Cited by 390Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Brief opportunistic smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare advice to quit and offer of assistance

Aveyard, Paul, Begh, Rachna, Parsons, Amanda, West, Robert·2012·Addiction

Abstract

AIMS: This study aimed to assess the effects of opportunistic brief physician advice to stop smoking and offer of assistance on incidence of attempts to stop and quit success in smokers not selected by motivation to quit. METHODS: We included relevant trials from the Cochrane Reviews of physician advice for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion. We extracted data on quit attempts and quit success. Estimates were combined using the Mantel-Haentszel method and heterogeneity assessed with the I(2) statistic. Study quality was assessed by method of randomization, allocation concealment and follow-up blind to allocation. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Compared to no intervention, advice to quit on medical grounds increased the frequency of quit attempts [risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-1.33], but not as much as behavioural support for cessation (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.52-3.11) or offering NRT (RR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.48-1.89). In a direct comparison, offering assistance generated more quit attempts than giving advice to quit on medical grounds (RR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.24-2.31 for behavioural support and 1.39, 95% CI: 1.25-1.54 for offering medication). There was evidence that medical advice increased the success of quit attempts and inconclusive evidence that offering assistance increased their success. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians may be more effective in promoting attempts to stop smoking by offering assistance to all smokers than by advising smokers to quit and offering assistance only to those who express an interest in doing so.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03770.x

Cites

67 of 67 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aveyard, P., Begh, R., Parsons, A., & West, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Aveyard, Paul
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-28
Volume
107
Issue
6
Pages
1066-1073
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W1740591447
Cited by
390
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (14135)
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007489/1)
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, behavioral support, nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion, quit attempts
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Behavior Therapy, Counseling, Health Promotion, Humans, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Use Cessation Devices

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