Do counselor techniques predict quitting during smoking cessation treatment? A component analysis of telephone-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

Telehealth acceptance and commitment therapy for weight loss: Protocol of the WeLNES full scale randomized controlled trial

Behavioral interventions delivered via one-on-one telephone coaching (hereafter referred to as telehealth) for weight loss have had great population-level reach but to date limited efficacy. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) has promise to improve behavioral weight loss treatment efficacy by addressing the fundamental challenges of weight loss and maintenance: overeating in response to internal (e.g., stress) and external (e.g., high calorie foods) cues. Here we describe the Weight Loss, Nutrition, and Exercise Study (WeLNES) randomized controlled trial that is testing the efficacy of an ACT-based telehealth coaching intervention for weight loss in comparison to a Standard Behavioral Therapy (SBT)-based telehealth coaching intervention. A total of 398 adults with overweight or obesity are being recruited and randomized to either ACT or SBT telehealth coaching. Participants in both arms are offered twenty-five telehealth coaching sessions in year one and nine booster sessions in year two. All participants receive a Bluetooth-enabled scale to self-monitor weight and a Fitbit Inspire + Fitbit app for tracking diet and physical activity. The primary aim is to determine whether a greater proportion of ACT participants will achieve a clinically significant weight loss of ≥10% compared with SBT participants at 12-months. Secondary outcomes include change in weight from baseline to 6, 12, and 24-months. Whether the effect of ACT on weight loss is mediated by ACT processes and is moderated by baseline factors will also be examined. If ACT proves efficacious, ACT telehealth coaching will offer an effective, broadly scalable weight loss treatment-thereby making a high public health impact.

Mindfulness for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions may aid smoking cessation by teaching individuals to pay attention to, and work mindfully with, negative affective states, cravings, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Types of mindfulness-based interventions include mindfulness training, which involves training in meditation; acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT); distress tolerance training; and yoga.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation among people who smoke, and whether these interventions have an effect on mental health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries to 15 April 2021. We also employed an automated search strategy, developed as part of the Human Behaviour Change Project, using Microsoft Academic.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared a mindfulness-based intervention for smoking cessation with another smoking cessation programme or no treatment, and assessed smoking cessation at six months or longer. We excluded studies that solely recruited pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking cessation at the longest time point, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of intervention and type of comparator. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We summarised mental health outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies, with 8186 participants. Most recruited adults from the community, and the majority (15 studies) were conducted in the USA. We judged four of the studies to be at low risk of bias, nine at unclear risk, and eight at high risk. Mindfulness-based interventions varied considerably in design and content, as did comparators, therefore, we pooled small groups of relatively comparable studies. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of mindfulness training interventions on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence), less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.19; I² = 60%; 5 studies, 813 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or no treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.53; 1 study, 325 participants; low-certainty evidence). In each comparison, the 95% CI encompassed benefit (i.e. higher quit rates), harm (i.e. lower quit rates) and no difference. In one study of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, we did not detect a clear benefit or harm of the intervention over no treatment (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.67; 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of ACT on quit rates compared with less intensive behavioural treatments, including nicotine replacement therapy alone (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.02; 1 study, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence), brief advice (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.75; 1 study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or less intensive ACT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was a high level of heterogeneity (I² = 82%) across studies comparing ACT with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatments, meaning it was not appropriate to report a pooled result. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of distress tolerance training on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 1 study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of yoga on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.16; 1 study, 55 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially alter the results, nor did using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised. Nine studies reported on changes in mental health and well-being, including depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and negative and positive affect. Variation in measures and methodological differences between studies meant we could not meta-analyse these data. One study found a greater reduction in perceived stress in participants who received a face-to-face mindfulness training programme versus an intensity-matched programme. However, the remaining eight studies found no clinically meaningful differences in mental health and well-being between participants who received mindfulness-based treatments and participants who received another treatment or no treatment (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not detect a clear benefit of mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions for increasing smoking quit rates or changing mental health and well-being. This was the case when compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment, less intensive smoking cessation treatment, or no treatment. However, the evidence was of low and very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, meaning future evidence may very likely change our interpretation of the results. Further RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation compared with active comparators are needed. There is also a need for more consistent reporting of mental health and well-being outcomes in studies of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation.

Full-scale Randomized Trial Comparing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Telephone-Delivered Coaching With Standard Telephone-Delivered Coaching Among Medicare/Uninsured Quitline Callers

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) telephone-delivered coaching with standard quitline (QL) telephone-delivered coaching.

METHODS

Medicare/uninsured adults (analyzable sample N = 1170) who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day were recruited from Optum, a major US provider of QL services, in a two-arm stratified double-blind randomized trial with main outcome of self-reported missing = smoking 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 12-month follow-up. Participants were mean (SD) age 47.4 (12.7), 61% female, and 72% white race. Five sessions of telephone-delivered ACT or QL interventions were offered. Both arms included combined nicotine patch (4 weeks) and gum or lozenge (2 weeks).

RESULTS

The 12-month follow-up data retention rate was 67.8%. ACT participants reported their treatment was more useful for quitting smoking (92.0% for ACT vs. 82.3% for QL; odds ratio [OR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 4.00). Both arms had similar 12-month cessation outcomes (missing = smoking 30-day PPA: 24.6% for ACT vs. 28.8% for QL; OR =.81; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.05) and the ACT arm trended toward greater reductions in number cigarettes smoked per day (-5.6 for ACT vs. -1.7 QL, among smokers; p = .075).

CONCLUSIONS

ACT telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching. ACT may help those who fail to quit after standard coaching or who choose not to use nicotine replacement therapy.

IMPLICATIONS

In a sample of Medicare and uninsured QL callers, a large randomized trial with long-term follow-up showed that ACT) telephone-delivered coaching was more satisfying, engaging, and was as effective as standard QL telephone-delivered coaching-which has followed the same behavior change approach since the 1990s. This newer model of coaching might be a welcome addition to QL services.

Effectiveness of an individual acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation, delivered face-to-face and by telephone to adults recruited in primary health care settings: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of delivering an individual Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for smoking cessation among a Chinese population.

Methods

Participants were recruited from six primary health care centers. A total of 144 were eligible to take part in the study and agreed to be randomized to the intervention (ACT) group (n = 70) and control group (n = 74), respectively. Both groups received self-help materials on smoking cessation. The ACT group also underwent an initial face-to-face session and two telephone ACT sessions at 1 week and 1 month following the first session. They were re-contacted through telephone follow-ups at 3, 6, and 12 months by research assistants. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at the 12-month follow-up session. Other outcomes included biochemically validated quitting, quitting attempts, the intention to quit, the self-perception of quitting, and psychological flexibility.

Results

There was no significant difference in the self-reported 7-day point prevalence quit rate at the 12-month follow-up between the intervention group (24.3%) and the control group (21.6%) (risk ratio = 1.12; 95%CI = (0.62, 2.05); p = 0.704). Greater improvements in secondary outcomes from baseline to the 12-month follow-up were observed in the ACT group than in the control group, including a forward progression in the participants’ readiness to quit smoking (p = 0.014) and increased psychological flexibility (p = 0.022).

Conclusions

This study is the first evidence of a randomized-controlled trial on the adoption of an individual ACT for smoking cessation, delivered initially in primary health care settings and subsequently by telephone within a Chinese population. The present study found that the brief ACT intervention could not produce a significant quit rate but was promising in terms of bringing about cognitive changes, including greater psychological flexibility, and more confidence about quitting, when compared to the use of self-help materials only among the general population.

Trial registration

This trial was registered prospectively with the U.S. National Library of Medicine: (NCT01652508) on 26th July 2012.

Formative, multimethod case studies of learn to quit, an acceptance and commitment therapy smoking cessation app designed for people with serious mental illness

Despite public health efforts, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) still have very high rates of tobacco smoking. Innovative approaches to reach this population are needed. These series of case studies aimed to descriptively evaluate the usability, user experience (UX), and user engagement (UE) of Learn to Quit (LTQ), an acceptance and commitment therapy smoking cessation app designed for people with SMI, and to compare it with an app designed for the general population, NCI (National Cancer Institute) QuitGuide (QG). Both apps were combined with nicotine replacement therapy and technical coaching. Inspired by the ORBIT model, we implemented two case studies with crossover AB interventions, two B-phase training designs, and three bi-phasic AB single-case designs with Start-Point and Order randomization (A = QG, B = LTQ). Study outcomes were measured using the System Usability Scale, UX interviews, and background analytics. LTQ's usability levels were above the standard cutoff and on average higher than QG. UX outcomes suggested the relative benefits of LTQ's visual design, gamification and simple design structure. LTQ's overall UE was high; the app was opened for an average of 14 min per day (vs. QG: 7 min). However, users showed low levels of UE with each of the app's tracking feature. Measures of psychiatric functioning suggested the safety of LTQ in people with SMI. LTQ appears to be a usable and engaging smoking cessation app in people with SMI. An optimized version of LTQ should be tested in a Phase II study.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I² = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I² = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

A Controlled Pilot Trial of PainTracker Self-Manager, a Web-Based Platform Combined With Patient Coaching, to Support Patients' Self-Management of Chronic Pain

The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a chronic pain empowerment and self-management platform, derived from acceptance and commitment therapy, in a pain specialty setting. A controlled, sequential, nonrandomized study design was used to accommodate intervention development and to test the efficacy of the PainTracker Self-Manager (PTSM) intervention (Web-based educational modules and outcome tracking combined with tailored patient coaching sessions and provider guidance). Generalized estimating equations evaluated changes over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months) in pain self-efficacy (primary outcome), chronic pain acceptance (activity engagement and pain willingness), perceived efficacy in patient-provider interactions, pain intensity and interference, and overall satisfaction with pain treatment (secondary outcomes) between intervention (n = 48) and usual care control groups (n = 51). The full study sample (N = 99) showed greater improvements over time (significant Group × Time interactions) in pain self-efficacy and satisfaction with pain treatment. Among study completers (n = 82), greater improvement in activity engagement as well as pain intensity and interference were also observed. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of the PTSM intervention in a pain specialty setting. Further research is needed to refine and expand the PTSM intervention and to test it in a randomized trial in primary care settings.

PERSPECTIVE

We developed a Web-based patient empowerment platform that combined acceptance and commitment therapy-based educational modules and tailored coaching sessions with longitudinal tracking of treatments and patient-reported outcomes, named PTSM. Pilot controlled trial results provide preliminary support for its efficacy in improving pain self-efficacy, activity engagement, pain intensity and interference, and satisfaction with pain treatment.

User-Centered Design of Learn to Quit, a Smoking Cessation Smartphone App for People With Serious Mental Illness

Background

Smoking rates in the United States have been reduced in the past decades to 15% of the general population. However, up to 88% of people with psychiatric symptoms still smoke, leading to high rates of disease and mortality. Therefore, there is a great need to develop smoking cessation interventions that have adequate levels of usability and can reach this population.

Objective

The objective of this study was to report the rationale, ideation, design, user research, and final specifications of a novel smoking cessation app for people with serious mental illness (SMI) that will be tested in a feasibility trial.

Methods

We used a variety of user-centered design methods and materials to develop the tailored smoking cessation app. This included expert panel guidance, a set of design principles and theory-based smoking cessation content, development of personas and paper prototyping, usability testing of the app prototype, establishment of app’s core vision and design specification, and collaboration with a software development company.

Results

We developed Learn to Quit, a smoking cessation app designed and tailored to individuals with SMI that incorporates the following: (1) evidence-based smoking cessation content from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and US Clinical Practice Guidelines for smoking cessation aimed at providing skills for quitting while addressing mental health symptoms, (2) a set of behavioral principles to increase retention and comprehension of smoking cessation content, (3) a gamification component to encourage and sustain app engagement during a 14-day period, (4) an app structure and layout designed to minimize usability errors in people with SMI, and (5) a set of stories and visuals that communicate smoking cessation concepts and skills in simple terms.

Conclusions

Despite its increasing importance, the design and development of mHealth technology is typically underreported, hampering scientific innovation. This report describes the systematic development of the first smoking cessation app tailored to people with SMI, a population with very high rates of nicotine addiction, and offers new design strategies to engage this population. mHealth developers in smoking cessation and related fields could benefit from a design strategy that capitalizes on the role visual engagement, storytelling, and the systematic application of behavior analytic principles to deliver evidence-based content.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy modules: Differential impact on treatment processes and outcomes

A modular, transdiagnostic approach to treatment design and implementation may increase the public health impact of evidence-based psychosocial interventions. Such an approach relies on algorithms for selecting and implementing treatment components intended to have a specific therapeutic effect, yet there is little evidence for how components function independent of their treatment packages when employed in clinical service settings. This study aimed to demonstrate the specificity of treatment effects for two components of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), a promising candidate for modularization. A randomized, nonconcurrent, multiple-baseline across participants design was used to examine component effects on treatment processes and outcomes in 15 adults seeking mental health treatment. The ACT OPEN module targeted acceptance and cognitive defusion; the ACT ENGAGED module targeted values-based activation and persistence. According to Tau-U analyses, both modules produced significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and targeted therapeutic processes. ACT ENGAGED demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and values-based activation. ACT OPEN showed greater improvements in symptom severity, acceptance, and defusion. Both modules improved awareness and non-reactivity, which were mutually targeted, though using distinct intervention procedures. Both interventions demonstrated high treatment acceptability, completion, and patient satisfaction. Treatment effects were maintained at 3-month follow up. ACT components should be considered for inclusion in a modular approach to implementing evidence-based psychosocial interventions for adults.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.