Cited by 436Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

Open access
Lancaster, Tim, Stead, Lindsay F·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001292.pub3

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Williams GC, McGregor HA, Sharp D, Levesque C, Kouides RW, Ryan RM, et al. Testing a self-determination theory intervention for motivating tobacco cessation: supporting autonomy and competence in a clinical trial. Health Psychology 2006;25:91-101.
  2. Williams GC, Minicucci DS, Kouides RW, Levesque CS, Chirkov VI, Ryan RM, et al. Self-determination, smoking, diet and health. Health Education Research 2002;17(5):512-21.
  3. Wittchen 2011 {published data only} Wittchen HU, Hoch E, Klotsche J, Muehlig S. Smoking cessation in primary care -a randomized controlled trial of bupropione, nicotine replacements, CBT and a minimal intervention. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 2011;20(1):28-39. [CENTRAL: 799983; CRS: 9400123000009843; 6422; PUBMED: 21574208]
  4. Woodruff 2002 {published data only} Woodruff SI, Talavera GA, Elder JP. Evaluation of a culturally appropriate smoking cessation intervention for Latinos. Tobacco Control 2002;11(4):361-7. References to ongoing studies Bonevski 2011 {published data only} Bonevski B, Paul C, D'Este C, Sanson-Fisher R, West R, Girgis A, et al. RCT of a client-centred, caseworker-delivered smoking cessation intervention for a socially disadvantaged population. BMC Public Health 2011;11(1):70. [CENTRAL: 812695; CRS: 9400123000013400; 6412; PUBMED: 21281519]
  5. Greenland S, Robbins J. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985;41(1):55-68.
  6. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60.
  7. Lindson-Hawley N, Thompson TP, Begh R. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006936.pub3] · DOI
  8. Rice VH, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stead LF. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001188.pub4] · DOI
  9. Rigotti NA, Clair C, Munafò MR, Stead LF. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub3] · DOI
  10. Stead 2013b Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera T, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub3] · DOI
  11. 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] · DOI
  12. Stead LF, Koilpillai P, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008286.pub3] · DOI · Paper page
  13. 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] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lancaster, T., & Stead, L. F.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
2018
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W3212124416
Cited by
436
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 15 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
smoking cessation, brief advice, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, pharmacotherapy, abstinence rates, smoking cessation interventions, treatment intensity, loss to follow-up, risk of bias, quality of evidence, GRADE, risk of bias assessment, tobacco control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review