Cited by 452Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation

Open access
Whittaker, Robyn, McRobbie, Hayden, Bullen, Chris, Rodgers, Anthony, Gu, Yulong, Dobson, Rosie·2019·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only. MAIN RESULTS: = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

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.pub5

Cites

129 of 129 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whittaker, R., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., Rodgers, A., Gu, Y., & Dobson, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The George Institute for Global Health (AU)
  • Stockton University (US)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-22
Volume
10
Pages
CD006611-CD006611
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2982082714
Cited by
452
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 4
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • American Heart Association (K12DA00167, 14CRP18200010)
  • China Medical Board (15-226)
  • Pfizer
  • World Health Organization
  • George Washington University
  • Center for Drug Use and HIV Research
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (16/114/20, SRP/16/114/20)
  • National Institutes of Health (14CRP18200010)
  • Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University
  • Health Research Council of New Zealand
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (14CRP18200010, K12 DA00167, K12DA000167)
  • National Cancer Institute (K07CA124579)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
smoking cessation, mobile phone intervention, text messaging, mobile application, automated intervention, abstinence rates, contingency management, resource-limited settings

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