CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,079Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMobile Learning in Education

Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation

Open access
Whittaker, Robyn, McRobbie, Hayden, Bullen, Chris, Rodgers, Anthony, Gu, Yulong·2016·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006611.pub4PMC PMC6485940
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Access to mobile phones continues to increase exponentially globally, outstripping access to fixed telephone lines, fixed computers and the Internet. Mobile phones are an appropriate and effective option for the delivery of smoking cessation support in some contexts. This review updates the evidence on the effectiveness of mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation in people who smoke and want to quit. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in April 2015. We also searched the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio for current projects in the UK, and the ClinicalTrials.gov register for ongoing or recently completed studies. We searched through the reference lists of identified studies and attempted to contact the authors of ongoing studies. We applied no restrictions on language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were smokers of any age who wanted to quit. Studies were those examining any type of mobile phone-based intervention for smoking cessation. 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: Review authors extracted information on risk of bias and methodological details using a standardised form. We considered participants who dropped out of the trials or were lost to follow-up to be smoking. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each included study. Meta-analysis of the included studies used the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we presented a narrative summary and descriptive statistics. MAIN RESULTS: This updated search identified 12 studies with six-month smoking cessation outcomes, including seven studies completed since the previous review. The interventions were predominantly text messaging-based, although several paired text messaging with in-person visits or initial assessments. Two studies gave pre-paid mobile phones to low-income human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive populations - one solely for phone counselling, the other also included text messaging. One study used text messages to link to video messages. Control programmes varied widely. Studies were pooled according to outcomes - some providing measures of continuous abstinence or repeated measures of point prevalence; others only providing 7-day point prevalence abstinence. All 12 studies pooled using their most rigorous 26-week measures of abstinence provided an RR of 1.67 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.90; I(2) = 59%). Six studies verified quitting biochemically at six months (RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.54 to 2.19). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a beneficial impact of mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions on six-month cessation outcomes. While all studies were good quality, the fact that those studies with biochemical verification of quitting status demonstrated an even higher chance of quitting further supports the positive findings. However, it should be noted that most included studies were of text message interventions in high-income countries with good tobacco control policies. Therefore, caution should be taken in generalising these results outside of this type of intervention and context.

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.cd006611.pub4

Cites

91 of 91 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

1 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Whittaker, R., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., Rodgers, A., & Gu, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • The George Institute for Global Health (AU)
  • Stockton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-10
Volume
4
Pages
CD006611-CD006611
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd006611.pub4
PMC
PMC6485940
OpenAlex
W2123622898
Cited by
1,079
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 122 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 38
FWCI
16.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2019-10-22)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • 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, low-income populations, abstinence, point prevalence, video messaging, telephone quitline, risk of bias, loss to follow-up, cost-effectiveness, implementation barriers, implementation facilitators
MeSH terms
Adult, Counseling, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Smoking Cessation, Cell Phone, Text Messaging

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