Validation: saliva cotinine < 20 ng/ml, quit rates not corrected, low level of misreport

Notes

Effect of TC and S‐H materials compared to no intervention
Counsellor discussed smoking and cervical cancer but not individual's pap results. > 80% received at least 1 call, 60% all 3

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not stated, stratified on test result

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation, quit rates not corrected but low level of misreport and

Quote: "no differences between the two groups in the proportion of women who returned samples, the proportion confirmed/disconfirmed, or the confirmation rate."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up at 15 m 20% in Intervention, 18% in Control. Losses included as smokers

McBride 1999b

Methods

Setting: 2 Health Maintenance Organisations, USA
Recruitment: Pregnant women who had booked a prenatal appointment, by mail

Participants

897 pregnant smokers and recent quitters (44% already quit) not selected for motivation to quit; av. age 28, av. cigs/day 15 before pregnancy, 5 if still smoking

Interventions

1. S‐H booklet only
2. Prepartum intervention: 3 proactive TC calls av 8½ mins, approx 2 weeks after S‐H mailing, and 1 m and 2 m later. Tailored letter, S‐H book. After 28‐week follow‐up sent relapse prevention kit
3. Pre‐ and postpartum intervention: as 2, plus 3 calls within first 4 m postpartum, av 7.7 mins. 3 newsletters

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m postpartum (7‐day PP)
Validation: Saliva cotinine requested by mail, < 20 ng/mL. Self‐reported rates used in analyses, no difference in confirmation rates between groups

Notes

Arms 3+2 vs 1, effect of TC versus S‐H only

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation used, not reported:

Quote: "since there were no between‐group differences in the proportion of saliva samples returned or the proportion confirmed, the primary trial outcomes were based on self‐reported smoking status."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up 13% at 12 m, not different by group, losses included as smokers

McBride 2004

Methods

Setting: Army Medical Centre, USA
Recruitment: Pregnant women at first prenatal visit

Participants

583 pregnant current smokers and recent quitters (390 in relevant arms); av. age 24

Interventions

1. Usual care: provider advice and S‐H guide
2. As 1, plus 6 proactive TC calls, 3 in pregnancy, 3 postpartum within 4 m + late pregnancy relapse prevention kit
3. Partner‐assisted intervention, not used in this review

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m postpartum (7‐day PP at all 4 follow‐ups)
Validation: Saliva cotinine request, incomplete return, rates based on self‐report

Notes

Effect of TC as adjunct to brief advice
Effect at 6 m not sustained longer term. Mean number of calls received was 5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described, stratified by smoking status

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Biochemical validation conducted but not used in outcome data.

Quote: "Saliva return rates did not differ by condition at either follow‐up" but rates of return low and level of misreport not specified

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up higher in Intervention (22%) than Control (16%). Losses included as smokers

McClure 2005

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Women with an abnormal cervical smear or colposcopy

Participants

275 women smokers, not selected for motivation to quit; av. age 33, av. cigs/day 14

Interventions

1. Usual care, S‐H, contact details for Free & Clear, a covered benefit
2. As 1, plus up to 4 x 15‐min proactive TC calls over 6 m

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: Cotinine saliva strip test, but judged over‐conservative so self‐report used. Relative effect not altered

Notes

Effect of TC versus S‐H only

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Bogus pipeline for short follow‐up, biochemical validation at 12 m. Results from saliva strip test judged overly conservative, hence self‐report used in final outcome data, but relative effect not altered

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information on numbers not reached at follow‐up. All participants included in analysis

McClure 2011

Methods

Setting: Pacific Northwest, USA

Recruitment: Members of large regional health plan identified through automated records

Participants

52 adults with evidence of smoking in last year, depression in last 2 years, and without high levels of physical activity. 33% M; av. age 44.5; av. cigs/day 10.6; av. FTND 2.37

Interventions

1. Intervention: usual care + phone‐based Step Up proactive counselling programme (1 motivational call, 9 weekly CBT calls and 2 follow‐up ‘booster calls’ according to participant need)

2. Control: usual care treatment for depression, smoking and physical activity (incl. S‐H material and referral information for phone‐based smoking cessation programme)

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

Pilot study of an intervention also addressing physical activity and depression

Number abstinent not provided and hence extrapolated from percentages given

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "randomly assigned," stratified by baseline antidepressant use". Method of sequence generation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method not specified

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcome, participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Participants lost to follow‐up counted as smokers, similar numbers lost in each group (4/27 intervention, 2/25 control)

McFall 1993

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Registrants for a S‐H TV programme who received manual or watched at least 1 programme

Participants

1745 smokers; 30% M, 23% age 18 ‐ 30, 40% age 31 ‐ 45, 30% 45 ‐ 64

Interventions

1. TV programme and S‐H manual (ALA Freedom From Smoking in 20 Days)
2. As 1, plus 10 newsletters over 6 m following programme with details of hotline with taped messages and counsellors

Outcomes

Abstinence at 24 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Effect of access to hotline combined with S‐H materials for maintenance of cessation

Use of the hotline was low; only 7% called and spoke to a counsellor

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Unclear if level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

24% lost in maintenance condition, 27% in control. MA includes only responders; Including losses would give less conservative effect

Metz 2007

Methods

Setting: 13 rehabilitation centres, Germany
Recruitment: Recent smokers having rehabilitation, not formally selected for motivation

Participants

290 smokers; 59% M, av. age 47, av cigs/day 15, control group significantly more dependent

Interventions

All participants had inpatient group therapy of 7 x 60‐min sessions. ˜26% abstinent at discharge
1. Telephone boosters; 5 x ˜10‐min proactive calls over 10 weeks from female psychologists (not original therapist)
2. No boosters

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Effect of TC as adjunct to intensive support

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, 1:2 ratio, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

17/316 randomised to intervention excluded, no contact post‐discharge. Differential dropout from remainder, 17% Intervention, 40% Control. No detected differences in characteristics of dropouts. Sensitivity analyses excluding losses to follow‐up removes significance

Miguez 2002

Methods

Setting: Community, Spain
Recruitment: Volunteers interested in quitting

Participants

200 smokers; 62% M, av. age 35, av cigs/day 28

Interventions

1. Proactive TC, 6 x weekly 10‐min calls. 4 on motivation and cessation, 2 on maintenance, + S‐H
2. S‐H only. Personalised intro letter, manual and 6 similar mailings with self‐monitoring and self‐evaluation forms

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (not even a puff since quitting)
Validation: CO at 12 m

Notes

10‐year follow‐up reported in 2008, not used in MA

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation used

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information on numbers not reached at follow‐up. All participants included in analysis

Miguez 2008

Methods

Setting: Community, Spain
Recruitment: Volunteers interested in quitting

Participants

228 smokers of ≥ 10 cigs/day; 54% M, av. age 37, av. cigs/day 27, 44% had prior year quit attempt

Interventions

1. Mailed S‐H programme; 6 weekly manuals, quit date intended to be set at end of week 4
2. As 1. + single proactive 5 ‐ 10‐min counsellor call in week 4, to increase motivation and adherence

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (sustained since end of treatment)
Validation: none ('bogus pipeline' warning)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "Telephone interviews were conducted by a trainer interviewer who was blind with respect to the group to which each subject was assigned. To improve the reliability of these self‐reports of smoking status, all follow‐up questionnaires and interviews commenced with a reminder that the subject might at some point be asked to undergo a carbon monoxide test."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Missing data treated as failure, no statement of numbers lost to follow‐up

Miller 1997

Methods

Setting: Hospitals, USA
Recruitment: Inpatient smokers (excl those with no intention of quitting, or wishing to quit unaided)

Participants

1942 smokers (excludes deaths); 51% M, av. age 51, av cigs/day 20

Interventions

All groups received standardised physician advice
1. Intensive intervention: 30‐min nurse face‐to‐face counselling, proactive TC, 4 at 48 hours post‐discharge, 7, 21, 90 days, optional session for relapsers
2. Minimal: 30‐min counselling + 1 phone call at 48 hours
3. Usual care (not used in review)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (sustained at 3 m, 6 m, 12 m)
(Paper also reports 12 m PP confirmed and self‐reported cessation rates)
Validation: saliva cotinine < 15 ng/ml, or family member verification

Notes

Effect of additional telephone follow‐up. Not pooled.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Nurses opened sealed envelopes in front of patients"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation; verification by family member used when biochemical validation not possible

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Number lost to follow‐up not specified, all randomised participants, excluding 82 deaths, included in analyses

NCT00534404

Methods

Setting: USA
Recruitment: Quote: "Interested individuals completed a screening survey to determine eligibility. Following study consent, participants completed two emailed surveys over the next two days and a phone confirmation call before being randomized. These check‐ins confirmed the participant had valid contact information and maintained their desire to quit smoking."

Participants

2485 adult smokers of ≥ 10 cigs/day, willing to set a quit date within 2 to 4 weeks, willing to use a nicotine patch, 31% M, av. age 44.

Interventions

1. NRT patch (free 8‐week) + Internet (iQuit Smoking website)
2. As 1, plus 5 sessions of TC after 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 9 m (6 m prolonged)
Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: not reported

Declarations of interest: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information provided on ClinicalTrials.gov website

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information provided on ClinicalTrials.gov website

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Low percentage (19%) of participants lost to follow‐up and comparable across arms

Nohlert 2014

Methods

Setting: Sweden; population‐based

Recruitment: Tobacco user calls the quitline, the counsellor invites the user to participate in the study, and if the user consents verbally, the registration form and baseline questionnaire are sent by mail. If baseline questionnaire is returned the user is included in the study

Participants

1129 smokers, 22% M, age: ≤ 34: 20%, 35 ‐ 49 25%, 50 ‐ 64 39%, ≥ 65 17%, average cigs/day: 0: 27%; 1 ‐ 14: 34%; ≥ 15: 39%. Participants were interested in quitting

Interventions

1. Reactive quitline service: The study was performed within the normal run of the Sweedish national tobacco quitline. Participants in this arm were not offered to be called back

2. Proactive quitline service: The study was performed within the normal run of the Swedish national tobacco quitline. Participants in this arm were offered to be called back. The first call was about 25 mins and subsequent calls were 5 ‐ 10 mins, with a mean of 4.3 calls

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (6 m continued)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Heart and Lung Association, the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the County Council of Västmanland, Sweden."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Semi‐randomised

Quote: "randomized to proactive service (even dates) and reactive service (odd dates)"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "As the randomization was performed at the time for the clients’ first call, the intervention has started and was known by the clients when they decided to return the baseline questionnaire and thus be included in the study base"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact probably differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Similar dropout across trial arms but > 50%

Ockene 1991

Methods

Setting: Primary care clinics, USA
Recruitment: Clinic attenders, not selected for interest in quitting

Participants

1223 smokers (excludes deaths and 237 who did not receive intervention); 43% M, av. age 35, av. cigs/day 23

Interventions

2 x 3 factorial design, physician intervention ± follow‐up
(a) AO: Physician advice only
(b) CI: Physician‐provided patient‐centered counselling, written agreement and schedule follow‐up, letter
(c). CI+NCG: as (b), plus informed of availability of free nicotine gum
1. Follow‐up counselling by psychologist or health educator, 3 calls (1, 2, 3 m) approx 10 mins, behavioural recommendations. Letters
2. No follow‐up

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP). 3 m sustained abstinence rates not given by condition
Validation: none

Notes

Arm 1 vs 2, AO and CI effect of TC in addition to physician intervention. NCG arm in pharmacotherapy adjunct, both pooled in intensity and motivation subgroup analyses. 12‐m abstinence rates reported in Ockene 1994, but not given by follow‐up condition

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Allocated prior to physician encounter

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

19% lost to follow‐up, higher in telephone follow‐up group. All included as smokers in analysis

Orleans 1991

Methods

Setting: Health Maintenance Organisation, USA
Recruitment: Largely through publicity in HMO magazine

Participants

2021 smokers of 3+ cigs/day, wanting to quit (1412 in relevant arms); 37% M, av. age 44, av. cigs/day 26

Interventions

1. S‐H manual, Quit Kit and ALA Lifetime of Freedom from Smoking
2. Same materials as 1, plus 2 copies of a social support guide
3. Same as 2, plus proactive TC (6, 18, 34, 60 weeks) from a counsellor and invitation to call a quit line
4. Control: Referral guide

Outcomes

Abstinence at 16 m (sustained for > 6 m) obtained by blinded telephone interview
Validation: Saliva cotinine < 10 ng/ml, or thiocyanate < 2400 umol/l for gum users. Self‐report rates reported in analyses

Notes

Arms 3 vs 1 and 2 combined, effect of telephone counselling compared to S‐H materials alone.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described, stratified by living alone/not, advice to quit in last 12 m/not, and nicotine content of cig. brand

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation in sample at 16 m

Quote: "to improve the veracity of smoking  self‐report, all follow‐up questionnaires and interviews began with a reminder that the subjects might be asked for a saliva specimen for nicotine assessment, creating a sort of 'bogus pipeline'"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up 6% at 16 m, did not differ across treatment groups. Analyses based on respondents; including losses would marginally increase estimated effect

Orleans 1998

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: African‐American smokers calling the NCIS telephone counselling line in response to targeted campaign

Participants

1422 African‐American smokers; 36% M, av. age not stated, 62% in 20 ‐ 39 age group, median cigs/day 20

Interventions

Reactive, for callers to quitline
1. Tailored TC and tailored 36‐page Pathways to Freedom guide. Guide used African‐American models and addressed specific obstacles. Personalised quitting plan
2. Standard NCIS TC and standard guide Clearing the Air

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none
(12‐m abstinence also assessed in sample of 445 smokers and there were significant differences; 15.0% vs 8.8% using ITT)

Notes

Comparison between 2 types of counselling. Also included in Cochrane Self‐help review since effects of counselling and S‐H materials cannot be separated
Median call length 19 mins (interdecile range 10 ‐ 28 min) for tailored, 13 min (8 ‐ 23) for standard

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Pseudo‐randomised by last digit of caller's contact phone number

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Potential for selection bias but unlikely given low contact

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition, but similar levels of personal contact in different study arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

37% lost to follow‐up at 6 m. No differential dropout, losses included as smokers

Osinubi 2003

Methods

Setting: Occupational health service, USA
Recruitment: Asbestos‐exposed workers and retirees attending medical screening, not selected for motivation

Participants

58 smokers; 93% M, av. age 52, av. cigs/day 22

Interventions

All participants received brief physician advice at screening
1. Enrolment in Free & Clear, proactive TC, 5 calls, hotline access, pharmacotherapy available
2. Instructions to obtain support from personal physician, S‐H materials and resources

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (30‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Sealed envelopes, not stated if opaque and numbered

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

32% lost to follow‐up, comparable across groups, losses included as smokers

Ossip‐Klein 1991

Methods

Setting: 10 counties, USA
Recruitment: Media advertising, local sign‐ons, brochures

Participants

1813 smokers planning to quit within 3 m; av. age 43, av. cigs/day 28
Therapists (hotline): ex‐smoker counsellors

Interventions

Reactive
1. ALA S‐H manuals
2. as 1, plus materials promoting 24‐hour hotline with daytime access to counsellors

Outcomes

Abstinence at 18 m (sustained from 3 m)
Validation: by significant other for 90% of claims, saliva cotinine for 52% of claims. Cotinine‐validated rates used

Notes

The authors report a range of analyses based on alternative measures of smoking status and using logistic regression to allow for cluster randomisation. The higher quit rate in the hotline counties was consistent in all analyses. 36% called hotline, 8.7% spoke with counsellors

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Matched pairs of counties assigned to condition in a restricted procedure to minimise media spill‐over

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Participant recruitment not linked to county assignment so selection bias unlikely

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Self‐reported abstinence verified by significant other and/or saliva cotinine

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Follow‐up over 90% at all points and did not differ by condition

Ossip‐Klein 1997

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Advertising for S‐H cessation for over‐60 yr‐olds

Participants

177 smokers aged ≥ 60, planning to quit in next 3 m; 39% M, av. cigs/day 25

Interventions

1. S‐H manual (Clear Horizons), access to 24‐hour hotline, 2 letters of support and hotline reminders
2. As 1, plus proactive TC, 2 calls at 4 and 8 weeks. Counsellors followed structured format to provide strategies based on SoC

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: not biochemical. Significant others only. Refusals and non‐confirmations classified as smokers

Notes

42% had called hotline and 17.5% spoken to counsellor by 6 m

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Validation by significant other, number refused/misreported not specified

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

97% reached at 12 m

Peterson 2016

Methods

Setting: Washington State, USA; High school‐based

Recruitment: High school smokers were identified by self‐report using a study‐administered baseline classroom survey

Participants

2151 smokers, 52.7% M, Age: < 16 years old: 0.1%; 16 years old 30.5%; 17 years old: 62.0%; > 17 years old: 7.4%; smokers were of variable motivation and wish for help with quitting

Interventions

1. No intervention

2. Proactive telephone intervention ‐ 10 calls of about 15 mins each

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 7 years (6‐year prolonged)
Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This study was supported by NCI grant R01‐CA082569"

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "A matched‐pair randomization was performed via a computerized coin flip for each of 25 pairs of high schools, using pair‐matching of schools based on number of smokers, smoking prevalence, fraction of students eligible for free/reduced‐priced meals, and average stage of readiness to quit, so that the experimental and control conditions were balanced on these criteria"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Even after 7 years percentage of participants lost to follow‐up is small and comparable between arms

Piper 2016

Methods

Setting: Winsconsin, USA; primary care clinics

Recruitment: Quote: "During clinic visits, clinical care staff (i.e. medical assistants) were prompted by electronic health record technology to invite identified smokers to participate in a research program to help them to quit smoking"

Participants

637 smokers, 45% M, mean age 45.8, average cigs/day 17.7, participants were motivated to quit

Interventions

1. Minimal phone counselling ± preparation gum ± preparation patch ± in‐person counselling ± medication duration.

Quote: "Participants assigned to the minimal condition received one 10‐minute session on the TQD that provided support and addressed motivation to quit, strategies for coping with craving and medication use."

2. Intense phone counselling ± preparation gum ± preparation patch ± in‐person counselling ± medication duration

Quote: "Participants in the intensive condition received three 15‐minute phone sessions (TQD, days 2 and 10). These calls emphasized intra‐treatment social support, skill execution and avoidance of danger situations"

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 26 weeks (7‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This research was supported by grants 9P50CA143188 and 1K05CA139871 from the National Cancer Institute to the University ofWisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and by theWisconsin Partnership Program. L.M. C. is also supported by NIH grants P50DA10075 and R01DK097364. This work was carried out in part while T.R.S. was a Primary Care Research Fellow supported by a National Research Service Award (T32HP10010) from the Health Resources and Services Administration to the University of Wisconsin Department of Family Medicine. J.W.C. is also supported by Merit Review Award 101CX00056 from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. W.‐Y.L. is also supported by NSF grant DMS‐1305725."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "stratified permuted block randomization; we stratified by gender and clinic with a fixed block size of 32 based on the 32 unique treatment conditions (in random order within each block)"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote:"Staff were blinded to randomization until eligibility was confirmed; participants were blinded until consent was provided"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Higher attrition in the intensive counselling arm but difference is less than 20%

Prochaska 1993

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Advertisements for volunteers to test S‐H materials, not selected for motivation

Participants

756 smokers (12% precontemplation, 58% contemplation, 30% preparation) (378 in relevant arms); 38% M, av. age 43, av. cigs/day 27

Interventions

1. ALA S‐H manuals
2. Tailored manuals ‐ 5 covering precontemplation, contemplation, action, maintenance, relapse. Participants sent manual for their SoC and subsequent ones
3. Interactive ‐ in addition to tailored manuals, sent personally‐tailored reports in response to questionnaires
4. Proactive TC ‐ short (15‐min) calls at 0, 1 m, 3 m, 6 m. Materials as in 3

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 18 m (sustained at 12 m and 18 m)
Validation: none. Participants asked for names of significant others but these not contacted

Notes

Arms 4 vs 3, TC vs S‐H alone. Numbers randomised to groups and quit rates as shown in graphs obtained from authors

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described, stratified by SoC

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

'Bogus pipeline' approach; names of significant others asked for but not contacted

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Attrition at each assessment averaged 4.1% ‐ 7.1% across all treatment conditions, not significantly different. 70% provided data at every assessment. MA uses numbers randomised, sensitivity analysis does not alter conclusions

Prochaska 2001

Methods

Setting: Managed care organisation, USA
Recruitment: Active; smokers identified by survey of members. 85% recruited to a study, unselected for motivation to quit

Participants

1447 smokers (723 in comparisons used); 38% were precontemplators, 44% M, av. age 38, av. cigs/day 20

Interventions

1. Assessment only (completed questionnaires on 4 occasions)
2. Expert System S‐H. Tailored 2 ‐ 3‐page report at 0, 3 m, 6 m, and SoC‐matched manual
3. As 2, plus proactive TC, short calls at 0, 3 m, 6 m. Similar to Prochaska 1993 protocol but more emphasis on alternative targets for those unwilling to set quit date.
4. As 3, plus computer‐scheduled cig reduction

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 18 m (sustained for 6 m). Other measures of abstinence also reported
Validation: None

Notes

Arms 3 vs 2, TC vs S‐H alone. Other arms compared in Self‐help review

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Greater loss to follow‐up in TC (44%) than S‐H (38%). Denominators here include losses to follow‐up and refusals. Author analysis suggests this treatment of missing data is biased, but sensitivity analysis excluding losses and refusals does not alter our MA conclusions

Rabius 2004

Methods

Setting: Quitline, USA
Recruitment: Callers to quitline

Participants

3522 smokers willing to make a quit attempt within 2 weeks
(≤ 25/ > 25): 39%/33% M, av. age 22/44, av. cigs/day 24/18

Interventions

1. 3 American Cancer Society S‐H booklets
2. As 1, plus offer of 5 proactive TC calls, 2 before TQD, 3 within 2 weeks

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (sustained). Only people abstinent at 3 m followed at 6 m
Validation: none for most, small local sample tested, no responders disconfirmed, 4/19 did not attend (reported in McAlister 2004)

Notes

58% did not complete more than 1 session of counselling (McAlister 2004)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Small local sample biochemically tested, no responders disconfirmed

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up 50% in Intervention, 55% in Control (from McAlister 2004). Differed by age, with higher loss in younger participants. All losses treated as smokers

Rabius 2007

Methods

Setting: National Cancer Society quitline, USA
Recruitment: Callers to NCIS, interested in quitting

Participants

6322 smokers; 30% M, av. age 43, median cigs/day 20

Interventions

¼ allocated to S‐H control, remainder into 3 x 2 factorial design
Counselling conditions:
1. 5 sessions, 210 mins (35 ‐ 45‐min calls 10 ‐ 14 days pre‐quit, 2 ‐ 3 days pre‐quit, 1 ‐ 2 days, 6 ‐ 9 days, 13 ‐ 16 days post‐quit)
2. 3 sessions with 105 mins counselling (As 1, omitting 1st and last sessions)
3. 5 sessions with 50 mins counselling (schedule as 1, 10 mins duration)
Booster conditions: 2 x 15‐min calls at 4 and 8 weeks after last counselling call

Outcomes

Abstinence at 7 m post‐randomisation (PP)
Validation: none

Notes

All interventions pooled vs control, results of different intensities included in post hoc analyses and discussed in more detail in text.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated random number sequence without stratification

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Varying levels of contact between arms in multifactorial trial

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up ˜50%, similar in all groups. Analysis includes losses as smokers

Ramon 2013

Methods

Setting: Spain; smoking cessation outpatient clinics

Recruitment: smokers attending smoking cessation outpatient clinics

Participants

600 smokers, 51.3% M, mean age 47.4, average cigs/day 25.3. Paticipants attended clinics to "receive medical assistance" ‐ they were interested in quitting

Interventions

1. Individual counselling: "seven individual sessions at 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after the pre‐quit session."

2. Telephone counselling + Individual Counseling: "individual counselling interventions at weeks 3, 5, and 12 after the pre‐quit session, telephone counselling at weeks 7, 10, and 24, and a control session at the clinic at week 52." Sessions were between 15 and 20 mins

Outcomes

Abstinence at 52 weeks (sustained from week 2 to 52)

Validation: CO concentrations of < 10 ppm

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This study was supported by a grant from the Spanish Health Institute, Carlos III PI080418."

Declarations of interest: several authors "have received honoraria for conferences from manufacturers of smoking cessation products."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "used a computer‐generated randomization system based on a permuted block randomization list where each block was used by one centre. An independent researcher in the coordination centre generated a random sequence, and centres were informed about smoker allocation after consent to participation during the pre‐quit session."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "used a computer‐generated randomization system based on a permuted block randomization list where each block was used by one centre. An independent researcher in the coordination centre generated a random sequence, and centres were informed about smoker allocation after consent to participation during the pre‐quit session."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Used biochemical verification to validate self‐reported outcome

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Attrition was around 20% and comparable across arms

Reid 1999a

Methods

Setting: Community, Canada
Recruitment: Community volunteers

Participants

396 smokers interested in quitting within 30 days, smoking ≥ 15 cigs/day; 52% M, av. age 38, av. cigs/day 23 ‐ 24

Interventions

1. Nicotine patch (15 mg x 8 weeks, 10 mg x 2 weeks, 5 mg x 2 weeks) free, physician advice (x 3 15‐min, 2 weeks before, 4 weeks, 12 weeks after quit date)
2. As 1, plus proactive TC, nurse counsellors, stage‐based, 3 sessions at 2, 6, 13 weeks

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (PP)
Validation: CO, but self‐reported rates reported. Only 1 disconfirmation

Notes

Effect of adjunct TC compared to NRT and counselling alone
Similar counselling scripts to Orleans 1991

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised using table of random numbers, stratified by gender and nicotine dependence

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Concealment unclear but physician blind to allocation

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

'Bogus pipeline' procedures used for early follow‐ups; proportion of participants who provided breath samples did not differ between 2 groups; only 1 misreport identified; adjustment of abstinence rates for validation did not affect conclusions

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

15% lost/dropped out in each groups, included as smokers

Reid 2007

Methods

Setting: Tertiary care cardiac hospital, Canada
Recruitment: Inpatients with CHD, not explicitly selected by motivation, 90% of eligible enrolled

Participants

100 smokers; 68% M, av. age 54, 48% quit attempt in previous year

Interventions

All participants received in‐hospital brief counselling, access to NRT, S‐H materials
1. Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system contacted participants 3, 14 and 30 days post‐hospital discharge. Participants identified as needing support contacted by nurse counsellor for up to 3 x 20‐min sessions over 8 weeks
2. Usual care

Outcomes

Abstinence at 1 year (PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Mean 2.1 IVR calls completed, 46% received at least 1 counselling call, mean 1.8, so total calls categorised as 4

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "mediated through the Clinical Epidemiology Unit’s data centre, using a computer generated randomization list" Block size 6

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Research staff were unaware of the treatment allocation prior to randomization"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

˜15% lost to follow‐up, similar between groups. 1 Control death excluded, others included

Reid 2018

Methods

Setting: Canada; hospital‐based
Recruitment: Smokers admitted to the hospital were automatically referred to an in‐house smoking cessation programme

Participants

410 hospital‐admitted CHD smokers, 74.4% M, av. age 54.2, 16% < 11 cigs/day, 33% 11 ‐ 20 cigs/day, 40% 21 ‐ 30 cigs/day, 11% > 30 cigs/day Not selected for motivation

Interventions

1. Standard care including in‐hospital counselling by nurse, written information about smoking cessation and NRT
2. As in 1, plus 8 automated follow‐up calls after 3, 14, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180 days post‐hospitalisation. If smokers had low motivation, had a relapse or desired a call back, a nurse counsellor provided additional assistance

Outcomes

Abstinence at 52 weeks (continuous abstinence)
Validation: CO ≤ 4 ppm done in a random subsample with high verification rates after 52 weeks of follow‐up (˜90%)

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Grant # NA5845"

Declarations of interest: "RDR and ALP have received speaking and/or consulting fees and research grants from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. KAM has received speaking fees from Pfizer. AGL is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research–Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation Health Impact Fellowship"

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer generated sequence"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Validation of self‐reports in a random subsample achieving high rates of verified abstinence

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Similar percentage of participants lost to follow‐up across arms (˜30%)

Rigotti 2006

Methods

Setting: Prenatal care services, USA
Recruitment: Pregnant women in a managed care plan or referred by a care provider, not selected by motivation

Participants

442 pregnant women smoking at least 1 cig in previous 7 days; av. age 29, av. cigs/day 21 prior to pregnancy, 10 at recruitment, 84% planned to quit

Interventions

All participants received brief counselling at enrolment call and mailed a pregnancy‐tailored S‐H booklet
1. Proactive counselling, up to 90 mins during pregnancy and 15 mins postpartum, + targeted written materials
2. Usual care

Outcomes

Abstinence 3 m postpartum (sustained at end of pregnancy and 3 m)
Validation: saliva cotinine ≤ 20 ng/mL

Notes

Mean of 5 calls received, 4 in pregnancy, av. 68 mins in total

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer‐generated randomization list arranged in balanced blocks of 4 and stratified by referral source"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "... the application revealed the next assignment only after the smoker had consented to participate in the study"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation; those who failed biochemical validation or did not provide a sample counted as smokers

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

21 miscarriages excluded. 33% Intervention, 28% Control lost to follow‐up, included as smokers

Rimer 1994

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Volunteers from American Association for Retired Persons

Participants

1867 smokers aged 50 ‐ 75 (12‐m data based on 1391, 1225 in relevant arms) interested in finding out about quitting; 37% M, av age 61, av cigs/day 27

Interventions

1. Standard S‐H manual (not included in this review)
2. S‐H manual tailored for older smokers (Clear Horizons)
3. Tailored manual and 2 x 10 ‐ 15‐min proactive TC at 4 ‐ 8 weeks and 16 ‐ 20 weeks. Also access to a quitline

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Arms 3 vs 2. Preliminary 12 m results used

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

˜75% reached at 12 m with no treatment group differences in follow‐up rate

Rogers 2016

Methods

Setting: NY, NJ, MA, VT, NH, RI, USA; 6 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities in the U.S. Northeast

Recruitment: Quote: "All smokers who saw a VHA mental health provider at participating sites were eligible for referral to the care coordination program by their usual mental health providers via an EMR consult created for the study"

Participants

577 smokers, 92% M, av. age 54, av. cigs/day 15.9. Participants were referred from a VHA mental health provider and were interested in quitting

Interventions

1. State quit‐line counselling

2. Specialised proactive telephone counselling protocol developed by the study for mental health patients ‐ 10 or fewer calls, weekly and for 30 ‐ 60 mins

Participants in both groups also received mailed S‐H materials and smoking cessation medications

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (30‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This trial was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (#SDP 07‐034)."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Pseudo‐randomised using social security number last digit (odd/even number). This resulted in nearly balanced groups except for the fact that participants in the specialised counselling arm smoked a significantly higher number of cigarettes than participants in the quitline arm

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Unlikely to apply to this method of randomisation

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Similar rates of attrition in both arms

Schlam 2016

Methods

Setting: Winsconsin, USA; primary care clinics

Recruitment: Recruited during primary care visits (11 primary care clinics in 2 healthcare systems). Existing clinical care staff (i.e. medical assistants), prompted by electronic health record technology, invited identified smokers during clinic visits to participate in a research programme to help them quit smoking

Participants

544 smokers, 41% M, av. age 46.2, av. cigs/day 18.6, motivated to quit

Interventions

1. No maintenance (phone) counselling ± extended medication ± (on site) medication adherence counselling ± automated adherence calls ± helping hand (HH) with feedback and counselling

2. No automated adherence calls ± extended medication ± (on site) medication adherence counselling ± maintenance (phone) counselling ± helping hand (HH) with feedback and counselling (not used in analysis)

3. Automated adherence calls ± extended medication ± (on site) medication adherence counselling ± maintenance (phone) counselling ± helping hand (HH) with feedback and counselling (not used in analysis)

4. Maintenance (phone) counselling ± extended medication ± (on site) medication adherence counselling ± automated adherence calls ± helping hand (HH) with feedback and counselling ‐ 8 x 15‐min calls at weeks 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 18 and 22

Quote: "All participants received a standard cessation intervention: 8 weeks of nicotine patch+nicotine gum and 50 minutes of counseling delivered over four sessions [in visits 1 week before and 1 week after the target quit day (TQD), and in calls on the TQD and at week 2]."

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 52 weeks (7‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This research was supported by grants 9P50CA143188 and 1K05CA139871 from the National Cancer Institute to the University ofWisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and by theWisconsin Partnership Program. L.M. C. is also supported by NIH grants P50DA10075 and R01DK097364. This work was carried out in part while T.R.S. was a Primary Care Research Fellow supported by a National Research Service Award (T32HP10010) from the Health Resources and Services Administration to the University of Wisconsin Department of Family Medicine. J.W.C. is also supported by Merit Review Award 101CX00056 from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. W.‐Y.L. is also supported by NSF grant DMS‐1305725."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: “Participants were randomized to one of 32 unique experimental conditions… via a database that used stratified, computer‐generated, permuted block randomization…”

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: “Staff could not view the allocation sequence. The database did not reveal participants’ treatment condition to staff until participants’ eligibility was confirmed; participants were blinded to treatment condition until they provided consent.”

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Attrition is much larger in Maintenance Counselling arm (51%) than in No Maintenance Counselling arm (44%)

Schuck 2014

Methods

Setting: Netherlands; school‐based

Recruitment: Quote: "Smoking parents were recruited through their children’s primary schools across the Netherlands. Primary schools were contacted by research assistants and asked to distribute study invitation letters to parents through children." [...] "Parents registered to take part by mail, e‐mail, telephone or via a website."

Participants

512 daily or weekly smokers and parents or caretakers of a child aged between 9 and 12 years. They were considering quitting smoking (currently or in the future). 47.5% M, av. age 42.2, av. cigs/day 16.2

Interventions

1. "Standard Self‐Help Brochure: Participants received a 40‐page, colour‐printed self‐help brochure including didactic information on nicotine dependence and the health benefits of quitting smoking, tips and advice on how to initiate and maintain abstinence, instruction in the use of cognitive and behavioural skills to avoid triggers to smoke and cope with urges to smoke, and strategies for managing a lapse or relapse to smoking

2. Intensive Proactive Quitline Counselling + supplementary materials tailored to smoking parents; mean number of calls completed was 5.5 and these were scheduled for 10 days before quit day, 3 days, 1, 2, 4 weeks, 2, and 3 months after quit day."

Quote: "In addition, all participants received three accompanying booklets entitled Smoke‐free parents which were designed for this study as tailored supplementary materials. Each booklet (four pages, colour‐print) contained didactic information, tips and advice, motivational messages, as well as ‘parent‐relevant information’; e.g. effects of second‐hand smoke (SHS) on children, strategies to manage parent‐specific stressors]."

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (6‐m prolonged)

Validation: breath CO and saliva cotinine analysis in a random subsample (36 out of 133)

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This work was supported by ZonMW, the Netherlands Organization for Health Care Research and Development (grant number: 50‐50110‐96‐639)."

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "To ensure equal group sizes, allocation was performed in blocks of 10. To ensure balance of key characteristics, stratified randomization was used based on the stratifying variables gender, educational level (low: no high school diploma/no vocational training, medium: vocational training or high school diploma, high: college degree) and cigarettes per day (fewer than 10, 10–20, 21 or more)."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Allocation of participants to trial conditions was conducted by an independent member of the research group using a computer‐generated allocation sequence." [...] "The independent researcher prepared a list of study participants and their allocated treatment. Based on this list, the first author prepared the mailings which informed study participants about the treatment they would receive."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation not done in the entire sample, but just in a random subset. However, verified abstinence rate of 82% (18 of 22) overall in the subsample was acceptable, with no significant different across arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Even though "There was a significant difference in the follow‐up rate between treatment groups (85.5% in the quitline condition and 89.5% in the self‐help condition, χ2 = 4.98, P = 0.03)", overall attrition was low (11%). Furthermore "Participants lost at follow‐up did not differ on baseline characteristics compared with the remaining participants, neither across nor within conditions (all P > 0.05)."

Sherman 2017

Methods

Setting: California and Nevada, USA; Department of Veteran Affairs outpatient primary care clinics

Recruitment: Healthcare "providers were encouraged to refer any patient who smoked and was interested in quitting"

Participants

3120 smokers, 94% M, av. age 54.2, av. cigs/day 18.3. Participants were interested in quitting

Interventions

1. Reactive Self‐Help: "Participants referred during a reactive week were mailed an invitational letter, and the co‐ordinator waited for the patient to initiate a call. If patients in the reactive condition called, they only received medication co‐ordination along with their self‐help materials."

2. Proactive Self‐Help: "Participants referred during a proactive week were sent self‐help materials and telephoned by the care co‐ordinator only to discuss medication."

3. Reactive Telephone Counselling: "Participants referred during a reactive week were mailed an invitational letter, and the co‐ordinator waited for the patient to initiate a call."

4. Proactive Telephone Counseling: "Participants referred during a proactive week were contacted by the care co‐ordinator, who tried up to five times by phone over 2 weeks to reach them." 5 or fewer calls occurred per participant

"All patients referred received standard care from their primary care provider prior to referral, which typically included brief cessation advice. [...] Patients in both studies received cessation medication [...] 2 months of nicotine patches or 2 months of bupropion"

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This work was supported by VA HSR&D grant number #IMV 04–088."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "We randomised all participating sites to either self‐help or multisession quitline counselling using a random number table."
Randomisation to proactive/reactive subarm was done by alternating calendar week

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No method to conceal allocation was mentioned

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Attrition was low, around 17% ‐ 29% across arms

Sims 2013

Methods

Setting: Wisconsin, USA

Recruitment: Young adult callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (WTQL)

Participants

410 smokers age 18 ‐ 24 years, smoked at least 1 cig in past 30 days and motivated to quit. 42% M; av. age 21.3 years, av. cigs/day 15

Interventions

1. S‐H only, stage‐based booklets

2. S‐H + up to 4 proactive cessation counselling calls over 4 ‐ 6 weeks through the WTQL

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Self‐report

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

List of random numbers

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

53% not followed in Intervention, 50% in Control. Missing treated as smoking. Responder analysis did not change results

Skov‐Ettrup 2016

Methods

Setting: Denmark; population‐based

Recruitment: Quote: "Participants were recruited from two national health surveys: the Danish Health Examination Survey (DANHES) (2007–08) and the Danish Health and Morbidity Survey (DHMS) (2010) [...] The invitation letter was sent by e‐mail or letter"

Participants

1810 smokers aged 16 and over, 42% M, av. age 51, av. cigs/day 16. Participants were willing to quit smoking within the next 12 weeks

Interventions

1. Self‐help booklet: Participants received a 36‐page booklet by letter. It was developed by the Danish National Board of Health, and included advice on how to identify difficult situations and develop coping strategies at specific stages in the smoking cessation process. Setting a quit date was encouraged. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence was also included along with information about pharmacotherapy

2. Reactive telephone counselling: A session lasted for approximately 13 – 15 mins

3. Proactive telephone counselling: 5 counsellor‐initiated sessions

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (prolonged)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society"

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "In order to assure equal group sizes, participants were sorted by exact date and time of enrolment and a fixed sequence of four numbers was assigned repeatedly." Not truly random method but still groups are well‐balanced

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The procedure was conducted by a research assistant who was blinded to the participants’ names and ID numbers during the procedure." "there is little indication of bias related to the allocation procedure, as the participants were unknown to the person allocating them and a large number of participants were allocated at the same time."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Attrition was low, ˜20% and similar across arms

Smith 2004

Methods

Setting: 10 communities, Canada
Recruitment: Volunteers calling a quitline
Randomisation: Ccentralised, stratified by community, sequential envelope, random sequence

Participants

632 smokers intending to quit; 39% M, av. age 42, 61% had prior use of NRT

Interventions

Factorial design comparing 2 intensities of TC and 2 types of S‐H (collapsed in this review)
1. 50‐min proactive TC, quit date set, 2 calls at 2 and 7 days post‐TQD
2. As 1, plus 4 further calls at 14, 21, 35, 40 days
3. Control: S‐H only

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained). Also at 3 m and 6 m follow‐ups, also PP
Validation: none

Notes

All TC arms compared to S‐H‐only control
Results not reported by factorial groups; "no significant interactions or main effects at any follow‐up"; no data from authors, estimate used in test of intensity. Findings sensitive to choice of outcome, control PP rates increase over time
76% received at least 1 call, 22% of intensive condition received all calls, 56% of minimal condition received both calls

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, stratified by community, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "opening next in a series of envelopes' after enrolment"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

30% not available at 12 m, no difference across 5 groups, missing treated as smoking

Smith 2013

Methods

Seting: Quitline, USA
Recruitment: Quitline callers, motivated

Participants

987 smokers, > 10 cigs/day, willing to set quit date within 30 days: av. age 42, av. cigs/day 21

Interventions

Factorial trial testing medication adherence counselling, 2 vs 6 weeks NRT, and nicotine patch alone vs patch + gum

All participants received the same standard TC: 4 sessions over 4 weeks

Medication adherence counselling involved additional content at each call assessing and addressing adherence

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (30‐day PP). 7‐day PP also reported

Validation: none

Notes

Not included in any MA as tested adjuncts to TC, not the efficacy of TC. Results reported narratively

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

List of randomised numbers

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated, but similar levels of personal contact in different study arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

24% lost at 6‐m follow‐up, no difference across treatment groups

Solomon 2000

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Volunteers for free nicotine patch trial

Participants

214 women smokers, > 4 cigs/day, intending to quit in next 2 weeks; av. age 33, av cigs/day 24

Interventions

1. Free nicotine patch (dose based on smoking level) for up to 10 weeks
2. Free patch plus proactive TC from woman ex‐smoker, 7 hours training. Calls for up to 3 m, starting pre‐quit, quit day, day 4, average 7

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day at 3 m and 6 m)
Validation: CO ≤ 8 ppm.
7% ‐ 12% disconfirmation rate. Participants who did not provide samples remained classified as quitters

Notes

Intervention participants received an average of 7 calls. 95% received at least 1. Participants could call Nicoderm support line, 21% of control vs 8% of intervention did so

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Biochemical validation but 7% ‐ 12% disconfirmation rate. Differential rates of return at 6 m (59% of self‐reported quitters in intervention group and 67% in control). Participants who did not provide samples classified as quitters

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

˜27% lost in both groups, included as smokers

Solomon 2005

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Volunteers for free nicotine patch trial

Participants

330 women smokers > 4 cigs /day, intending to quit in next 2 weeks; av. age 34, av. cigs/day 24

Interventions

1. Free nicotine patch (dose based on smoking level) for up to 10 weeks
2. Free patch plus proactive TC from F ex‐smoker, 7 hrs training. Calls for up to 4 m, up to 12 m, starting pre‐quit, quit day, day 4

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (30‐day at 3 m and 6 m)
Validation: none

Notes

Replication of Solomon 2000 with more extended telephone contact
Average number of calls 8.2, average duration 10 mins

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

13% lost to follow‐up in both groups, included as smokers

Sood 2009

Methods

Setting: ALA Quitline, USA
Recruitment: Quitline callers

Participants

990 callers; 38% M, av. age 43, av. cigs/day 22

Interventions

1. Reactive counselling
2. Mailed S‐H materials (Freedom from Smoking)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (PP)
Validation: Saliva cotinine only for convenience sample, refusals not recorded

Notes

Test of different interventions for people calling a quitline. Comparison 2

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Random‐number list created by independent statistician

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Enrolment and assignment by researchers independent of helpline staff. Concealment until assigned

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Quote: "Interviewer assessing outcomes was blinded"; biochemical validation in a convenience sample (16/28 agreed); participants who did not agree to biochemical validation but self‐reported abstinence counted as abstinent

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

47% loss to follow‐up, similar across groups, included as smokers

Sorensen 2007a

Methods

Setting: Workplaces, USA
Recruitment: Members of LIUNA (construction workers union), included non‐smokers

Participants

231 smokers completed baseline survey. Demographics for all participants followed up; 94% M, av. age 40

Interventions

1. Proactive counselling; up to 6 calls over 3 m (fruit and veg consumption also addressed), tailored feedback report and tip sheets, NRT offered to those interested in quitting
2. Control; Nothing during programme, targeted materials at study end

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Baseline denominators confirmed by author

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

18% ‐ 20% lost, assumed smokers

Stotts 2002

Methods

Setting: Antenatal clinics, USA
Recruitment: Pregnant continuing smokers

Participants

269 pregnant smokers at week 28; av. age 28, approx 50% smoked < 60 cigs/week

Interventions

All participants had received brief counselling and 7 mailed S‐H booklets in early pregnancy
1. 20 ‐ 30‐min MI‐based proactive TC call in 28th ‐ 30th week of pregnancy, tailored letter, 2nd call
2. No further contact

Outcomes

Abstinence or 'a few puffs' at 6 m postpartum
Validation: none postpartum, cotinine at week 34

Notes

The common intervention in early pregnancy was not treated as face‐to‐face contact within the trial. 55% received complete intervention

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Although no biochemical validation postpartum, cotinine in subsample at week 34; no differences between experimental and control groups;

Quote: "the urine samples appeared not to have been collected in a systematically biased manner."

Level of misreport and refusal not specified

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

39% lost at follow‐up in both groups, assumed to be smoking

Sumner 2016

Methods

Setting: Illinois and Missouri, USA; worksite employees & spouses

Recruitment: Quote: "Participants called a toll free number (866‐902‐QUIT) to initiate enrolment. [...] Both organizations promoted Call‐2‐Quit through multiple channels including health fairs, employee web sites, employee news, promotional posters, fliers, and department managers. Each organization promoted Call‐2‐Quit to help smokers adapt to tobacco control policies implemented during the trial. In 2006, the hospital system implemented health insurance discounts of $10/month for employees who committed, during open enrolment in November, to pursue several health promoting activities. Smokers obtained the discount by “enrolling” in a qualifying smoking
cessation program, such as Call‐2‐Quit"

Participants

518 employee and spouse smokers, 34% M, av. age 46.5, av. cigs/day 12.9. Participants were seeking treatment as they called the toll‐free number

Interventions

1. Directive telephone coaching ‐ Directive coaching included the following distinctive features:
‐ Calls scheduled about 1 week apart, except calls #4 and #7
‐ Fixed topic schedule

2. Nondirective telephone coaching ‐ Nondirective coaching included these distinctive features:
‐ 7 calls planned over 90 days, as convenient to smoker and coach
‐ Quit date set according to individual preference
‐ Coach offers topics at each call, smoker selects 1, or may choose a novel topic

There were up to 7 weekly calls, for 15 ‐ 20 mins each

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: mailed saliva cotinine assays or witnessed cheek swabs attempted, but low return rate

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The Centers for Disease Control grant number R01 DP000098 funded this study."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "New families were randomized to directive or nondirective coaching mode in a 1:1 ratio, based on a randomization table, when the first member enrolled. Consent to randomization was required to participate."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "After baseline data were entered, members of a previously randomized family were assigned to the family coaching mode."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Outcome validation attempted but low return rate. Similar levels of personal contact in different study arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

After 12 months of follow‐up the proportion lost to follow‐up was larger than half the initial sample, although similar across arms

Swan 2003

Methods

Setting: Group Health Co‐operative, USA
Recruitment: Volunteers for a trial of medication

Participants

1524 smokers ≥ 10 cigs/day; 43% M, av. age 45, av. cigs/day 23, 44% history of depression

Interventions

Proactive
Factorial design, 300 mg/day and 150 mg/day bupropion doses collapsed. Prescription was mailed. No face‐to‐face contact during enrolment or treatment
1. Free & Clear proactive TC (4 brief calls), access to quitline and S‐H materials
2. Zyban Advantage Program (ZAP) tailored S‐H materials, single telephone call after TQD, access to Zyban (bupropion) support line

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: none

Notes

Compares different intensities of TC. No dose/behavioural treatment interaction at 12 m so bupropion arms collapsed

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation procedure built into study database

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Procedure ensured concealment

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Loss to follow‐up at 12 m 17% Intervention, 12% Control, treated as smokers

Swan 2010

Methods

Setting: Community, Idaho and Washington, USA

Recruitment: Community advertising, physician referral, and quitline callers

Participants

1202 adult current smokers of at least 10 cigs/day in past year and 5 cigs/day in past week, motivated to quit. 33.1% M; av. age 47.3; av. cigs/day 19.7; av.FTND 4.9

Interventions

All participants received: 12‐week course of varenicline; 5 ‐ 10‐min orientation call; S‐H materials; access to toll‐free support line for ad hoc calls

1. Telephone counselling. Proactive; from quitline counsellor using MI techniques; max 5 calls

2. Web programme with standardised content and interactive tools modelled on those used in phone intervention

3. 1+2. Phone counsellors had access to info participants entered online

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (30‐day PP) (abstinence at 3 m, 7‐day PP also reported)

Validation: none

Notes

Number abstinent not provided, estimated from percentages given in published report

TC and TC+web had similar outcomes so pooled 1 + 3 vs 2

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Group assignment was randomly allocated using an automated algorithm built into the study database"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Central computerised allocation, see above

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcome measure used from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Participants lost to follow‐up counted as smokers in ITT analysis; equal losses between groups (103 Web, 107 Phone, 100 Web + phone)

Thomas 2016

Methods

Setting: Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, USA; higher education students

Recruitment: Quote: "e‐mails and promotional postcards direct‐mailed to all enrolled students"

Participants

1217 adult undergraduate smokers willing to set a quit date approximately 1 month from study eligibility assessment, 45% M, av. age 26.2, av. cigs/day 11.5

Interventions

1. No TC ± single/multiple contests

2. TC ± single/multiple contests: 6 telephone‐administered Motivation and problem solving (MAPS) counselling sessions during the 12 week treatment, each over 20 minutes, 10 days prior to quit date, and at the discretion of the participant

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 months (continuous)

Validation: Biochemical verification using urine, using NicCheck and (if NicCheck was negative) NicAlert test strips to verify self‐reported abstinence. Also, Quote: “if a participant reported that he or she had used NRT within the past 7 days, the sample was sent instead to the laboratory for analysis of concentrations of anatabine/anabasine”

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R01‐HL094183‐04S1, J.L.T., Principle Investigator)."

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not stated

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Not blinded but biochemical validation so differential misreport judged unlikely

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Around 19% of participants did not complete or were lost to follow‐up (similar n lost to follow‐up in each arm (1. 47/306; 2. 50/309; 3/ 67/296; 4. 71/306). Authors tested impact in sensitivity analyses and state it did not affect conclusions

Thompson 1993

Methods

Setting: Workplace and community, USA
Recruitment: Callers to a hotline, initially from 4 workplaces, targeting blue‐collar workers, widened to general community to meet targets. Callers gave oral consent and baseline assessment of smoking characteristics prior to randomisation

Participants

382 (341 smokers, 41 recent quitters). Most in contemplation or action SoC, 24% 'blue‐collar', 41% M, av. age 41, av. cigs/day 18 ‐ 22

Interventions

1. Callers to hotline received general information based on fact sheets, and sent S‐H material
2. Callers were given information based on stage, and encouraged to take next step in cessation process. Script tailored to blue‐collar workers using focus groups

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (PP) (subset followed to 12 m)
Validation: saliva samples sought but not tested. Surrogates asked to confirm status

Notes

Comparison between stage‐based and non‐specific brief counselling
The stage‐model counselling was based on the approach used by the NCIS. Kinne 1991 gives data about call rates from original target worksites. Average call length 34 mins for stage‐based, 20 mins for standard

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Saliva samples sought but not tested; surrogates asked to confirm status

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

17% lost to follow‐up at 6 m, no significant difference between groups, included as smokers

Tzelepis 2011a

Methods

Setting: Community, New South Wales, Australia

Recruitment: Active telephone recruitment (cold‐calling) of NSW residents, motivation to quit not required

Participants

1562 adult daily smokers. 50% M, av. cigs/day 19.4, av. age 45

Interventions

1. 6 proactive counselling calls for smokers willing to quit within 1 m, 4 for those not willing using MI techniques. Those who relapsed and set new quit date within a month offered additional 5 calls; those relapsed but did not set quit date offered a call in 1 m. Those initially not willing to quit who became motivated to quit offered additional 5 support calls. Standard S‐H materials

2. S‐H materials only

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 13 m (prolonged for 12 m with 1 m grace period). Other prolonged and PP rates at 4, 7, 13 m also reported

Validation: none

Notes

7.8% of control group called quitline during study period.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random number generator"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer assisted telephone interview used a random number generator created by an independent programmer to allocate the smoker"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcome measure used, participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Participants lost to follow‐up counted as smokers; similar numbers in both groups (163 intervention, 154 control (21% and 19% respectively))

Vander Weg 2016

Methods

Setting: USA; rural setting

Recruitment: People meeting basic eligibility criteria were sent a letter offering them participation in the trial, to which they could respond by returning a self‐addressed postcard or contacting study staff by phone. Those expressing interest were mailed an informed consent document and baseline questionnaire, which included Vander Weg et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:811 Page 2 of 11 screening items to assess for eligibility for the supplemental behavioral counselling modules (described below)

Participants

63 rural Veteran daily cigarette smokers who were interested in quitting, 87.3% M, av. age 56.8, av. cigs/day 24.7

Interventions

1. Referral to state tobacco quitline: Referred by fax to the tobacco quitline for their state of residence. Quitlines subsequently contacted participants to initiate treatment

2. Tailored telephone counselling: Combines counselling on tobacco use and related issues including depressive symptoms, risky alcohol use, and weight concerns. 6 calls, 1 per week, for 20 ‐ 30 mins

The approach to pharmacotherapy was the same for both groups ‐ NRT, bupropion, varenicline

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "The work reported in this manuscript was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Rural Health (Project number 12‐CR6)."

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "randomly assigned to treatment conditions based on a computer‐generated algorithm on a 1:1 allocation ratio using simple randomization without blocking. The computerized random allocation sequence was generated by the study data manager."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Dropout was twice as high in the tailored intervention as in the standard tobacco quitline group

Velicer 2006

Methods

Setting: Community, USA
Recruitment: Proactive approach to smokers at Veterans Administration Medical Centre. Passive consent by mail then phone screening, not selected for motivation

Participants

2054 smokers (1009 in relevant arms); 76% M, av. age 51, 40% precontemplators, 40% contemplators, 20% preparers

Interventions

1. Stage‐based S‐H manuals; participants sent manual for current stage and next stage. (not used in this review)
2. As 1, plus 6‐week nicotine patch if in appropriate stage, reassessed for NRT eligibility at 6 and 10 m (not used in this review)
3. As 2, plus 1 expert system written feedback report
4. As 3, plus regular automated TC (pre‐recorded voice files tailored to responses). People receiving NRT had weekly calls in month 1, biweekly in month 2, then monthly to month 6. People not receiving NRT had monthly calls. Participants could also initiate calls

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 30 m (sustained for 6 m)
Validation: none

Notes

Comparison of arms 4 vs 3 for proactive TC. In NRT eligible groups 350 (67%) received NRT at baseline and 448 (86%) received NRT at some point, so classified as adjunct to pharmacotherapy, and in > 6 call category

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐based random‐number generator

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocation done after completion of survey. randomised participants who did not return consent form are excluded from further analyses

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

39% lost includes 8% refused by 30 m, no significant differences between groups. Different treatments of missing data reported not to have altered pattern of results

Warner 2016

Methods

Setting: Olmsted County, MN, USA; hospital‐based

Recruitment: Identified through electronic medical records. Study personnel then approached the potential participants to confirm eligibility

Participants

600 adult smokers, 51% M, av. age 46.3, av. cigs/day 14.4

Interventions

1. Brief (˜5‐min) cessation advice: Quote: "Consisted of the first four of the 5A’s (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange), including advice and brief assistance in reviewing tips to help maintain abstinence using a brochure. The brochure included the study quitline number but did not specifically encourage its use."

2. Brief (˜5‐minute) quitline facilitation intervention: Quote: "A single brief quitline facilitation intervention (also ˜5 minutes in duration, slightly modified from that piloted in the authors’ prior studies of presurgical patients) was delivered. Based on principles of Social Cognitive Therapy, it included advice to quit and quitline information. Its purpose was to facilitate quitline utilization, not to provide assistance with quitting, but to overcome cognitive barriers to quitline utilization. A written brochure that included information about the quitline and a wallet‐sized “quit‐card” were provided. If patients were amenable, study personnel then contacted the quitline provider, preferably by direct phone call (“warm handoff”) to enroll the patient for quitline services and arrange for an initial counseling call. If this direct contact could not be made, faxed referrals were sent to the quitline provider. Based on early experiences that it was difficult for the quitline to re‐contact patients while in hospital, the goal was to complete the first counseling session immediately after the in‐hospital quitline intake. Subsequent counseling sessions were scheduled by quitline counselors."

NRT was offered to all participants: free 2‐week supply of nicotine patches

Outcomes

Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP)

Validation: Urine anabasine levels < 2 ng/mL

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This work was supported by grant RC‐2012‐0001 from ClearWay Minnesota."

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "using dynamic randomization allocation based on the Mayo Clinic Study Data Management System, a proprietary web application for data entry and management. Randomization was stratified based on nursing unit to ensure the number of subjects assigned to each of the two intervention groups remained balanced within that unit, enhancing the homogeneity of admitting diagnoses between groups"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemically‐confirmed smoking cessation

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Low attrition ˜30% and comparable across arms

Wu 2017

Methods

Setting: Beijing, China; 2 Endocrinology and Acupuncture out‐patient clinics of a general hospital
Recruitment: Asked all people who attended the clinic for participation in the study

Participants

369 adult smokers who smokers 10 or more cigs/day and were not interested in quitting, 100% M, av. age 40, 43% 10 – 19 cigs/day, 57% ≥ 20 cigs/day

Interventions

1. Exercise and diet advice (EDA) control group
2. Smoking‐reduction intervention (SRI) group

Both groups received a single face‐to‐face brief advice (˜1 min) + 5 x TC follow‐up sessions of the same duration (˜1 min) after 1 week, and after 1, 3, 6 and 12 m

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP)
Validation: Exhaled CO level < 6 ppm

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "This study was supported by a research grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81373080), a research grant from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (Z121107001012070) and Clinical Research Grants from the Chinese PLA General Hospital (2013FC‐TSYS‐1021 and MJ201447)."

Declarations of interest: none reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "A research assistant of the project generated the random numbers for group assignment using a computer"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "After written consent, a trained counsellor who was not involved in preparing the randomization sequence opened a serially numbered, opaque and sealed envelope with a card inside indicating intervention or control and randomly allocated the participant accordingly, thus ensuring allocation concealment"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemically‐validated outcome. Validation rate achieved 43.2% by February 2017 (45.8% in the SRI group and 38.5% in the EDA control group)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Percentage of participants lost to follow‐up was around 30% and similar across groups. There were no differences between those who completed and those who were lost to follow‐up

Young 2008

Methods

Setting: General practices, Australia
Recruitment: People attending for routine consultations, not selected for motivation

Participants

318 smokers; 47% M, av. age ˜37, modal cigs/day 11 ‐ 20, 56% in contemplation/precontemplation

Interventions

1. GP offered referral; telephone call from a nurse trained in cessation within 3 days. 5As counselling framework. If willing to make a quit attempt mailed quit kit, encouraged to buy NRT, phoned again on TQD, 1 week, 3 weeks
2. Usual care (GPs given quit kits to distribute to participants)

Outcomes

Abstinence at 12 m (PP)
Validation: none

Notes

We classified control as minimal intervention rather than brief intervention, MA not sensitive to classification. Referral was to a research nurse not to a dedicated quitline. 5 control participants received intervention, analysed with controls as ITT

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Questionnaires randomly ordered and coded prior to delivery to the practice by selecting sequential numbers from a computer‐generated random‐number list.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Participants (including non‐smokers) completed the precoded questionnaire before the consultation. GP identified allocation from unobtrusive marks on questionnaire, could not influence allocation. But unclear whether selection bias by recruiters, given imbalance in numbers

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

31% Intervention, 41% Control lost to follow‐up, included as smokers

Zhu 1996

Methods

Setting: Quitline, USA
Recruitment: Callers to a quitline

Participants

3030 smokers calling smokers' helpline and were ready to quit in next week; 43% M, av. age 36, av. cigs/day 20

Interventions

1. S‐H materials only
2. S‐H materials and 50‐min pre‐quit TC
3. As 2, plus up to 5 further sessions of TC at 1,3, 7, 14 and 30 days

Outcomes

Abstinence at 13 m (sustained for 12 m)
Validation: Cotinine < 10 mg/nl in a convenience sample

Notes

Arms 2 and 3 vs 1. Arms 3 vs 2 in effect of multiple sessions
Approx 65% of single session and 67% of multisession group received some counselling. Multisession participants received 4 calls on average

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Pseudo‐random, according to last 2 digits of telephone number

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Potential for selection bias but unlikely, given low contact

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Biochemical validation in a convenience sample. Disconfirmation rate not used to correct data, but refusal and misreport rates similar in all groups

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

12% ‐ 16% lost to follow‐up at 13 m, included as smokers

Zhu 2002

Methods

Setting: Quitline, USA
Recruitment: Callers to a quitline

Participants

3282 smokers calling quitline, ready to quit within 1 week and wanting counselling; 44% M, av. age 38, av. cigs/day 20

Interventions

1. S‐H pack, motivational materials, counselling provided if smoker made contact to request it
2. S‐H as 1, plus prequit and up to 6 post‐quit calls within 3 m. Included quitting history, motivation, self‐efficacy, social support, planning, relapse prevention

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 13 m (sustained for 12 m)
Validation: none

Notes

Authors also analysed subgroups of controls who did and did not seek counselling. 32% of Control and 72% of Intervention group received counselling

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised, method not described. 60/40 split. Only randomised when counselling demand exceeded capacity

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No details given

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition. Level of personal contact differed between arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

˜30% lost to follow‐up at 13 m in both groups, included as smokers

Zhu 2012

Methods

Setting: Quitline, USA

Recruitment: Callers to a quitline

Participants

2278 Chinese‐, Korean‐ and Vietnamese‐speaking daily smokers, ready to quit within 1 m; 90% M; aged 18 ‐ 75 (approx. 45% 25 ‐ 44 and 45% 45 ‐ 64); av. cigs/day 15.6

Interventions

1. S‐H pack, culturally‐tailored, translated into Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese

2. S‐H pack + proactive TC; Social Learning Theory; MI; CBT techniques. 30 ‐ 40 mins, pre‐quit, up to 5 relapse prevention calls (10 ‐ 15 min) 0, 3, 7, 14, 30 days

Outcomes

Prolonged abstinence at 7 m post‐intervention, 1 m grace period immediately post‐quit

Validation: none (but saliva samples collected)

Notes

Number abstinent at 6 m not specified; data used in MA calculated back from percentages

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "randomly assigned…using blocks of 20 to keep a balance of language and sex…Random assignment tables for each strata were created using SAS 9.2."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The allocation was done by the computer so that staff were blinded to group assignment until the intake call"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Self‐reported outcomes but saliva samples collected. No statistically significant differences in saliva sample return rates at 7 m between intervention and control groups and between self‐reported quitters and non‐quitters

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Simlar rate of dropouts in both groups (18% in 1, 16% in 2). Participants lost to follow‐up included as smokers in outcome data

Zwar 2015

Methods

Setting: Australia; community‐based

Recruitment: Patients were approached in the waiting room of participating practices by trained research assistants over a 2‐week period and assessed for eligibility

Participants

2390 adult smokers, 46% M, av. age 42.8, av. cigs/day 17.1

Interventions

1. Usual care: In control group practices, the GPs were asked to assess participants’ willingness to quit and offer assistance in accordance with their usual practice. This could include advice within the practice, referral to Quitline or both, but no provision was made to facilitate either.

2. Quit with practice nurse: Individual face‐to‐face counselling with nurse. Quit kits (a printed resource used by Quitlines nationally) were also distributed to participants. Nurses were also supported by 3 proactive telephone calls from an experienced counsellor.

3. Quitline referral: GPs were asked to assess the participants’ willingness to quit and to offer brief advice.
Participants with interest in quitting were offered referral to the Quitline and, if they agreed, GP completed a fax referral form to Quitline. On receiving a GP referral, the Quitline telephoned the participant to offer services to meet their needs. Participants expressing interest in quitting and willing to engage with the Quitline counselling service were offered a series of free evidence‐based proactive call‐back counselling/advice sessions.

All were offered, according to clinical practice guidelines, free patches of NRT for 8 weeks

Outcomes

Self‐reported abstinence at 12 m (sustained ≥ 10 m)

Validation: none

Notes

New for 2018 update

Funding: "Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant (568617)"

Declarations of interest: none declared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "patients were given a card indicating their enrolment and the allocation group of the practice to take into the GP consultation"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Abstinence not biochemically validated, but similar levels of personal contact in different study arms

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Similar % of lost to follow‐up across arms

AHRQ: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ACT: Acceptance and Commitment therapy; ALA: American Lung Association; av: average; CHD: chronic heart disease; CBT: cognitive behavioural therapy; CO: carbon monoxide; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; F: female; FTND: Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; HMO: health maintenance organisation; hrs: hours; HTN: hypertension; ITT: intention‐to‐treat (analysis); m: months; M: male; MA: meta‐analysis; MI: motivational interviewing; NCIS: National Cancer Information Service; NRT: nicotine replacement therapy; PP: point prevalence; ppm: parts per million; SES: socio‐economic status; S‐H: Self‐help materials; SHS: Second‐hand smoking; SoC: Stage of change; TC: Telephone counselling; TQD: Target quit date

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Abroms 2014

Text message intervention which encouraged participants to call a quitline

Ahijevych 1995

Pilot study with 12 weeks follow‐up, after which the advice and control groups were offered the intervention. The intervention was 4 x weekly mailings and telephone calls from a lay facilitator.

Alonso‐Perez 2007

Not a fully randomised trial. Smokers assigned to behavioural condition by clinic attended

Amos 1995

Not a controlled trial. Callers to a workplace helpline set up in conjunction with a non‐smoking policy were followed up. 16% of smokers reported they had quit 3 m later, 28% of those who had tried to quit. It was estimated that between 3 and 3.3% of smokers in the company had called in the first 3 m

An 2008

Intervention was to increase clinic referrals to a quitline. No smoking outcomes

Asfar 2010

Previously listed as ongoing. Compared proactive with reactive telephone counselling but the NRT dosage provided varied between arms

Augustine 2015

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Baker 2015

Telephone compared to face‐to‐face counselling

Balanda 1999

Callers to a helpline were randomised to 1 of 2 S‐H materials. No counselling was given. Follow‐up only 1 m after receipt of materials. There was no difference in cessation rates between the booklet groups.

Berndt 2014

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Bernstein 2018

Insufficient length of follow‐up (3 months)

Best 1977

Allocation not stated to be random. Telephone follow‐up compared to group behavioural treatment with aversive smoking only.

Bliksrud 2002

Not a randomised trial

Bock 2008

All participants received brief TC calls. Intervention was a face‐to‐face motivational interview

Borland 1989

Not a controlled trial. Evaluation of calls to a helpline

Borland 2004

All participants called a quitline, test of different S‐H materials. Included in Cochrane Review of S‐H (Livingstone‐Banks 2019a)

Boyle 2004

Intervention for smokeless tobacco use, not smoking

Boyle 2008

Intervention for smokeless tobacco use, not smoking

Brandon 2000

Focus on preventing relapse. See Cochrane Review on relapse prevention (Livingstone‐Banks 2019b)

Bronshtein 2016

No data on smoking cessation

Brunner‐Frandsen 2010

Intervention condition included intensive face‐to‐face counselling as well as telephone contact

Buchanan 2004

Multicomponent intervention, only 12 weeks follow‐up

Buller 2012

Previously listed as ongoing. Compares an online intervention against telephone counselling with self‐help

Burns 2010

Not randomised; historical and non‐equivalent controls

Bush 2012

Evaluated a counselling component to address cessation‐related weight concerns. Will be evaluated in Cochrane Review of interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation (Farley 2012)

Bush 2016

Evaluated a counselling component to address cessation‐related weight concerns. Will be evaluated in Cochrane Review of interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation (Farley 2012)

Carlin‐Menter 2011

Only 3 months follow‐up

Carlini 2008

Intervention to increase re‐enrolment in quitline services. No smoking outcomes

Carlini 2012

Intervention was IVR to re‐engage relapsed smokers, no cessation outcomes

Carreras 2007

Not a randomised trial. Compared intensive counselling delivered face‐to‐face or by telephone

Cheung 2013

Participants in quitline arm could choose between email, telephone or sms contacts

Cheung 2017

Participants in quitline arm could choose between email, telephone or sms contacts

Choi 2014

Addition of Tobacco Tactics website to nurse‐delivered TC plus NRT

Conway 2004

Focus on preventing relapse. See Cochrane Review on relapse prevention (Livingstone‐Banks 2019b)

Cooper 2004

Trial identified from a paper reporting secondary outcomes. Compared 3 levels of behavioural intervention in a primary care setting. Full results have not been published and not available

Cummings 1988

Callers to a helpline were randomised to one of 4 different S‐H programmes or an information control. No counselling was given.

Cummings 1989

Does not measure smoking cessation. Assesses impact of a media campaign to get women smokers with young children to call a quit line. Call rates compared in media markets with and without a campaign.

Cummings 2006a

Not a randomised trial. Evaluated impact of free NRT as adjunct to telephone support

Cummings 2010

Not a randomised trial. Evaluated impact of different amounts of free NRT as adjunct to telephone support

Cummings 2011

All participants eligible for same telephone counselling intervention; test of different amounts of NRT

Curry 2003

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling

Danaher 2011

Study of smokeless tobacco users only

Danaher 2015

Study of smokeless tobacco smokers

Davis 1992

All participants were women with young children who called a hotline and received same stage‐based counselling. They were randomised to receive 3 different S‐H guides. See Cochrane Review of S‐H (Livingstone‐Banks 2019a)

De Azevedo 2010

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital motivational interviewing as well as post‐discharge telephone contact, and was compared to usual care

DeBusk 1994

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital physician advice and counselling by a nurse as well as post‐discharge telephone contact, and was compared to usual care

Decker 1989

Not random or pseudo‐random. Interventions ran sequentially. Participants receiving mailed materials had access to a hotline

Dent 2009

Single telephone call was the brief intervention control for a 3‐session group‐based pharmacist‐conducted intervention

Dubren 1977

Recent quitters were randomised to access to recorded messages, not a counsellor. Short follow‐up (4 weeks)

Edelman 2014

No data on smoking cessation

Fellows 2016

Multicomponent intervention including TC, individual and group counselling and an interactive web‐based programme

Fu 2016

TC as an adjunct of NRT. However, NRT is offered in a different manner in the TC arm (free) and usual care arm (discounted price)

Garvey 2012

Compares 3 different lengths of telephone and face‐to‐face cognitive behavioural counselling (3, 6 and 12 months duration)

Gianos 2015

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of text messaging

Gies 2008

Only 3‐m follow‐up. Comparison between 1 and 4 telephone follow‐ups as adjunct to face‐to‐face counselling. 19 participants per group

Glasgow 2009

Intervention aimed at reduction in cigarette use for people not wishing to attempt cessation

Gong 2016

Insufficient length of follow‐up (12 weeks)

Gordon 2010

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling delivered by dental practitioner

Gritz 2012

Intervention used cell phone. Will be evaluated in Cochrane Review of mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation (Whittaker 2016)

Haas 2015

Multicomponent intervention that includes TC and free NRT versus usual care

Hackbarth 2006

Insufficient detail in abstract to include, no full report identified

Hammett 2018

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Han 2010

Study of 2 different frequencies of telephone counselling for high blood pressure, including smoking cessation counselling. Smoking cessation not reported as an outcome, unclear if smoking cessation measured

Harris 2015

TC arm compared to a web‐based intervention

Hasuo 2004

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital counselling by a nurse

Hawkes 2013

No data on smoking

Hebert 2011

Only 3 m follow‐up

Hennrikus 2002

Included in previous updates of this review. Excluded in 2018 update due to TC being compared to group counselling

Hokanson 2006

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling and offer of pharmacotherapy

Holtrop 2005

The purpose of the telephone call was to encourage participants to enrol in quitline services

Johnson 1999

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital counselling by a nurse. Quasi‐random design

Joseph 2011

Complex intervention; all participants received telephone counselling

Katz 2004

Included in previous updates of this review. Excluded in 2018 update due to the fact that the effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Keten 2013

Insufficient length of follow‐up

Killen 2008

Main intervention component was face‐to‐face support. Telephone contact in both arms

Kim 2013

Insufficient length of follow‐up

Kim 2016

TC compared with videoconferencing among Korean‐American women. This study will be covered in a new Cochrane review about real‐time video counselling for smoking cessation (see Tzelepis 2017)

Kim 2017

TC compared with videoconferencing among women living with HIV. This study will be covered in a new Cochrane review about real‐time video counselling for smoking cessation (see Tzelepis 2017)

Klesges 2015

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Koffman 1998

3 worksites allocated to different interventions. No way to distinguish variation due to worksite from effect of intervention

Lando 1996

Previously included, recruited only recent quitters so now covered in Cochrane Review of relapse prevention (Livingstone‐Banks 2019b)

Leed‐Kelly 1996

The intervention included 1 session of face‐to‐face counselling with telephone follow‐up. Results, which did not show any intervention effect, are given in Bobo 1998

Lichtenstein 2002b

No long‐term outcomes yet reported

Linder 2014

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Lindinger 2012

Not randomised. Compared participants accepting proactive calls to those choosing only 1 session

Little 2009

Systems change intervention; trained dental staff in to assess, advise and refer to telephone counselling

Mahabee‐Gittens 2008

Quitline referral confounded with brief advice, only 3 m follow‐up

Manfredi 1999

The intervention included the opportunity of a motivational telephone call following provider advice and S‐H components. Follow‐up was only 5 ‐ 8 weeks

Manfredi 2011

Smoking status not measured

Mayer 2010

Trial of a relapse prevention intervention; participants were abstinent at time of randomisation

McAfee 2008

All participants had same quitline counselling

McBride 2002

The focus of the intervention was on genetic susceptibility feedback. Effect of telephone support cannot be evaluated independently

McClure 2018

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of website and text messaging

McDaniel 2015

This study includes exclusively recent quitters. This falls within the scope of a separate review on preventing relapse (Hajek 2009).

McGrath 2014

Insufficient length of follow‐up (3 months)

Mermelstein 2003

Compares 2 telephone‐based interventions for preventing relapse following group therapy. Now included in Cochrane Review of relapse prevention (Livingstone‐Banks 2019b)

Miller 2009

Trial of NRT as opposed to telephone support; same telephone support intervention offered to both groups

Morris 2011

All participants received telephone counselling and NRT, test of additional group counselling

Mullen 2016

No data on smoking abstinence

Nair 2017

Insufficient length of follow‐up (1 month)

Ockene 1992

Telephone support could not be evaluated independently of combined intervention

Oddone 2017

The outcome of this trial is enrolment of veterans in smoking cessation services

Owen 2000

Not a controlled trial. Survey of callers to UK quitline.

Papadakis 2013

Insufficient length of follow‐up

Parker 2007

Trial in pregnant women

Partin 2006

Telephone intervention purpose was to assess smoking status, interest in making another quit attempt, quit challenges, and treatment preferences, not to assist cessation per se

Patten 2009

Intervention was telephone counselling for non‐smokers wanting to help a smoker. Outcome was calls by smoker to quitline, not cessation

Patten 2011

Intervention was telephone counselling for non‐smokers wanting to help a smoker. Outcome was calls by smoker to quitline, not cessation

Peng 2011

Short follow‐up

Peterson 2009

School as unit of randomisation. Telephone counselling confounded by other school‐based initiatives

Peterson 2015

Telephone counselling cannot be evaluated independently of telehealth counselling

Platt 1997

Not a controlled trial. A panel sample of callers to the Scottish Smokeline was followed up for 1 year. 607 (71% of original sample) were reached.

Prue 1983

The amount and timing of telephone contact is unclear. The main component was a S‐H programme, compared to a waiting list control. Total of 40 participants

Racelis 1998

Intervention addressed multiple risk factors, number of smokers enrolled not specified

Ratner 2004

Telephone support could not be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling

Reid 1999b

Not a controlled trial. Followed 258 nicotine patch purchasers who enrolled for support programme of 4 calls from a trained nurse counsellor.

Richter 2015

Traditional TC compared with telemedicine. This study will be covered in a new Cochrane Review about real‐time video counselling for smoking cessation (see Tzelepis 2017)

Rigotti 2014

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Rigotti 2016

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of pharmacotherapy

Rigotti 2017

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of pharmacotherapy

Ringen 2002

Not randomised. Smokers chose intensity of support

Rodgers 2005

Intervention used mobile phone (including text messaging). To be covered by separate Cochrane Review (Whittaker 2016)

Rogers 2018

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Roski 2003

Included in previous updates of this review. Excluded in 2018 update due to TC being compared to financial incentives

Rothemich 2010

Systems change intervention; referral to quitline was only 1 component

Schiebel 2007

Small (n = 39) feasibility study in Emergency Department. Very low rate of follow‐up especially for sustained abstinence outcome (2/39 reached at both follow‐ups)

Schneider 1995

Evaluated a telephone support system. All smokers recruited had access to the interactive programme. Random subsets were selected for access to messages about nicotine gum, sent a reminder to call, or sent a user's manual

Segan 2011

Study of phone counselling for relapse prevention

Sharifirad 2012

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Sherman 2008

Abstinence data given only for intervention group

Sherman 2016

Effect of TC cannot be evaluated independently of NRT

Shiffman 2000

Follow‐up 12 weeks.

Sidhu 2015

Multicomponent intervention which included telephone counselling, a pedometer, supporting written materials and a self‐monitoring diary

Simon 1997

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included brief counselling and NRT

Simon 2003

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital nurse counselling as well as post‐discharge telephone contact, and was compared to a minimal intervention

Sivarajan 2004

Telephone component could not be evaluated independently of combined intervention

Sorensen 2007b

Telephone intervention was a 10‐min reminder call, 2 m after face‐to‐face advice to quit prior to surgery. Outcomes combined with an arm given reminder at a face‐to‐face meeting

Stevens 1993

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital physician advice and counselling by a nurse as well as post‐discharge telephone contact, and was compared to usual care

Stoltzfus 2011

Not a controlled trial. Pre‐test/post‐test study of different referral methods

Strong 2012

All participants had same basic counselling intervention. Test of a mood management component

Sutton 2007

All participants had same counselling intervention. Test of tailored written materials, see Cochrane self‐help Review (Livingstone‐Banks 2019a)

Szklo 2010

Not an evaluation of counselling; compared 2 strategies to encourage calls to a quitline

Taylor 1990

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling. The intervention included in‐hospital physician advice and counselling by a nurse, as well as post‐discharge telephone contact, and was compared to usual care

Terazawa 2001

Telephone component could not be evaluated independently of combined intervention

Terry 2011

Not randomised; comparison of work‐based intervention programmes

Toll 2010

Only 3 m follow‐up

Tseng 2016 2015

Insufficient length of follow‐up (12 weeks)

Urso 2003

Only 12 weeks follow‐up

Van der Meer 2010

All participants received telephone counselling. Test of a mood management component

Vidrine 2006

Intervention used mobile phone (including text messaging). To be covered by separate Cochrane Review (Whittaker 2016)

Wadland 1999

Not randomised. The treated groups were recruited by different means and given different interventions, both of which included telephone counselling by nurses or counsellors

Wadland 2001

Only 3 m follow‐up

Wadland 2007

Trial of methods for clinic referral to quitline support. No quitting outcomes

Walker 2011a

Recruitment by quitline, but test of providing samples of NRT

Walker 2011b

Recruitment by quitline, but test of nicotine‐free cigarettes as an adjunct to NRT

Wang 2017

Comparison of different leaflets/booklets. One of the arms also includes referral to the quitline and other smoking cessation services

Warner 2011

Comparison of physician‐provided general help to quit smoking with intervention primarily aimed at facilitating quitline use. Both groups had same access to quitline

Weaver 2015

Multicomponent intervention which includes NRT, telephone and face‐to‐face counselling

Westman 1993

Telephone component cannot be evaluated independently of face‐to‐face counselling

Wetter 2007

Only 12 weeks follow‐up

Wewers 2017

TC compared to face‐to‐face counselling

Willemsen 2008

Uncontrolled evaluation. Quitline callers followed up at 1 year

Wolfenden 2008a

Quitline component was part of a comprehensive intervention including face‐to‐face support

Zanis 2011

Only 12 weeks follow‐up

Zawertailo 2013

Not randomised; uses a concurrent matched control

Zhu 2000

Not an RCT. All participants called the California Smokers' Helpline and received 1 session of counselling and planned to use NRT. Those who chose to receive further counselling were compared to those who did not

CI: confidence interval; m: month(s); IVR: interactive voice response; NRT: nicotine replacement therapy; S‐H: self‐help; TC: telephone counselling; TQD: target quit date

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Argyropoulou 2005

Trial name or title

Smoking cessation: data for two years from two different interventions

Methods

9‐week open‐label bupropion phase 300 mg daily and NRT for 3 weeks combined with behavioural support; smokers randomised in 2 groups, follow‐up for 3, 6, 12 and 24 months

Participants

No information

Interventions

Group A: 7 weekly one‐to‐one counselling sessions; Group B: telephone counselling

Outcomes

PP and continuous abstinence

Starting date

Contact information

Notes

Humfleet 2012

Trial name or title

Reaching and treating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) cigarette smokers

Methods

Randomised, open‐label, factorial (4 arm)

Participants

≥ 18 years; identify as LGBT

Interventions

1) self‐help manual; 2) mail‐based self‐help plus internet‐based smoking treatment; 3) self‐help manual + telephone counselling; 4) self‐help manual plus internet‐based Intervention plus telephone counselling

Outcomes

Primary: smoking status at 3, 6 and 12 months post‐enrolment

Starting date

February 2008

Contact information

Notes

Mak 2015

Trial name or title

Acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation in the primary care setting (ACT)

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, double masking

Participants

Aged 18 years and older, currently smoking at least 1 cigarette a day in the past 30 days, Hong Kong residents, able to communicate in Cantonese, currently residing in Hong Kong and expecting to continue to do so for the next 6 months, have access to a telephone

Interventions

2 telephone ACT counselling sessions, minimal face‐to‐face ACT counselling, printed self‐help leaflet on smoking cessation

Outcomes

Primary outcome: self‐reported 7‐day point prevalence
Secondary outcome: validated abstinence

Starting date

July 2012

Contact information

www.researchgate.net/profile/Yim_Mak; www.researchgate.net/profile/Alice_Loke

Notes

Only protocol and baseline results have been published so far

NCT00311948

Trial name or title

Telephone and web‐based teen tobacco cessation in HMOs

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, single (Investigator) masking

Participants

600 teenagers

Interventions

Telephone counselling plus interactive website

Outcomes

Self‐reported 30 days point prevalence assessed at 12 months

Starting date

March 2006

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

NCT00851357

Trial name or title

Telephone counseling and the distribution of nicotine patches to smokers

Methods

RCT, factorial assignment, quadruple masking

Participants

4200 adults residing in California including English and Spanish speakers

Interventions

Telephone counselling ± nicotine patch ± self‐help ± placebo

Outcomes

6 months continuous abstinence assessed after 7 months of follow‐up

Starting date

February 2009

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

NCT01892813

Trial name or title

Dissemination of a tailored tobacco quitline for rural veteran smokers

Methods

RCT, Parallel Assignment, Double Masking

Participants

411 rural veteran smokers, older than 18, receive primary care from the Iowa City VA Health Care System or an affiliated community‐based outpatient clinic (CBOC), live in a non‐metropolitan area (based on Rural‐Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA)), willing to make an attempt to quit smoking in the next 30 days, capable of providing informed consent, have access to a telephone (land line or cell phone) and have a stable residence.

Interventions

Tailored tobacco quitline for rural veteran smokers

Outcomes

30‐day abstinence assessed after 6 months of follow‐up

Starting date

July 2013

Contact information

mark‐[email protected]

Notes

NCT01893502

Trial name or title

Smoke‐free randomised controlled trial

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, single masking

Participants

11 Singaporean current smokers among outpatients, including hospital employees, who provide informed consent for enrolment in the smoking cessation programme

Interventions

Proactive telephone counselling weekly for 6 months

Outcomes

7‐day point prevalence assessed after 6 months of follow‐up

Starting date

June 2013

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

NCT02157610

Trial name or title

Smoking cessation for cervical cancer survivors

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, open‐label

Participants

350 women with a history of cervical cancer

Interventions

Self‐help + nicotine patch + referral to Oklahome quitline + 6 behavioural counselling calls

Outcomes

Smoking abstinence after 18 months of follow‐up

Starting date

January 2015

Contact information

Jennifer‐[email protected]

Notes

Recruiting

NCT02397369

Trial name or title

Evaluation of efficacy of different methods of tobacco cessation interventions among BEST employees in Mumbai

Methods

RCT, 4 arms, double masking

Participants

4000 Mumbai male BEST employees

Interventions

Telephonic counselling

Outcomes

Tobacco cessation after 1 year of follow‐up

Starting date

March 2015

Contact information

www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharmila_Pimple
[email protected]

Notes

Recruiting

NCT02421991

Trial name or title

Telephone‐delivered interventions for smoking cessation (TALK)

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, single masking

Participants

1168 American adult smokers

Interventions

Telephone counselling (ACT) 5 weeks

Outcomes

30‐day point prevalence abstinence after 12 months of follow‐up

Starting date

2 November 2015

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

NCT03002883

Trial name or title

STAND Community College tobacco cessation trial

Methods

RCT, 3 arms, open‐label

Participants

113 Californian adult smokers

Interventions

Usual care + referral to quitline

Outcomes

Biochemically‐validated smoking cessation after 6 months of follow‐up

Starting date

September 2014

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

Cannot find a full‐text report

NCT03194958

Trial name or title

Helping poor smokers quit

Methods

RCT, factorial design, double masking

Participants

2000 Missouri resident adult smokers

Interventions

Specialised quitline services ± basic needs navigator

Outcomes

7‐day point prevalence abstinence after 6 months of follow‐up

Starting date

5 June 2017

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

Recruiting

NCT03236025

Trial name or title

A video‐led smoking cessation intervention in helping male smokers who is planning to have a baby to quit

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, single masking

Participants

888 male adult Chinese‐speaking Hong Kong‐resident smokers

Interventions

Telephone counselling + pamphlet

Outcomes

Self‐reported 7‐day point prevalence quit rate after 6 months of follow‐up

Starting date

1 June 2017

Contact information

www.researchgate.net/profile/Ho_Li2
[email protected]

Notes

Recruiting

NCT03538938

Trial name or title

Improving quitline support study (IQS)

Methods

RCT, factorial design, single masking

Participants

1600 Winsconsin‐resident adult smokers

Interventions

4‐call quitline counselling ± NRT ± text messaging ± financial incentives

Outcomes

7‐day point prevalence abstinence after 6 months of follow‐up

Starting date

7 June 2018

Contact information

www.researchgate.net/profile/Danielle_Mccarthy
[email protected]

Notes

Enrolling

NTR6092

Trial name or title

Recruitment strategies for an effective smoking cessation programme for parents (De implementatie van een effectieve interventie om te stoppen met roken voor ouders)

Methods

RCT, parallel assignment, single masking

Participants

144 smoking parents of children younger than 12

Interventions

Proactive telephone counselling based on MI and cognitive‐behavioural skill building

Outcomes

7‐day point prevalence abstinence after 12 months of follow‐up
Prolonged abstinence (at least 6 months) after 12‐months of follow‐up

Starting date

15 September 2016

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

Enroling

Salgado Garcia 2018

Trial name or title

Planning a change easily (PACE)

Methods

RCT, 4 arms

Participants

US adult smokers not ready to quit

Interventions

Motivational Interviewing Telephone Counseling

Outcomes

7‐day point prevalence after 12 months of follow‐up
Prolonged abstinence after 12 months of follow‐up
Biochemically validated (saliva cotinine) abstinence after 12 months of follow‐up

Starting date

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

Only protocol published so far

Sienkiewicz‐Jarosz 2015

Trial name or title

Antismoking interventions in stroke patients ‐ Polish perspective

Methods

RCT, 3 arms

Participants

198 participants with first ischaemic stroke

Interventions

4 telephone calls 6 weeks after discharge from hospital + brief (20‐min) counselling by physician
1 telephone call 7 days post‐stroke + brief (20‐min) counselling by physician

Outcomes

Smoking cessation rate after 12 months of follow‐up

Starting date

Contact information

www.researchgate.net/profile/Halina_Sienkiewicz‐Jarosz
sekretariatdn‐[email protected]

Notes

Conference abstract. First author contacted but no response received

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

14

32484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.38 [1.19, 1.61]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 1 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Seven versus three phone calls

1

1908

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.09, 1.89]

1.2 Five versus three phone calls

1

3669

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.28 [1.00, 1.64]

1.3 Seven versus five phone calls

1

3939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.93, 1.36]

1.4 Five versus two phone calls

1

2874

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.89, 1.23]

1.5 Five versus one phone call

1

2189

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.32 [1.01, 1.74]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

14

32484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.37 [1.20, 1.57]

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 3 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Two sessions or fewer

2

3867

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [1.02, 1.46]

1.2 Three to six sessions

11

22612

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.38 [1.17, 1.63]

1.3 Seven sessions or more

4

6005

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.98, 2.25]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 4 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Reactive counselling vs self‐help materials

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Tailored counselling versus standard counselling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Stage‐based counselling versus general information

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 ACT + NRT versus CBT + NRT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.5 Motivational Interviewing TC versus standard TC

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 5 Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Hotline and self‐help materials compared to minimal intervention

2

3327

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.62 [1.16, 2.25]

1.2 Hotline and self‐help materials for cessation maintenance compared to nothing

1

1311

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.70, 1.06]

1.3 Reactive or proactive counselling vs provider counselling

4

7780

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.40 [1.07, 1.84]

1.4 Proactive counselling vs reactive counselling

2

2908

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.06 [0.58, 7.31]

1.5 Proactive counselling vs self‐help

2

2498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.42 [0.76, 2.63]

1.6 Reactive counselling vs self‐help

2

2364

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.44, 1.40]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

65

41233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.15, 1.35]

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 6 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Adjunct to self‐help or minimal intervention

35

22917

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.35 [1.16, 1.57]

1.2 Adjunct to brief intervention or counselling

12

4234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.30 [1.12, 1.50]

1.3 Adjunct to pharmacotherapy

18

12865

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.14 [1.03, 1.26]

1.4 Adjunct to incentives for smoking cessation

1

1217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.67, 1.65]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

3

2602

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.12, 1.44]

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 7 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 8. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

65

41233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.15, 1.35]

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 8 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Two sessions or fewer

9

6274

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.86, 1.40]

1.2 Three to six sessions

44

26686

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.29 [1.18, 1.42]

1.3 Seven sessions or more

13

8273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.98, 1.51]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 9. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

65

41233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.15, 1.36]

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 9 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Selected for motivation/interest in quitting

26

17877

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.31 [1.15, 1.49]

1.2 Not selected for motivation

39

23356

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.20 [1.09, 1.33]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 10. Other studies

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Other studies, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 10 Other studies, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

1.1 Family‐supported vs standard telephone counseling

1

471

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.72, 1.45]

1.2 Parental focused telephone counseling vs nutrition counseling

1

327

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.01 [0.97, 4.17]

1.3 Brief motivational vs standard telephone counseling

1

374

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.63 [1.12, 6.14]

1.4 Smoking reduction vs brief motivational telephone counseling

1

371

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.47, 1.68]

1.5 Smoking reduction vs standard telephone counseling

1

375

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.32 [0.98, 5.52]

1.6 Nondirective vs directive telephone coaching

1

518

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.82, 1.62]

1.7 Tailored telephone counseling vs state tobacco quitline referral

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.47, 2.25]

1.8 Brief quitline facilitation vs brief cessation advice

1

600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.62 [0.96, 2.72]

1.9 Smoking‐reduction vs exercise & diet telephone counseling

1

369

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.86 [0.93, 8.81]

1.10 Medication adherence vs standard telephone counseling

1

987

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.83, 1.15]

1.11 Automated telephone follow‐up vs standard care

1

440

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.92, 1.60]

1.12 Coverage for telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy vs pharmacotherapy alone

1

266

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.38, 1.18]

Study flow diagram for most recent update
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram for most recent update

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

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

Comparison 1. Interventions for callers to quitlines. Effect of additional proactive calls.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Comparison 1. Interventions for callers to quitlines. Effect of additional proactive calls.

Comparison 6. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Comparison 6. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support.

Funnel plot of studies in Comparison 1: Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of studies in Comparison 1: Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls.

Funnel plot of studies in Comparison 6: Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Funnel plot of studies in Comparison 6: Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support.

Comparison 1 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 3 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 4 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 5 Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 6 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 7 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 8 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 9 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Comparison 10 Other studies, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Other studies, Outcome 1 Cessation at longest follow‐up.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls for smoking cessation

Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls for smoking cessation

Patient or population: callers to quitlines
Intervention: additional proactive calls

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Additional proactive calls

Smoking cessation
Self‐reported abstinence (majority)
Follow‐up: 6+ months

Study population

RR 1.38
(1.19 to 1.61)

32,484
(14 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderateb,c

72 per 1000

100 per 1000
(85 to 116)

Low

50 per 1000a

69 per 1000

(59 to 81)

High

150 per 1000a

208 per 1000

(178 to 242)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aLow control rate reflects lower end of range evident in trials; 4/14 had control rates < 50 per 1000. High control rate likely to be applicable for smokers also using pharmacotherapy.
bEffect estimate not sensitive to exclusion of studies judged at high risk of bias, so not downgraded on this basis.
cDowngraded by one level due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 72%).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls for smoking cessation
Summary of findings 2. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ effect of proactive telephone counselling

Proactive telephone counselling for smokers not calling quitlines

Patient or population: smokers not calling quitlines
Intervention: proactive telephone counselling

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Proactive telephone counselling

Smoking cessation
Self‐reported abstinence (majority)
Follow‐up: 6+ months

Study population

RR 1.25
(1.15 to 1.35)

41,233
(65 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderatea,b

110 per 1000a

137 per 1000
(127 to 149)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aBased on crude average of events/total, with participants lost to follow‐up assumed to be smoking. Interquartile range in trials 63 ‐ 200 per 1000. Higher baseline cessation rates typical amongst motivated populations receiving pharmacotherapy and some support. Relative additional benefit of telephone intervention may be smaller in this setting.
bEffect estimate not sensitive to exclusion of studies judged at high risk of bias, so not downgraded on this basis.
cDowngraded by one level due to statistical heterogeneity, which was only partially explained by differences in baseline support. In subgroup analyses, evidence of effect was clearer when telephone counselling was offered as an adjunct to print‐based self‐help, or brief face‐to‐face counselling. Effect smaller and less certain when telephone counselling was offered as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. However, statistical heterogeneity ranged from small to substantial within the subgroups.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ effect of proactive telephone counselling
Comparison 1. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

14

32484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.38 [1.19, 1.61]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ effect of additional proactive calls
Comparison 2. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Seven versus three phone calls

1

1908

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.09, 1.89]

1.2 Five versus three phone calls

1

3669

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.28 [1.00, 1.64]

1.3 Seven versus five phone calls

1

3939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.93, 1.36]

1.4 Five versus two phone calls

1

2874

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.89, 1.23]

1.5 Five versus one phone call

1

2189

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.32 [1.01, 1.74]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different intensities
Comparison 3. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

14

32484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.37 [1.20, 1.57]

1.1 Two sessions or fewer

2

3867

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [1.02, 1.46]

1.2 Three to six sessions

11

22612

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.38 [1.17, 1.63]

1.3 Seven sessions or more

4

6005

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.98, 2.25]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity
Comparison 4. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Reactive counselling vs self‐help materials

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Tailored counselling versus standard counselling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Stage‐based counselling versus general information

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 ACT + NRT versus CBT + NRT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.5 Motivational Interviewing TC versus standard TC

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Interventions for callers to quitlines ‐ comparison of different support at initial call
Comparison 5. Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Hotline and self‐help materials compared to minimal intervention

2

3327

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.62 [1.16, 2.25]

1.2 Hotline and self‐help materials for cessation maintenance compared to nothing

1

1311

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.70, 1.06]

1.3 Reactive or proactive counselling vs provider counselling

4

7780

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.40 [1.07, 1.84]

1.4 Proactive counselling vs reactive counselling

2

2908

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.06 [0.58, 7.31]

1.5 Proactive counselling vs self‐help

2

2498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.42 [0.76, 2.63]

1.6 Reactive counselling vs self‐help

2

2364

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.44, 1.40]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Offer of counselling via quitlines/helplines/hotlines
Comparison 6. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

65

41233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.15, 1.35]

1.1 Adjunct to self‐help or minimal intervention

35

22917

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.35 [1.16, 1.57]

1.2 Adjunct to brief intervention or counselling

12

4234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.30 [1.12, 1.50]

1.3 Adjunct to pharmacotherapy

18

12865

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.14 [1.03, 1.26]

1.4 Adjunct to incentives for smoking cessation

1

1217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.67, 1.65]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by baseline support
Comparison 7. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

3

2602

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.12, 1.44]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ intense versus minimal telephone counselling
Comparison 8. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

65

41233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.15, 1.35]

1.1 Two sessions or fewer

9

6274

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.86, 1.40]

1.2 Three to six sessions

44

26686

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.29 [1.18, 1.42]

1.3 Seven sessions or more

13

8273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.98, 1.51]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by counseling intensity
Comparison 9. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

65

41233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.15, 1.36]

1.1 Selected for motivation/interest in quitting

26

17877

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.31 [1.15, 1.49]

1.2 Not selected for motivation

39

23356

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.20 [1.09, 1.33]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. Interventions for smokers not calling quitlines ‐ subgroups by motivation
Comparison 10. Other studies

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cessation at longest follow‐up Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Family‐supported vs standard telephone counseling

1

471

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.72, 1.45]

1.2 Parental focused telephone counseling vs nutrition counseling

1

327

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.01 [0.97, 4.17]

1.3 Brief motivational vs standard telephone counseling

1

374

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.63 [1.12, 6.14]

1.4 Smoking reduction vs brief motivational telephone counseling

1

371

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.47, 1.68]

1.5 Smoking reduction vs standard telephone counseling

1

375

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.32 [0.98, 5.52]

1.6 Nondirective vs directive telephone coaching

1

518

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.82, 1.62]

1.7 Tailored telephone counseling vs state tobacco quitline referral

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.47, 2.25]

1.8 Brief quitline facilitation vs brief cessation advice

1

600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.62 [0.96, 2.72]

1.9 Smoking‐reduction vs exercise & diet telephone counseling

1

369

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.86 [0.93, 8.81]

1.10 Medication adherence vs standard telephone counseling

1

987

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.83, 1.15]

1.11 Automated telephone follow‐up vs standard care

1

440

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.92, 1.60]

1.12 Coverage for telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy vs pharmacotherapy alone

1

266

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.38, 1.18]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. Other studies