Summary of findings 6. Provider incentives in addition to standard smoking cessation treatment in primary care.
| Provider incentives in addition to standard smoking cessation treatment in primary care | ||||||
| Patient or population: people who attend primary care and smoke tobacco Setting: primary care (Germany, USA) Intervention: provider incentives plus standard or multicomponent smoking cessation support Comparison: standard or multicomponent smoking cessation support | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with placebo | Risk with provider incentives (provider‐level) | |||||
| Smoking abstinence at 6‐month follow‐up or more | Study population | RR 1.14 (0.97 to 1.34) | 2454 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWa,b | ‐ | |
| 18 per 100 | 21 per 100 (17 to 24) | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the 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 effect | ||||||
aDowngraded one level due to risk of bias: both included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. bDowngraded two levels due to imprecision: CIs incorporate the potential of both benefit and harm.