MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239459413 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002850

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

2003· review· en· W4239459413 on OpenAlexaff
LF Stead, Tim Lancaster, Rafael Perera

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsOlds College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHotlineAbstinenceSmoking cessationTelephone counselingRandomized controlled trialNicotine replacement therapyPsychological interventionOdds ratioIntervention (counseling)Clinical trialFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207