Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 23;19(6):e230. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7209

Table 2.

Effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and outcome information of smoking cessation interventions in the scientific literature (n=6)

Intervention Effectiveness RR (95% CI) Percentage abstinent, n (%)a Control group Outcome measure CEb
Quit Smoking 2.0 [33] Yes 2.48 (1.11-5.55) Int: 224 (8.5), Con: 234 (3.4) Nontailored email 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months follow-up NR
SQ4U [34,35] Yes AP+: 1.37 (0.97-1.92); AP: 1.49 (1.07-2.06) Int (AP+): 53 (7.6), Con: 45 (7.1); Int (AP): 63 (9.0), Con: 45 (7.1) Questionnaires only Continued abstinence at 12 months follow-up NR
PAS [22,36] Yes 1.50 (0.77-2.94) Int: 20 (15.2); Con: 12 (10.1) Usual care Prolonged abstinence at 12-month follow-up Yes
Smoke Alertc [37] NR NA NA NA NA NR
STQ [38-41] Yes Video: 1.54 (1.08-2.22); text: 1.15 (0.78-1.69) Int (video): 66 (9.9), Con: 46 (6.4); Int (text): 52 (7.3), Con: 46 (6.2) Nontailored generic advice Prolonged abstinence at 12-month follow-up Yes
ABMc [32] No NR, for subgroup: 2.33 (1.14-4.76) Int (subgroup): 22 (14.2); Con: 10 (6.1) Placebo-training, continued assessments Continued abstinence at 6 months follow-up NR

a Percentage abstinent: n (%) in the intervention condition (Int) and in the control condition (Con).

b CE: Cost effectiveness (yes, no, NR=not reported). If yes, this is detailed in the text.

c Shown effective in Te Poel et al [33].

d Shown effective for subgroup heavy smokers [37].