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 E.
AU - Morton, Sally C.
AU - Roth, Elizabeth A.
AU - Maglione, Margaret A.
AU - Rhodes, Shannon L.
AU - Shekelle, Paul G.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by a contract (500-98-0281) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), to RAND Health. The authors of this article are responsible for its content. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of CMS or of the USDHHS.
PY - 2004/6
Y1 - 2004/6
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
C2 - 15165655
AN - SCOPUS:2542518471
SN - 0749-3797
VL - 26
SP - 391
EP - 401
JO - American journal of preventive medicine
JF - American journal of preventive medicine
IS - 5
ER -