• Meng Xu, Kangle Guo, Xue Shang, Liying Zhou, Fenfen E, Chaoqun Yang, Yanan Wu, Xiuxia Li, and Kehu Yang.
• Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China. Electronic address: xumeng7720@163.com.
• Am J Prev Med. 2023 Aug 1; 65 (2): 327336327-336.

IntroductionSmoking is a risk factor for most chronic diseases and premature death, with a global prevalence of more than 1 billion people who smoke. This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of different behavioral interventions on smoking cessation.MethodsFour electronic databases were searched for RCTs from inception to August 29, 2022. The risk of bias for the included RCTs was evaluated using the revised version of Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16SE and R 4.1.3 software.ResultsA total of 119 included RCTs enrolled 118,935 participants. For the 7-day-point prevalence abstinence rate, video counseling had a best intervention effect than brief advice, followed by financial incentives, self-help materials plus telephone counseling, motivational interview, health education, telephone counseling, and text messages. For the 30-day-point prevalence abstinence rate, face-to-face cognitive education and financial incentives were superior to brief advice. For the continuous abstinence rate, motivational interview and financial incentives were more effective than brief advice. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate for these studies.DiscussionFrom the results of the network meta-analysis, different behavioral interventions resulted in positive impacts on smoking cessation compared with that of brief advice, especially video counseling, face-to-face cognitive education, and motivational interviews. Owing to the poor quality of evidence, high-quality trials should be conducted in the future to provide more robust evidence.Copyright © 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…