CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Efficacy of mindfulness meditation for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Maglione, Margaret A., Maher, Alicia Ruelaz, Ewing, Brett, Colaiaco, Benjamin, Newberry, Sydne, Kandrack, Ryan, Shanman, Roberta M., Sorbero, Melony E. +1 more·2017·Addictive Behaviors
DOI 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Smokers increasingly seek alternative interventions to assist in cessation or reduction efforts. Mindfulness meditation, which facilitates detached observation and paying attention to the present moment with openness, curiosity, and acceptance, has recently been studied as a smoking cessation intervention.Aims This review synthesizes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mindfulness meditation (MM) interventions for smoking cessation.Methods Five electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2016 to identify English-language RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of MM interventions for smoking cessation, reduction, or a decrease in nicotine cravings. Two independent reviewers screened literature using predetermined eligibility criteria, abstracted study-level information, and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.Findings Ten RCTs of MM interventions for tobacco use met inclusion criteria. Intervention duration, intensity, and comparison conditions varied considerably. Studies used diverse comparators such as the American Lung Association's Freedom from Smoking (FFS) program, quitline counseling, interactive learning, or treatment as usual (TAU). Only one RCT was rated as good quality and reported power calculations indicating sufficient statistical power. Publication bias was detected. Overall, mindfulness meditation did not have significant effects on abstinence or cigarettes per day, relative to comparator groups. The small number of studies and heterogeneity in interventions, comparators, and outcomes precluded detecting systematic differences between adjunctive and monotherapy interventions. No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusions MM did not differ significantly from comparator interventions in their effects on tobacco use. Low-quality evidence, variability in study design among the small number of existing studies, and publication bias suggest that additional, high-quality adequately powered RCTs should be conducted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.022

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • A systematic review including literature to 2016 did not find evidence of a significant impact of mindfulness meditation interventions on abstinence relative to comparator groups.

    “A systematic review, including literature to 2016, did not find evidence of a significant impact of mindfulness meditation interventions on abstinence relative to comparator groups (Maglione 2017).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Maglione 2017

  • The evidence in that review was of low certainty due to high heterogeneity and imprecision detected through meta-analysis.

    “However, the evidence identified was of low certainty due to the high levels of heterogeneity and imprecision detected through meta‐analysis.”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Maglione 2017

  • Maglione 2017 pooled data from six of 10 included studies and showed no significant effect of mindfulness meditation versus comparator interventions (odds ratio 2.52, 95% CI 0.76 to 8.29; I2 = 58%; 936 participants).

    “Pooled data from six of the 10 studies included by Maglione 2017 showed no significant effect of mindfulness meditation versus comparator interventions (odds ratio 2.52, 95% CI 0.76 to 8.29; I2 = 58%; 936 participants).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Maglione 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Maglione, M. A., Maher, A. R., Ewing, B., Colaiaco, B., Newberry, S., Kandrack, R., Shanman, R. M., Sorbero, M. E., & Hempel, S.
Affiliations
RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Maglione, Margaret A.
ORCID
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
69
Pages
27-34
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.022
OpenAlex
W2579126547
Cited by
101
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, smoking cessation, nicotine craving, tobacco use reduction, abstinence, adjunctive intervention, usual care, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Humans, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Meditation, Mindfulness

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