Smoking cessation interventions for adolescents
Abstract
Objective To conduct a systematic review of controlled trials for adolescent smoking cessation. Methods Online bibliographic databases were searched as of June 2002, and reference lists from review articles and the selected articles were also reviewed for potential studies. The methodology and findings of all retrieved articles were critically evaluated. Data were extracted from each article regarding study methods, intervention studied, outcomes measured, and results. Results The abstracts or full-text articles of 281 relevant studies were examined, of which six met the selection criteria. Included were three school-based studies, a study in pregnant adolescent girls, a hospital-based study, and a trial of laser acupuncture. All three of the school-based studies reported significant impacts on cessation rates, although only one of these was a randomized trial. None of the studies had follow-up times of >5.2 months. Conclusions There is very limited evidence demonstrating efficacy of smoking-cessation interventions in adolescents, and no evidence on the long-term effectiveness of such interventions. Smoking-cessation interventions that have proven most effective in adults, such as nicotine replacement and antidepressant use, have not been studied in adolescents in a controlled manner.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in adolescents.
“A review evaluating interventions targeting smoking cessation among adolescents suggests limited evidence demonstrating efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in adolescents and no evidence on the long-term effectiveness of such interventions [50].”
From Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [50]
There is limited evidence demonstrating efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in adolescents.
“A review evaluating interventions targeting smoking cessation among adolescents suggests limited evidence demonstrating efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in adolescents and no evidence on the long-term effectiveness of such interventions [50].”
From Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [50]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 90
- Authors
- Garrison, M. M., Christakis, D. A., Ebel, B. E., Wiehe, S. E., & Rivara, F. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Garrison, Michelle M
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 363-367
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W171509858
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
- Keywords
- adolescent smoking, smoking cessation interventions, school-based intervention, hospital-based intervention, laser acupuncture, nicotine replacement therapy, antidepressants, long-term effectiveness, intervention efficacy
- MeSH terms
- Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Confidence Intervals, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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