Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider

A meta-analysis

Walter A. Mojica, Marika J. Suttorp, Scott Sherman, Sally C. Morton, Elizabeth A. Roth, Margaret A. Maglione, Shannon L. Rhodes, Paul G. Shekelle

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Objective To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider. Methods A random effects meta-regression was estimated to examine the effect of provider and whether the intervention contained nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), on the intervention's relative risk of quitting as compared to placebo or usual care from studies published in databases from inception to 2000. Thirty additional studies not included in the previous 1996 and 2000 U.S. Public Health Service clinical practice guidelines were used to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the comparative effectiveness of different types of providers in interventions for smoking cessation that have been published. Results The effectiveness without NRT follows: psychologist (1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-3.62); physician (1.87, CI=1.42-2.45); counselor (1.82, CI=0.84-3.96); nurse (1.76, CI=1.21-2.57); unknown (1.27, CI=0.57-2.82); other (1.18, CI=0.67-2.10); and self-help (1.28, CI=0.89-1.82). Effectiveness of most providers increased by almost twofold with the use of NRT. Conclusions Smoking-cessation interventions without NRT delivered by psychologists, physicians, or nurses are all effective. NRT increases the effectiveness of most providers.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)391-401
    Number of pages11
    JournalAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine
    Volume26
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jun 1 2004

    Fingerprint

    Smoking Cessation
    Meta-Analysis
    Nicotine
    Confidence Intervals
    Nurses
    Psychology
    Physicians
    Therapeutics
    United States Public Health Service
    Practice Guidelines
    Placebos
    Databases

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Epidemiology
    • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

    Cite this

    Mojica, W. A., Suttorp, M. J., Sherman, S., Morton, S. C., Roth, E. A., Maglione, M. A., ... Shekelle, P. G. (2004). Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26(5), 391-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.014

    Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider : A meta-analysis. / Mojica, Walter A.; Suttorp, Marika J.; Sherman, Scott; Morton, Sally C.; Roth, Elizabeth A.; Maglione, Margaret A.; Rhodes, Shannon L.; Shekelle, Paul G.

    In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 26, No. 5, 01.06.2004, p. 391-401.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Mojica, WA, Suttorp, MJ, Sherman, S, Morton, SC, Roth, EA, Maglione, MA, Rhodes, SL & Shekelle, PG 2004, 'Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider: A meta-analysis', American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 391-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.014
    Mojica WA, Suttorp MJ, Sherman S, Morton SC, Roth EA, Maglione MA et al. Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004 Jun 1;26(5):391-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.014
    Mojica, Walter A. ; Suttorp, Marika J. ; Sherman, Scott ; Morton, Sally C. ; Roth, Elizabeth A. ; Maglione, Margaret A. ; Rhodes, Shannon L. ; Shekelle, Paul G. / Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider : A meta-analysis. In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004 ; Vol. 26, No. 5. pp. 391-401.
    @article{eccdd3e609e242848d772dc4d0bf7692,
    title = "Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider: A meta-analysis",
    abstract = "Objective To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider. Methods A random effects meta-regression was estimated to examine the effect of provider and whether the intervention contained nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), on the intervention's relative risk of quitting as compared to placebo or usual care from studies published in databases from inception to 2000. Thirty additional studies not included in the previous 1996 and 2000 U.S. Public Health Service clinical practice guidelines were used to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the comparative effectiveness of different types of providers in interventions for smoking cessation that have been published. Results The effectiveness without NRT follows: psychologist (1.94, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-3.62); physician (1.87, CI=1.42-2.45); counselor (1.82, CI=0.84-3.96); nurse (1.76, CI=1.21-2.57); unknown (1.27, CI=0.57-2.82); other (1.18, CI=0.67-2.10); and self-help (1.28, CI=0.89-1.82). Effectiveness of most providers increased by almost twofold with the use of NRT. Conclusions Smoking-cessation interventions without NRT delivered by psychologists, physicians, or nurses are all effective. NRT increases the effectiveness of most providers.",
    author = "Mojica, {Walter A.} and Suttorp, {Marika J.} and Scott Sherman and Morton, {Sally C.} and Roth, {Elizabeth A.} and Maglione, {Margaret A.} and Rhodes, {Shannon L.} and Shekelle, {Paul G.}",
    year = "2004",
    month = "6",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.014",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "26",
    pages = "391--401",
    journal = "American Journal of Preventive Medicine",
    issn = "0749-3797",
    publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
    number = "5",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider

    T2 - A meta-analysis

    AU - Mojica, Walter A.

    AU - Suttorp, Marika J.

    AU - Sherman, Scott

    AU - Morton, Sally C.

    AU - Roth, Elizabeth A.

    AU - Maglione, Margaret A.

    AU - Rhodes, Shannon L.

    AU - Shekelle, Paul G.

    PY - 2004/6/1

    Y1 - 2004/6/1

    N2 - Objective To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider. Methods A random effects meta-regression was estimated to examine the effect of provider and whether the intervention contained nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), on the intervention's relative risk of quitting as compared to placebo or usual care from studies published in databases from inception to 2000. Thirty additional studies not included in the previous 1996 and 2000 U.S. Public Health Service clinical practice guidelines were used to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the comparative effectiveness of different types of providers in interventions for smoking cessation that have been published. Results The effectiveness without NRT follows: psychologist (1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-3.62); physician (1.87, CI=1.42-2.45); counselor (1.82, CI=0.84-3.96); nurse (1.76, CI=1.21-2.57); unknown (1.27, CI=0.57-2.82); other (1.18, CI=0.67-2.10); and self-help (1.28, CI=0.89-1.82). Effectiveness of most providers increased by almost twofold with the use of NRT. Conclusions Smoking-cessation interventions without NRT delivered by psychologists, physicians, or nurses are all effective. NRT increases the effectiveness of most providers.

    AB - Objective To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider. Methods A random effects meta-regression was estimated to examine the effect of provider and whether the intervention contained nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), on the intervention's relative risk of quitting as compared to placebo or usual care from studies published in databases from inception to 2000. Thirty additional studies not included in the previous 1996 and 2000 U.S. Public Health Service clinical practice guidelines were used to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the comparative effectiveness of different types of providers in interventions for smoking cessation that have been published. Results The effectiveness without NRT follows: psychologist (1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-3.62); physician (1.87, CI=1.42-2.45); counselor (1.82, CI=0.84-3.96); nurse (1.76, CI=1.21-2.57); unknown (1.27, CI=0.57-2.82); other (1.18, CI=0.67-2.10); and self-help (1.28, CI=0.89-1.82). Effectiveness of most providers increased by almost twofold with the use of NRT. Conclusions Smoking-cessation interventions without NRT delivered by psychologists, physicians, or nurses are all effective. NRT increases the effectiveness of most providers.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2542518471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2542518471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.014

    DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.014

    M3 - Article

    VL - 26

    SP - 391

    EP - 401

    JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    SN - 0749-3797

    IS - 5

    ER -