Stead Lindsay F, Hartmann-Boyce Jamie, Perera Rafael, Lancaster Tim
Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 12(8):CD002850. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub3.
Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.
To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive telephone support via helplines and in other settings to help smokers quit.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2013.
randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters.
One author identified and data extracted trials, and a second author checked them. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio for abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We selected the strictest measure of abstinence, using biochemically validated rates where available. We considered participants lost to follow-up to be continuing smokers. Where trials had more than one arm with a less intensive intervention we used only the most similar intervention without the telephone component as the control group in the primary analysis. We assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. We considered trials recruiting callers to quitlines separately from studies recruiting in other settings. Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. We used a meta-regression to investigate the effect of differences in planned number of calls, selection for motivation, and the nature of the control condition (self help only, minimal intervention, pharmacotherapy) in the group of studies recruiting in non-quitline settings.
Seventy-seven trials met the inclusion criteria. Some trials were judged to be at risk of bias in some domains but overall we did not judge the results to be at high risk of bias. Among smokers who contacted helplines, quit rates were higher for groups randomized to receive multiple sessions of proactive counselling (nine studies, > 24,000 participants, risk ratio (RR) for cessation at longest follow-up 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 1.50). There was mixed evidence about whether increasing the number of calls altered quit rates but most trials used more than two calls. Three studies comparing different counselling approaches during a single quitline contact did not detect significant differences. Of three studies that tested the provision of access to a hotline two detected a significant benefit and one did not.Telephone counselling not initiated by calls to helplines also increased quitting (51 studies, > 30,000 participants, RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.36). In a meta-regression controlling for other factors the effect was estimated to be slightly larger if more calls were offered, and in trials that specifically recruited smokers motivated to try to quit. The relative extra benefit of counselling was smaller when it was provided in addition to pharmacotherapy (usually nicotine replacement therapy) than when the control group only received self-help material or a brief intervention.A further eight studies were too diverse to contribute to meta-analyses and are discussed separately. Two compared different intensities of counselling, both of which detected a dose response; one of these detected a benefit of multiple counselling sessions over a single call for people prescribed bupropion. The others tested a variety of interventions largely involving offering telephone counselling as part of a referral or systems change and none detected evidence of effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines. Telephone quitlines provide an important route of access to support for smokers, and call-back counselling enhances their usefulness. There is limited evidence about the optimal number of calls. Proactive telephone counselling also helps people who receive it in other settings. There is some evidence of a dose response; one or two brief calls are less likely to provide a measurable benefit. Three or more calls increase the chances of quitting compared to a minimal intervention such as providing standard self-help materials, or brief advice, or compared to pharmacotherapy alone.
电话服务可为吸烟者提供信息和支持。戒烟热线可为来电者主动提供咨询服务,也可在来电后提供咨询服务。
评估通过热线及其他途径提供主动和被动电话支持对帮助吸烟者戒烟的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane烟草成瘾小组专业注册库中有关电话咨询的研究,检索词包括“热线”或“戒烟热线”或“帮助热线”。最近一次检索日期为2013年5月。
随机或半随机对照试验,向吸烟者或近期戒烟者提供主动或被动电话咨询以帮助戒烟。
由一位作者识别并提取试验数据,另一位作者进行核对。主要结局指标是至少随访6个月后的戒烟风险比。我们选择最严格的戒烟衡量标准,如有可用的经生化验证的戒烟率则采用该数据。我们将失访的参与者视为继续吸烟者。如果试验有多个干预强度较低的组,在主要分析中我们仅将最相似但不包含电话咨询部分的干预组作为对照组。我们使用I²统计量评估临床可比研究亚组间的统计学异质性。我们将招募戒烟热线来电者的试验与在其他环境中招募参与者的试验分开考虑。在适当情况下,我们使用固定效应模型合并研究。我们使用Meta回归研究在非戒烟热线环境中招募的研究组中,计划通话次数、动机选择以及对照条件(仅自助、最小干预、药物治疗)差异的影响。
77项试验符合纳入标准。一些试验在某些领域被判定存在偏倚风险,但总体而言我们认为结果不存在高偏倚风险。在联系过帮助热线的吸烟者中,随机接受多次主动咨询的组戒烟率更高(9项研究,超过24,000名参与者,最长随访期戒烟的风险比(RR)为1.37,95%置信区间(CI)为1.26至1.50)。关于增加通话次数是否会改变戒烟率,证据不一,但大多数试验使用了超过两次的通话。三项比较单次戒烟热线接触期间不同咨询方法的研究未发现显著差异。在三项测试提供热线接入的研究中,两项发现有显著益处,一项未发现。非通过热线来电发起的电话咨询也能提高戒烟率(51项研究,超过30,000名参与者,RR 1.27;95% CI 1.20至1.36)。在控制其他因素的Meta回归中,估计如果提供更多通话,以及在专门招募有戒烟动机吸烟者的试验中,效果会稍大。与仅提供自助材料或简短建议的最小干预相比,或与单独的药物治疗相比,在药物治疗(通常是尼古丁替代疗法)基础上提供咨询的相对额外益处较小。另外八项研究过于多样化,无法纳入Meta分析,将单独讨论。两项研究比较了不同强度的咨询,均发现了剂量反应;其中一项发现,对于服用安非他酮的人,多次咨询疗程比单次通话更有益。其他研究测试了各种干预措施,主要包括将电话咨询作为转诊或系统变革的一部分提供,但均未发现有效果的证据。
主动电话咨询有助于向戒烟热线寻求帮助的吸烟者。电话戒烟热线为吸烟者提供了获得支持的重要途径,回电咨询增强了其效用。关于最佳通话次数的证据有限。主动电话咨询对在其他环境中接受咨询的人也有帮助。有一些剂量反应的证据;一两次简短通话不太可能带来可衡量的益处。与提供标准自助材料、简短建议等最小干预措施相比,或与单独的药物治疗相比,三次或更多次通话可增加戒烟几率。