Kottke T E, Battista R N, DeFriese G H, Brekke M L
Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.
JAMA. 1988 May 20;259(19):2883-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.259.19.2883.
Meta-analysis was used to examine 108 intervention comparisons in 39 controlled smoking cessation trials. Type of intervention (face-to-face advice being better than all others), type of intervenor (both physician and nonphysician counselors better than either alone), the number of reinforcing sessions, and the duration of reinforcing sessions were related to success six months after the initiation of intervention. The number of modalities used by the intervention predicted success with borderline statistical significance. Multivariate analysis predicted that a team of physicians and nonphysicians using multiple intervention modalities to deliver individualized advice on multiple occasions would produce the best result. Program success 12 months after the initiation of intervention was related to the type of intervention session (group and individual sessions combined better than either alone), the number of intervention modalities, and the number of reinforcing sessions. With multivariate adjustment for confounding, the number of intervention modalities alone had a positive association with intervention success.
荟萃分析用于检验39项对照戒烟试验中的108项干预比较。干预类型（面对面建议优于其他所有类型）、干预者类型（医生和非医生顾问均优于单独一方）、强化疗程数量以及强化疗程持续时间与干预开始六个月后的成功率相关。干预使用的方式数量对成功率的预测具有临界统计学意义。多变量分析预测，由医生和非医生组成的团队，多次使用多种干预方式提供个性化建议，将产生最佳效果。干预开始12个月后的项目成功率与干预疗程类型（团体和个体疗程相结合优于单独任何一种）、干预方式数量以及强化疗程数量相关。经过对混杂因素的多变量调整后，仅干预方式数量与干预成功率呈正相关。
