The effectiveness of NHS smoking cessation services: a systematic review

Linda Bauld, Kirsten Bell, Lucy McCullough, Lindsay Richardson, Lorraine Greaves

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyse evidence on the effectiveness of intensive NHS treatments for smoking cessation in helping smokers to quit.

METHODS: A systematic review of studies published between 1990 and 2007. Electronic databases were searched for published studies. Unpublished reports were identified from the national research register and experts.

RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. They suggest that intensive NHS treatments for smoking cessation are effective in helping smokers to quit. The national evaluation found 4-week carbon monoxide monitoring validated quit rates of 53%, falling to 15% at 1 year. There is some evidence that group treatment may be more effective than one-to-one treatment, and the impact of 'buddy support' varies based on treatment type. Evidence on the effectiveness of in-patient interventions is currently very limited. Younger smokers, females, pregnant smokers and more deprived smokers appear to have lower short-term quit rates than other groups.

CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to determine the most effective models of NHS treatment for smoking cessation and the efficacy of those models with subgroups. Factors such as gender, age, socio-economic status and ethnicity appear to influence outcomes, but a current lack of diversity-specific analysis of results makes it impossible to ascertain the differential impact of intervention types on particular subpopulations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)71-82
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of public health (Oxford, England)
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2010

Keywords

  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Pregnancy
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Smoking
  • Smoking Cessation
  • State Medicine
  • Treatment Outcome
  • United Kingdom
  • Journal Article
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review

Cite this