Cited by 87Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Efficacy of Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Young Adults

Open access
Suls, Jerry M., Luger, Tana M., Curry, Susan J., Mermelstein, Robin J., Sporer, Amy K., An, Larry C.·2012·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Context Approximately 22% of U.S. young adults (aged 18-24 years) are smokers. Young adults typically display an interest in quitting, but it is unknown whether the evidence-based cessation programs designed for adults will be equally effective for young adults. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of smoking-cessation programs for this population. Evidence acquisition In 2009-2011, studies published between 2004 and 2008 that investigated smoking cessation were first found through the DHHS Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence as well as a PubMed search (2009-2010) and were then subjected to a rigorous inclusion process. Authors were contacted to glean raw data for young adults. Fourteen studies provided data that were coded for descriptive information and aggregated using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 2.0. Evidence synthesis Among young adults, any type of intervention was more effective in producing successful smoking cessation than the control. This was the case for intent-to-treat analyses as well as complete cases. When interventions were effective for the larger adult sample, they were also effective for the younger adult sample. Conclusions Although young adults tend to underutilize evidence-based cessation treatments, the current meta-analysis showed that these treatments should be as effective for young adults as they are for the general adult population. Thus, it may be useful to focus on motivating young adults to seek cessation treatment to increase utilization.

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 · 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.013

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Any type of intervention for smoking cessation is more effective than no intervention in producing successful smoking cessation (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.16-2.06).

    “Another review evaluating any intervention for smoking cessation suggests that any type of intervention is more effective in producing successful smoking cessation compared to no intervention (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.16–2.06) [48].”

    From Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Meta-Analytic Results for All Studies report greater smoking-cessation odds with interventions among young adults, with the stated estimate and confidence interval. But the paper labels the estimate an odds ratio (OR), not a risk ratio (RR), and compares interventions with control groups rather than specifying that every control received no intervention. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]MMWR Cigarette smoking among adults—2007 2008 57 1221 1226 19008790
  2. [11]Fagan P Augustson E Backinger C O'Connell ME Vollinger RE Kaufman A Gibson JT Quit attempts and intentions to quit cigarette smoking among young adults in the U.S Am J Public Health 2007 97 1412 1420 17600244 PMC1931471
  3. [21]Dornelas EA Magnavita JJ Beazoglou T Efficacy and cost-effectiveness tested in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant smokers Patient Educ Couns 2006 64 342 349 16859864

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suls, J. M., Luger, T. M., Curry, S. J., Mermelstein, R. J., Sporer, A. K., & An, L. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Suls, Jerry M.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
655-662
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W74361765
Cited by
87
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA134861)
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, young adults, smoking cessation interventions, tobacco dependence treatment, treatment efficacy, treatment utilization, tobacco use
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Female, Humans, Male, United States, Smoking Cessation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult

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