7. Summary of findings table: person delivering behavioural interventions for smoking cessation.
| Benefits: person delivering behavioural interventions for smoking cessation | |||||||
|
Population: adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who smoke cigarettes Components: providers of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation Comparator: minimal intervention (no smoking cessation support) Outcome: smoking cessation at 6–34 months Setting: healthcare and community, predominantly USA and Western Europe | |||||||
| Component | No participants (studies) | Relative effect* (95% CrI) | Anticipated absolute effect** | Certainty of the evidence | Notes | ||
| Without intervention | With intervention | Difference | |||||
| Nurse (general) | 4900 (18 RCTs) |
OR 0.92 (0.68 to 1.27) |
60 per 1000 | 56 per 1000 (42 to 75) |
–4 per 1000 (–18 to 15) |
Very lowa,b | — |
| Nurse (specialist) | 6836 (16 RCTs) |
OR 0.91 (0.63 to 1.3) |
60 per 1000 | 55 per 1000 (39 to 77) |
–5 per 1000 (–21 to 17) |
Very lowa,b | — |
| Stop smoking advisor | 17,113 (31 RCTs) |
OR 0.77 (0.6 to 0.98) |
60 per 1000 | 47 per 1000 (37 to 59) |
–13 per 1000 (–23 to –1) |
Lowc,d | — |
| Psychologist/counsellor | 22,421 (72 RCTs) |
OR 1.02 (0.85 to 1.22) |
60 per 1000 | 61 per 1000 (52 to 73) |
1 per 1000 (–8 to 13) |
Very lowa,e | — |
| Physician | 27,680 (61 RCTs) |
OR 1.11 (0.88 to 1.4) |
60 per 1000 | 67 per 1000 (53 to 83) |
7 per 1000 (–7 to 23) |
Very lowa,f | — |
| Pharmacist | 936 (4 RCTs) |
OR 1.16 (0.45 to 2.99) |
60 per 1000 | 70 per 1000 (28 to 162) |
10 per 1000 (–32 to 102) |
Very lowa,g | — |
| Dentist | 341 (2 RCTs) |
OR 0.24 (0 to 3.98) |
60 per 1000 | 15 per 1000 (0 to 1000) |
–45 per 1000 (–60 to 940) |
Very lowa,h,i | — |
| Lay health advisor | 2881 (8 RCTs) |
OR 1.34 (0.94 to 1.92) |
60 per 1000 | 80 per 1000 (57 to 110) |
20 per 1000 (–3 to 50) |
Lowa | — |
| Hypnotist | 589 (8 RCTs) |
OR 1.83 (0.89 to 3.77) |
60 per 1000 | 105 per 1000 (54 to 195) |
45 per 1000 (–6 to 135) |
Very lowa,j | — |
| Exercise specialist | 1107 (8 RCTs) |
OR 1.44 (0.82 to 2.52) |
60 per 1000 | 85 per 1000 (50 to 139) |
25 per 1000 (–10 to 79) |
Very lowa,k | — |
|
Network meta‐analysis 'Summary of findings' table definitions *Estimates are reported as odds ratio. Results are expressed in credibility interval as opposed to the confidence intervals since a Bayesian analysis has been conducted. **Anticipated absolute effect compared two risks by calculating the difference between the risks of the intervention component with the risk of the minimal intervention comparator (assumed to be 60 per 1000 based on mean quit rate in minimal intervention arms). CrI: credibility interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial. | |||||||
|
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. | |||||||
aDowngraded two levels due to imprecision: CrIs encompass clinically significant benefit as well as clinically significant harm. bDowngraded one level due to inconsistency: pair‐wise meta‐analyses indicated substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity (Rice 2017). cDowngraded one level due to imprecision: CrIs encompass no difference as well as clinically significant harm. dDowngraded one level due to indirectness: coding of 'stop smoking advisor' was based on author descriptions in individual studies and includes large level of variability across different settings. eDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: majority of studies contributing data judged to be at high risk of bias; removing these reduced the point estimate. fDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: removing studies at high risk of bias clinically significantly decreased point estimate. gDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: risk of bias downgraded 1 level in pair‐wise comparison (Carson‐Chahhoud 2019); removing studies at high risk of bias changed direction of point estimate in component network meta‐analysis. hDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: component effect estimate could not be computed in risk of bias sensitivity analysis due to so few studies at low/unclear risk of bias contributing data for this component. iDowngraded one level due to risk of publication bias: authors of original review consider literature at risk of publication bias (Carr 2012). jDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: original review highlights substantial issues regarding risk of bias (Barnes 2019). kDowngraded one level due to possible publication bias as highlighted by funnel plot in original review (Ussher 2019).