Tim Lancaster1, Lindsay F Stead1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking. OBJECTIVES: The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I2 = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I2 = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I2 = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.
BACKGROUND: Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking. OBJECTIVES: The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I2 = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I2 = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I2 = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.
Authors: Kari Jo Harris; Delwyn Catley; Glenn E Good; Nikole J Cronk; Solomon Harrar; Karen B Williams Journal: Prev Med Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Henry M Marshall; Deborah A Courtney; Linda H Passmore; Elizabeth M McCaul; Ian A Yang; Rayleen V Bowman; Kwun M Fong Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Megan E Piper; Jessica W Cook; Tanya R Schlam; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Linda M Collins; Robin Mermelstein; David Fraser; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2018-09-13
Authors: Elizabeth L Kacel; Janae L Kirsch; Timothy S Sannes; Seema Patidar; Rachel Postupack; Sally Jensen; Shan Wong; Stephanie Garey; Stacy Dodd; Chantel M Ulfig; Christina S McCrae; Michael E Robinson; Jacqueline Castagno; Gregory S Schultz; Deidre B Pereira Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Matthew Evison; Cheryl Pearse; Freya Howle; Monique Baugh; Helen Huddart; Eileen Ashton; Michael Rutherford; Carol Kearney; Lyn Elsey; Darren Staniforth; Kathryn Hoyle; Murugesan Raja; Julie Jerram; David Regan; Richard Booton; John Britton; Claire O'Rourke; David Shackley; Liz Benbow; Andrea Crossfield; Jayne Pilkington; Mandy Bailey; Richard Preece Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 2.659