4.5 Review

Efficacy of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

TOBACCO CONTROL
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 410-416

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2009.033175

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA108685, CA006927]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [K07CA108685, P30CA006927] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective A systematic review and meta analysis to investigate the efficacy of interventions incorporating motivational interviewing for smoking cessation and identify correlates of treatment effects Data sources Medline/PubMed PsycInfo and other sources including grey literature Study selection Title/abstract search terms were motivational interview* OR motivational enhancement AND smok* cigarette* tobacco OR nicotine Randomised trials reporting number of smokers abstinent at follow up were eligible Data extraction Data were independently coded by the first and third authors We coded for a variety of study participant and intervention related variables Data synthesis A random effects logistic regression with both a random intercept and a random slope for the treatment effect Results 31 smoking cessation research trials were selected for the study eight comprised adolescent samples eight comprised adults with chronic physical or mental illness five comprised pregnant/postpartum women and 10 comprised other adult samples Analysis of the trials (9485 individual participants) showed an overall OR comparing likelihood of abstinence in the motivational interviewing (MI) versus control condition of OR 1 45 (95% CI 114 to 1 83) Additional potential correlates of treatment effects such as study sample and intervention characteristics were examined Conclusions This is the most comprehensive review of MI for smoking cessation conducted to date These findings suggest that current MI smoking cessation approaches can be effective for adolescents and adults However comparative efficacy trials could be useful

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据