8. Summary of findings table: mode of delivery of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation.
| Benefits: mode of delivery of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation | |||||||
|
Population: adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who smoke cigarettes Components: delivery modes 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 | |||||
| Group | 15,574 (75 RCTs) |
OR 1.16 (0.96 to 1.40) |
60 per 1000 | 69 per 1000 (58 to 83) | 9 per 1000 (–2 to 23) |
Lowa,b | — |
| Individual | 88,569 (185 RCTs) |
OR 0.90 (0.76 to 1.07) |
60 per 1000 | 55 per 1000 (47 to 64) | –5 per 1000 (–13 to 4) |
Very lowc,d | — |
| Face‐to‐face | 65,044 (177 RCTs) |
OR 1.04 (0.86 to 1.25) |
60 per 1000 | 63 per 1000 (52 to 75) | 3 per 1000 (–8 to 15) |
Very lowc,e | — |
| Telephone | 47,029 (94 RCTs) |
OR 0.98 (0.83 to 1.15) |
60 per 1000 | 59 per 1000 (51 to 69) | –1 per 1000 (–9 to 9) |
Very lowe,f | — |
| Internet/computer | 41,002 (50 RCTs) |
OR 1.08 (0.89 to 1.31) |
60 per 1000 | 65 per 1000 (54 to 78) | 5 per 1000 (–6 to 18) |
Very lowe,g | — |
| 115,067 (170 RCTs) |
OR 1.01 (0.88 to 1.15) |
60 per 1000 | 61 per 1000 (53 to 69) | 1 per 1000 (–7 to 9) |
Lowe | — | |
| SMS (text‐message) | 14,161 (22 RCTs) |
OR 1.45 (1.17 to 1.80) |
60 per 1000 | 85 per 1000 (70 to 104) | 25 per 1000 (10 to 44) |
Moderateh | — |
| App | 1083 (3 RCTs) |
OR 1.26 (0.62 to 2.57) |
60 per 1000 | 75 per 1000 (38 to 142) | 15 per 1000 (–22 to 82) |
Very lowe,i | — |
| Video (static) | 10,254 (20 RCTs) |
OR 0.83 (0.65 to 1.07) |
60 per 1000 | 51 per 1000 (40 to 65) | –9 per 1000 (–20 to 5) |
Lowe | — |
| Video (interactive) | 1802 (3 RCTs) |
OR 0.99 (0.43 to 2.27) |
60 per 1000 | 60 per 1000 (27 to 127) | 0 per 1000 (–33 to 67) |
Lowe | — |
| Audio | 5039 (11 RCTs) |
OR 1.32 (0.91 to 1.92) |
60 per 1000 | 78 per 1000 (55 to 110) | 18 per 1000 (–5 to 50) |
Lowe | — |
| Interactive voice response | 1293 (5 RCTs) |
OR 1.19 (0.79 to 1.81) |
60 per 1000 | 71 per 1000 (48 to 104) | 11 per 1000 (–12 to 44) |
Lowe | — |
| Quitline access | 6771 (10 RCTs) |
OR 0.83 (0.62 to 1.12) |
60 per 1000 | 51 per 1000 (38 to 67) | –9 per 1000 (–22 to 7) |
Very lowe,j | — |
| 1847 (4 RCTs) |
OR 1.61 (0.92 to 2.80) |
60 per 1000 | 94 per 1000 (56 to 153) | 34 per 1000 (–4 to 93) |
Lowe | — | |
|
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 one level due to imprecision: CrIs encompassed no difference as well as clinically significant benefit. bDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: 26/75 trials contributed data at high risk of bias, and pair‐wise meta‐analyses downgraded based on risk of bias issues (Stead 2017). cDowngraded two levels due to inconsistency: component effect estimates not consistent with high‐ and moderate‐certainty evidence from pair‐wise meta‐analyses suggesting clinically significant benefit of face‐to‐face and individual delivery modes (Lancaster 2017; Stead 2017). dDowngraded one level due to imprecision: CrIs encompassed no difference as well as clinically significant harm. eDowngraded two levels due to imprecision: CrIs encompassed clinically significant benefit as well as clinically significant harm. fDowngraded one level due to inconsistency: substantial unexplained heterogeneity detected in pair‐wise comparison (I2 = 52%) (Matkin 2019). gDowngraded one level due to inconsistency: pair‐wise meta‐analyses indicated multiple analyses with substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity (Taylor 2017). hDowngraded one level due to inconsistency: substantial unexplained heterogeneity detected in pair‐wise comparison (I2 = 71%) (Whittaker 2019). iDowngraded one level due to inconsistency: pair‐wise meta‐analysis indicated substantial heterogeneity (Whittaker 2019). jDowngraded two levels due to inconsistency: component effect estimates not consistent with evidence from pair‐wise meta‐analysis (two trials) suggesting clinically significant benefit of quitline access (Matkin 2019).