CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Online support for smoking cessation: a systematic review of the literature

Open access
Shahab, Lion, McEwen, Andy·2009·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02710.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aim To examine the efficacy and acceptability of online, interactive interventions for smoking cessation and to identify treatment effect moderators and mediators. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the literature (1990–2008) was conducted, finding 11 relevant randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted and risk ratios and risk differences estimated with a random effects model. Results There was no evidence of publication bias. Included trials were of variable methodological quality. Web‐based, tailored, interactive smoking cessation interventions were effective compared with untailored booklet or e‐mail interventions [rate ratio (RR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–2.3] increasing 6‐month abstinence by 17% (95% CI 12–21%). No overall effect of interactive compared with static web‐based interventions was detected but there was significant heterogeneity, with one study obtaining a clear effect and another failing to find one. Few moderating or mediating factors were evaluated in studies and those that were had little effect. Pooled results suggest that only interventions aimed at smokers motivated to quit were effective (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.7). Fully automated interventions increased smoking cessation rates (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–2.0), but evidence was less clear‐cut for non‐automated interventions. Overall, the web‐based interventions evaluated were considered to be acceptable and user satisfaction was generally high. Conclusion Interactive, web‐based interventions for smoking cessation can be effective in aiding cessation. More research is needed to evaluate the relative efficacy of interactive web‐based interventions compared with static websites.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02710.x

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 65 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. World Health Organization (WHO), 1998, Action for Tobacco Control. Guideline for Controlling and Monitoring the Tobacco Epidemic
  2. 2003, Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer Program]
  3. Higgins J., 2005, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shahab, L., & McEwen, A.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Shahab, Lion
ORCID
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-09
Volume
104
Issue
11
Pages
1792-1804
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02710.x
OpenAlex
W1979895518
Cited by
275
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 31
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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, online intervention, interactive intervention, personalized interventions, automated intervention, abstinence rates, treatment acceptability, user satisfaction, treatment moderators
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Pamphlets, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Smoking, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Internet, Intention

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