Skip to main content
. 2019 May 2;2019(5):CD002850. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub4

Comparison 10. Other studies.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Cessation at longest follow‐up 10   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Family‐supported vs standard telephone counseling 1 471 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.02 [0.72, 1.45]
1.2 Parental focused telephone counseling vs nutrition counseling 1 327 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.01 [0.97, 4.17]
1.3 Brief motivational vs standard telephone counseling 1 374 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.63 [1.12, 6.14]
1.4 Smoking reduction vs brief motivational telephone counseling 1 371 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.88 [0.47, 1.68]
1.5 Smoking reduction vs standard telephone counseling 1 375 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.32 [0.98, 5.52]
1.6 Nondirective vs directive telephone coaching 1 518 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.15 [0.82, 1.62]
1.7 Tailored telephone counseling vs state tobacco quitline referral 1 63 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.03 [0.47, 2.25]
1.8 Brief quitline facilitation vs brief cessation advice 1 600 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.62 [0.96, 2.72]
1.9 Smoking‐reduction vs exercise & diet telephone counseling 1 369 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.86 [0.93, 8.81]
1.10 Medication adherence vs standard telephone counseling 1 987 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.98 [0.83, 1.15]
1.11 Automated telephone follow‐up vs standard care 1 440 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.22 [0.92, 1.60]
1.12 Coverage for telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy vs pharmacotherapy alone 1 266 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.68 [0.38, 1.18]