Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive telephone support to help smokers quit. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies using free text term 'telephone*' or the keywords 'telephone counselling' or 'Hotlines' or 'Telephone'. Date of the most recent search: August 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were identified and data extracted by one person and checked by a second. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Participants lost to follow-up were considered to be continuing smokers. Where interventions were similar, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model to give an odds ratio. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty three trials met inclusion criteria. Ten trials compared proactive counselling to a minimal intervention control. There was statistical heterogeneity, with three trials showing a significant benefit, and seven showing non significant differences. Four trials adding telephone support to a face to face intervention control failed to detect a significant effect on long term quit rates. Four trials failed to detect an additional effect of telephone support in users of nicotine replacement therapy. Providing access to a hotline showed a significant benefit in one trial and no significant difference in two. Varying the type of counselling provided has not been shown to affect outcome. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Proactive telephone counselling can be effective compared to an intervention without personal contact. There was heterogeneity between trials so the size of effect is uncertain. The available evidence neither confirms nor rules out a benefit of telephone counselling as an adjunct to face to face counselling or pharmacotherapy. Further trials randomising access to helplines are unlikely to be done but indirect evidence suggests they can be a useful part of a smoking cessation service.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".