Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23839868›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation.

Marta Civljak, Lindsay F Stead, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Aziz Sheikh, Josip Car

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Improving Adherence to Smoking Cessation Treatment: Smoking Outcomes in a Web-based Randomized Trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018
    Trial

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marta CivljakDept of Medical Sociology and Health Economics, Medical School University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Lindsay F Stead
Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
Aziz Sheikh
Josip Car

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZG/2/454
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Internet is now an indispensable part of daily life for the majority of people in many parts of the world. It offers an additional means of effecting changes to behaviour such as smoking.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. There were no restrictions placed on language of publication or publication date. The most recent search was conducted in April 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials. Participants were people who smoked, with no exclusions based on age, gender, ethnicity, language or health status. Any type of Internet intervention was eligible. The comparison condition could be a no-intervention control, a different Internet intervention, or a non-Internet intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed and extracted data. Methodological and study quality details were extracted using a standardized form. We extracted smoking cessation outcomes of six months follow-up or more, reporting short-term outcomes where longer-term outcomes were not available. We reported study effects as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Clinical and statistical heterogeneity limited our ability to pool studies. MAIN

resultsThis updated review includes a total of 28 studies with over 45,000 participants. Some Internet programmes were intensive and included multiple outreach contacts with participants, whilst others relied on participants to initiate and maintain use.Fifteen trials compared an Internet intervention to a non-Internet-based smoking cessation intervention or to a no-intervention control. Ten of these recruited adults, one recruited young adult university students and two recruited adolescents. Seven of the trials in adults had follow-up at six months or longer and compared an Internet intervention to usual care or printed self help. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, pooled results from three trials that compared interactive and individually tailored interventions to usual care or written self help detected a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78). However all three trials were judged to be at high risk of bias in one domain and high statistical heterogeneity was detected (I² = 53%), with no obvious clinical explanation. Pooled results from two studies of an interactive, tailored intervention involving the Internet and automated phone contacts also detected a significant effect (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.97, I² = 42%). Results from a sixth study comparing an interactive but non-tailored intervention to control did not detect a significant effect, nor did the seventh study, which compared a non-interactive, non-tailored intervention to control. Three trials comparing Internet interventions to face-to-face or phone counselling also did not detect evidence of an effect, nor did two trials evaluating Internet interventions as adjuncts to other behavioural interventions. A trial in college students increased point prevalence abstinence after 30 weeks but had no effect on sustained abstinence. Two small trials in adolescents did not detect an effect on cessation compared to control.Fourteen trials, all in adult populations, compared different Internet sites or programmes. Pooled estimates from three trials that compared tailored and/or interactive Internet programmes with non-tailored, non-interactive Internet programmes did not detect evidence of an effect (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32, I² = 0%). One trial detected evidence of a benefit from a tailored email compared to a non-tailored one, whereas a second trial comparing tailored messages to a non-tailored message did not detect evidence of an effect. Trials failed to detect a benefit of including a mood management component (three trials), or an asynchronous bulletin board. AUTHORS'

conclusionsResults suggest that some Internet-based interventions can assist smoking cessation at six months or longer, particularly those which are interactive and tailored to individuals. However, the trials that compared Internet interventions with usual care or self help did not show consistent effects and were at risk of bias. Further research is needed despite 28 studies on the subject. Future studies should carefully consider optimising the interventions which promise most effect such as tailoring and interactivity.

Indexed as

InternetAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking CessationTherapy, Computer-AssistedTreatment Outcome

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.