Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider: A meta-analysis

Walter A. Mojica, Marika J. Suttorp, Scott E. Sherman, Sally C. Morton, Elizabeth A. Roth, Margaret A. Maglione, Shannon L. Rhodes, Paul G. Shekelle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objective To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider. Methods A random effects meta-regression was estimated to examine the effect of provider and whether the intervention contained nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), on the intervention's relative risk of quitting as compared to placebo or usual care from studies published in databases from inception to 2000. Thirty additional studies not included in the previous 1996 and 2000 U.S. Public Health Service clinical practice guidelines were used to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the comparative effectiveness of different types of providers in interventions for smoking cessation that have been published. Results The effectiveness without NRT follows: psychologist (1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-3.62); physician (1.87, CI=1.42-2.45); counselor (1.82, CI=0.84-3.96); nurse (1.76, CI=1.21-2.57); unknown (1.27, CI=0.57-2.82); other (1.18, CI=0.67-2.10); and self-help (1.28, CI=0.89-1.82). Effectiveness of most providers increased by almost twofold with the use of NRT. Conclusions Smoking-cessation interventions without NRT delivered by psychologists, physicians, or nurses are all effective. NRT increases the effectiveness of most providers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)391-401
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican journal of preventive medicine
Issue number5
StatePublished - Jun 2004

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Smoking-cessation interventions by type of provider: A meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this