Cited by 196Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMobile Learning in Education

Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation

Whittaker, Robyn, Borland, Ron, Bullen, Chris, Lin, Ruey B, McRobbie, Hayden, Rodgers, Anthony·2009·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background Innovative effective smoking cessation interventions are required to appeal to those who are not accessing traditional cessation services. Mobile phones are widely used and are now well integrated into the daily lives of many, particularly young adults. Mobile phones are a potential medium for the delivery of health programmes such as smoking cessation. Objectives To determine whether mobile phone-based interventions are effective at helping people who smoke, to quit. Search strategy We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, the National Research Register and the ClinicalTrials register, with no restrictions placed on language or publication date. Selection criteria We included randomized or quasi-randomized trials. Participants were smokers of any age who wanted to quit. Studies were those examining any type of mobile phone-based intervention. This included any intervention aimed at mobile phone users, based around delivery via mobile phone, and using any functions or applications that can be used or sent via a mobile phone. Data collection and analysis Information on the specified quality criteria and methodological details was extracted using a standardised form. Participants who dropped out of the trials or were lost to follow up were considered to be smoking. Meta-analysis of the included studies was undertaken using the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Ratio fixed-effect method provided that there was no evidence of substantial statistical hete…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd006611.pub2

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whittaker, R., Borland, R., Bullen, C., Lin, R. B., McRobbie, H., & Rodgers, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Cancer Council Victoria (AU)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2009-10-07
Issue
4
Pages
CD006611-CD006611
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4242852532
Cited by
196
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 26
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
smoking cessation, mobile phone intervention, text messaging, mobile health, young adults, health behavior change, digital health interventions, outcome misclassification, trial heterogeneity, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Norway
MeSH terms
Adult, Counseling, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Smoking Cessation, Cell Phone

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