Flora Tzelepis1, Christine L Paul, Raoul A Walsh, Patrick McElduff, Jenny Knight. 1. Centre for Health Research & Psycho-oncology, Cancer Council New South Wales, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute, New South Wales, Australia. flora.tzelepis@newcastle.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews demonstrated that proactive telephone counseling increases smoking cessation rates. However, these reviews did not differentiate studies by recruitment channel, did not adequately assess methodological quality, and combined different measures of abstinence. METHODS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials published before December 31, 2008, included seven of active recruitment, 16 of passive recruitment, and one of mixed recruitment. We rated methodological quality on selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection methods, withdrawals, and dropouts, according to the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. We conducted random effects meta-analysis to pool the results according to abstinence type and follow-up time for studies overall and segregated by recruitment channel, and methodological quality. The level of statistical heterogeneity was quantified by I(2). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Methodological quality ratings indicated two strong, 10 moderate, and 12 weak studies. Overall, compared with self-help materials or no intervention control groups, proactive telephone counseling had a statistically significantly greater effect on point prevalence abstinence (nonsmoking at follow-up or abstinent for at least 24 hours, 7 days before follow-up) at 6-9 months (relative risk [RR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.43, P < .001, I(2) = 21.4%) but not at 12-15 months after recruitment. This pattern also emerged when studies were segregated by recruitment channel (active, passive) or methodological quality (strong/moderate, weak). Overall, the positive effect on prolonged/continuous abstinence (abstinent for 3 months or longer before follow-up) was also statistically significantly greater at 6-9 months (RR = 1.58, CI = 1.26 to 1.98, P < .001, I(2) = 49.1%) and 12-18 months after recruitment (RR = 1.40, CI = 1.23 to 1.60, P < .001, I(2) = 18.5%). CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of point prevalence abstinence in the long term, these data support previous results showing that proactive telephone counseling has a positive impact on smoking cessation. Proactive telephone counseling increased prolonged/continuous abstinence long term for both actively and passively recruited smokers.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews demonstrated that proactive telephone counseling increases smoking cessation rates. However, these reviews did not differentiate studies by recruitment channel, did not adequately assess methodological quality, and combined different measures of abstinence. METHODS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials published before December 31, 2008, included seven of active recruitment, 16 of passive recruitment, and one of mixed recruitment. We rated methodological quality on selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection methods, withdrawals, and dropouts, according to the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. We conducted random effects meta-analysis to pool the results according to abstinence type and follow-up time for studies overall and segregated by recruitment channel, and methodological quality. The level of statistical heterogeneity was quantified by I(2). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Methodological quality ratings indicated two strong, 10 moderate, and 12 weak studies. Overall, compared with self-help materials or no intervention control groups, proactive telephone counseling had a statistically significantly greater effect on point prevalence abstinence (nonsmoking at follow-up or abstinent for at least 24 hours, 7 days before follow-up) at 6-9 months (relative risk [RR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.43, P < .001, I(2) = 21.4%) but not at 12-15 months after recruitment. This pattern also emerged when studies were segregated by recruitment channel (active, passive) or methodological quality (strong/moderate, weak). Overall, the positive effect on prolonged/continuous abstinence (abstinent for 3 months or longer before follow-up) was also statistically significantly greater at 6-9 months (RR = 1.58, CI = 1.26 to 1.98, P < .001, I(2) = 49.1%) and 12-18 months after recruitment (RR = 1.40, CI = 1.23 to 1.60, P < .001, I(2) = 18.5%). CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of point prevalence abstinence in the long term, these data support previous results showing that proactive telephone counseling has a positive impact on smoking cessation. Proactive telephone counseling increased prolonged/continuous abstinence long term for both actively and passively recruited smokers.
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Charlotte J Hagerman; George Luta; Paula G Bellini; Cassandra Stanton; David B Abrams; Jenna A Kramer; Eric Anderson; Shawn Regis; Andrea McKee; Brady McKee; Ray Niaura; Harry Harper; Michael Ramsaier Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Danielle E Deros; Shelby Fallon; Jennifer Stephens; Emily Kim; Tania Lobo; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Rafael Meza; Cassandra A Stanton; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Brady McKee; Judith Howell; Michael Ramsaier; Juan Batlle; Ellen Dornelas; Vicky Parikh; Eric Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sonia A Duffy; David L Ronis; Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez; Lee A Ewing; Stephanie V Hall; James J Yang; Patricia L Thomas; Christine M Olree; Kimberly A Maguire; Lisa Friedman; Donna Gray; Neil Jordan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alicia K Matthews; Elizabeth Breen; Anna Veluz-Wilkins; Christina Ciecierski; Melissa Simon; Diane Burrell; Brian Hitsman Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2019
Authors: Patrick S Calhoun; Santanu Datta; Maren Olsen; Valerie A Smith; Scott D Moore; Lauren P Hair; Eric A Dedert; Angela Kirby; Michelle Dennis; Jean C Beckham; Lori A Bastian Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2016-06-17
Authors: Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Sanjay Shete; Yumei Cao; Anthony Greisinger; Penny Harmonson; Barry Sharp; Lyndsay Miles; Susan M Zbikowski; David W Wetter Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jacinda M Nicklas; Geraldine Skurnik; Chloe A Zera; Liberty G Reforma; Sue E Levkoff; Ellen W Seely Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2016-02
Authors: Man Ping Wang; Yi Nam Suen; William Ho-Cheung Li; Christina Oi-Bun Lam; Socrates Yong-da Wu; Antonio Cho-Shing Kwong; Vienna W Lai; Sophia S Chan; Tai Hing Lam Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873