Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 5;2019(6):CD009670. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub4

Comparison 3. Studies matched for contact time. Abstinence at longest follow‐up point.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Abstinence at longest follow‐up 15 4138 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.02 [0.84, 1.25]
1.1 Family support versus usual care telephone counselling 1 471 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.02 [0.72, 1.45]
1.2 Face‐to‐face, tests attentional training v placebo training 1 119 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.09 [0.48, 2.50]
1.3 ACT versus CBT telephone counselling 1 121 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.35 [0.74, 2.46]
1.4 Positive psychotherapy versus usual care (face‐to‐face) 1 77 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 8.78 [0.49, 157.62]
1.5 Couples treatment versus individual treatment (face‐to‐face) 1 49 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.72 [0.37, 1.43]
1.6 Behavioural activation versus standard treatment (face‐to‐face) 1 68 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 4.72 [0.24, 94.85]
1.7 Culturally tailored versus standard (face‐to‐face) 4 929 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.14 [0.68, 1.92]
1.8 Exercise counselling versus health education (face‐to‐face) 1 30 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.67 [0.23, 1.89]
1.9 Adherence counselling versus standard care (telephone) 1 987 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.98 [0.83, 1.15]
1.10 MIndfulness versus CBT (face‐to‐face) 1 309 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.84 [0.48, 1.45]
1.11 Quitline facilitation session versus brief advice (telephone) 1 600 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.57 [0.62, 4.00]
1.12 Motivational interviewing versus health education 1 378 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.56 [0.33, 0.94]