Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796601›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Self-help interventions for smoking cessation.

T Lancaster, L F Stead

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Cigarette smoking in iran.Iranian journal of public health · 2012
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

T LancasterICRF General Practice Research Group, Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF. tim.lancaster@dphpc.ox.ac.uk
L F Stead

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany smokers give up smoking on their own, but provision of materials giving advice and information may assist them and increase the number who quit successfully.

objectivesThe aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to self-help, such as computer generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. Date of the most recent search September 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a self-help intervention. We defined self-help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face to face contact given to subjects and to controls, outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. MAIN

resultsWe identified forty-five trials. Twenty seven compared self-help materials to no intervention or tested materials as an adjunct to advice. In nine trials in which self-help was compared to no intervention there was a pooled effect which just reached statistical significance (odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.49). There was no evidence of benefit from adding self-help materials to face to face advice, or to nicotine replacement therapy. There was evidence from eight trials using materials which were tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers that such personalised materials were more effective than standard materials (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.75). Adding follow-up telephone calls from counsellors also appeared to increase quitting (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.33 to 1.97). One trial of offering access to a hotline also showed an effect. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsSelf-help materials may provide a small increase in quitting compared to no intervention. There is no evidence that they have an additional benefit over other minimal interventions such as advice from a health care professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials tailored for individual smokers are more effective.

Indexed as

Self CareSmoking PreventionBehavior TherapyChewing GumHumansNicotinePatient Education as TopicPolymethacrylic AcidsPolyvinylsSmoking CessationTobacco Use Cessation DevicesChewing GumNicotinePolymethacrylic AcidsPolyvinyls

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.