What works in smoking cessation interventions for cancer survivors? A meta-analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials designed to promote smoking cessation among cancer survivors to (a) assess how effective interventions are at increasing quit rates, and (b) determine which intervention strategies are associated with effect sizes.

Out of 10,848 records that were located using computerized searches and informal sources, 21 interventions met the inclusion criteria for the review. We developed a bespoke taxonomy of 36 categories of techniques designed to change smoking behavior, and coded sample, intervention, and methodological characteristics. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregressions were conducted.

The sample-weighted average effect size for smoking cessation was d+ = .030, and was not significantly different from zero (95%CI = -.042 to .101). Effect sizes exhibited both publication bias and small sample bias. Metaregressions indicated that, out of the many potential moderators that were tested, just a single intervention feature was associated with effect sizes. Interventions delivered solely by nurses exhibited larger effects compared to interventions from other sources.

The present review indicates that current smoking cessation interventions for cancer survivors are ineffective. High-quality and effective interventions are needed. We offer suggestions regarding promising intervention strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).