Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 228

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomised control study of a fully automated internet based smoking cessation programme

Open access
Swartz, L H G, Noell, J W, Schroeder, S W, Ary, D V·2006·Tobacco Control

Abstract

Objective:The objective of this project was to test the short term (90 days) efficacy of an automated behavioural intervention for smoking cessation, the “1-2-3 Smokefree” programme, delivered via an internet website. Design:Randomised control trial. Subjects surveyed at baseline, immediately post-intervention, and 90 days later. Settings:The study and the intervention occurred entirely via the internet site. Subjects were recruited primarily via worksites, which referred potential subjects to the website. Subjects:The 351 qualifying subjects were notified of the study via their worksite and required to have internet access. Additionally, subjects were required to be over 18 years of age, smoke cigarettes, and be interested in quitting smoking in the next 30 days. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned individually to treatment or control condition by computer algorithm. Intervention:The intervention consisted of a video based internet site that presented current strategies for smoking cessation and motivational materials tailored to the user’s race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Control subjects received nothing for 90 days and were then allowed access to the programme. Main outcome measures:The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at 90 day follow up. Results:At follow up, the cessation rate at 90 days was 24.1% (n = 21) for the treatment group and 8.2% (n = 9) for the control group (p = 0.002). Using an intent-to-treat model, 12.3% (n = 21) of the treatment group were abstinent, compared to 5.0% (n = 9) in the control group (p = 0.015). Conclusions:These evaluation results suggest that a smoking cessation programme, with at least short term efficacy, can be successfully delivered via the internet.

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 · 10.1136/tc.2003.006189

Cites

3 of 3 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

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 3 references

Cited by

See all 228

Metadata

Authors
Swartz, L. H. G., Noell, J. W., Schroeder, S. W., & Ary, D. V.
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-01-24
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
7-12
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
OpenAlex
W2096430391
Cited by
228
References
3
FWCI
12.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomised control study of a fully automated internet based smoking cessation programme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/tc.2003.006189
The paper
Swartz, L. H. G., Noell, J. W., Schroeder, S. W., & Ary, D. V. (2006). A randomised control study of a fully automated internet based smoking cessation programme. Tobacco Control. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2003.006189

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.