Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Tobacco cessation interventions for young people

  1. Alan Stanton1,
  2. Gill Grimshaw2,*

Editorial Group: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group

Published Online: 23 AUG 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 31 JUL 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub5


How to Cite

Stanton A, Grimshaw G. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD003289. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub5.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Heart of England Foundation Trust, Shirley, UK

  2. 2

    Warwick Medical School, Medical Teaching Centre, Coventry, UK

*Gill Grimshaw, Medical Teaching Centre, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. gill@gillgrimshaw.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 23 AUG 2013

SEARCH

 

Summary of findings    [Explanations]

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

 
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) for smoking cessation in young people

Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) compared to standard care or dietary advice for smoking cessation in young people

Patient or population: young people
Intervention: TTM
Comparison: standard care or dietary advice

OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of Participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments

Assumed riskCorresponding risk

Standard care or dietary adviceTTM

Cessation
Self-report
Follow-up: 12 months
103 per 10001160 per 1000
(124 to 207)
RR 1.56
(1.21 to 2.01)
1662
(3 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

 1 Assumed risk is average across control groups
2 All three studies judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain
3 Small number of total events (>300)

 Summary of findings 2 Interventions including motivational enhancement for smoking cessation in young people

 Summary of findings 3 Not on Tobacco (NoT) programmes for smoking cessation in young people

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

In much of the developed world, the prevalence of smoking amongst young people has been falling over the last 20 years. Recent figures from the UK show that for 11 to 15 year olds, 25% had tried smoking at least once, the lowest figure since 1982, when the figure was 53%. Currently, around 5% of 11 to 15 year olds are smoking regularly (one cigarette per week or more), roughly half the proportion doing so in 2001 (NHSIC 2011). A similar decline has been noted in the United States, although the rate of decline has levelled off in recent years, attributed to the withdrawal of funding for programmes; in 2011, 25% of high school males and 17% of females smoked tobacco (MMWR 2012). In developing economies the picture is less clear cut, with wide variation and often higher rates of smoking in young people (Eriksen 2012). The incidence of the initiation of smoking first becomes measurable in the 10 to 12 year age range (ONS 2000), and most adult smokers acquired the habit in teenage years (NHSIC 2012). However, there is evidence that within a short time of commencing many teenage smokers want to quit (Burt 1998; Hu 1998; Sussman 1998; Stanton 2001; MMWR 2009). Frequent quit attempts are reported in this population (Stanton 2001; MMWR 2009).

Although the major burden of disease caused by smoking falls on the adult population, there are several reasons why those charged with promoting child health should be active in tobacco control at an appropriate level. Firstly, the vast majority of smokers acquire the habit in childhood and young smokers suffer impairment of lung function and lung growth (NHSIC 2012). There is evidence that those who start earliest have greatest difficulty in quitting, and that they may be more susceptible to disease in adulthood. There is also growing evidence that addiction to nicotine can develop very rapidly in young smokers, making quitting difficult (DiFranza 2008). The tobacco industry have long been aware of the need to replace adult smokers with new young recruits, and there is now strong evidence of the effect that all advertising, including that at point of sale, has on encouraging young people to smoke (CPHTP 2012).

An additional cause for concern is that smoking may be a particular problem in young people with mental health or behavioural problems. In the UK, smoking rates among 11 to 15 year olds were 30% in those with conduct disorder, 19% in those with emotional disorder, and 15% in those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 5% in those without such disorders (Green 2004; Geeta 2012).There is now strong evidence that the relationship is causal with respect to depression (Boden 2010), whilst for ADHD molecular genetics would seem to play a role.

There is now a large literature on smoking cessation services for adults. This is reflected in a number of Cochrane reviews examining several aspects of the subject in detail. Many countries have developed appropriate services for adults. However, whilst some have suggested that similar services, suitably modified, should be considered for young people (Raw 1998), this assertion is open to challenge in view of the difference in smoking pattern, lifestyle and attitudes to services in this age group (TAG 2000). Previous reviews of adolescent smoking cessation have been published (Sussman 1999; Sussman 2002; McDonald 2003; Sussman 2006; Patnode 2013); this is the second update of the first Cochrane review to focus on smoking cessation in young people under 20 years. A further systematic review has looked at strategies for smoking cessation for university age smokers (Villanti 2010). The paucity of high quality research evidence to answer important clinical questions is a recurrent theme of reviews in this area.

Other Cochrane reviews of interventions relevant to tobacco addiction amongst young people have mainly focused on primary prevention. These include a review of school-based prevention programmes (Thomas 2012), and reviews of mass media interventions (Brinn 2010), community interventions (Carson 2011), interventions for reducing access by preventing illegal sale of tobacco (Stead 2005), prevention in indigenous youth (Carson 2012), and school smoking policies (Coppo 2012). This review looks at strategies for smoking cessation in young people and more specifically at the context in which the interventions are offered, and how young people are enrolled into quit attempts.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

Eligible study designs include:
a) Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Studies in which individuals, classes, schools, units or groups were randomized to either the intervention or the control arm of the experiment, or randomized to receive different interventions.

b) Cluster-randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs)
Trials that have as the unit of allocation a school or organization level, or where clusters of professionals or groups of professionals are implementing interventions.

c) Controlled trials
We include trials that allocate individuals or units to intervention and control conditions without formal randomization if baseline characteristics were assessed and were comparable. We have assessed the sensitivity of our conclusions to the inclusion of evidence from non-randomized studies.

 

Types of participants

Participants are young people, aged less than 20, who are regular tobacco smokers. As there is evidence that some young people have an irregular pattern of smoking, for example smoking only at weekends (Grimshaw 2003) or weekly (O'Loughlin 2003), we define a regular smoker in this review as a young person who smokes an average of at least one cigarette a week, and has done so for at least six months. Trials which target young people who smoke less than this were excluded.

If a study included participants beyond our top threshold of 20th birthday (for example,16- to 21-year-olds), we have included the study if the majority of participants were aged less than 20, and if the design of the programme specifically considers the needs of young people.

The intervention may also be aimed at the organization to which the young person is attached. If so, the study design must demonstrate suitable control for differences in the two groups. Only studies with an outcome related to the individual smoker are included.

 

Exclusions

We exclude from this review Interventions specifically targeting young women in pregnancy, since this topic is covered by the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (Coleman 2012; Lumley 2009). We also exclude any programme aimed primarily at the adult population, and have contacted investigators where there was a lack of clarity on this issue.

 

Types of interventions

Interventions could be specifically designed to meet the needs of young people aged under 20 years, or could also be applicable to adults. Interventions could range from simple ones such as pharmacotherapy, targeting individual young people, through strategic programmes targeting people or organizations associated with young people (for example, their families or schools), to complex programmes targeting the community in which young people study or live. We differentiated between these in the analyses.

To be included, all interventions had to be aimed at helping young people to stop smoking tobacco. We included cessation programmes or strategies that also targeted relapse. We included programmes or strategies that targeted psycho-social determinants (for example, enhancing self efficacy for refusing tobacco), or that focused on developing life skills in order to stay abstinent, if the study design was appropriate. No restrictions were placed on the setting in which the intervention was offered (for example, school, hospital, doctor's surgery, or dentist).

Smoking prevention programmes were excluded, even if they reported cessation data, as they have been the subject of previous reviews (Brinn 2010; Carson 2011; Thomas 2012). Within large-scale community primary prevention interventions, health education programmes/curricula or mass media campaigns that target young people, we only considered for inclusion the cessation component of those programmes where the following three criteria were met: that part of the intervention had been specifically designed to target cessation; that the interventions could be separately assessed; and that the interventions explicitly met the criteria of this review for study design and recruitment.

 

Control conditions

Interventions in the control arm of the study could be one of the following:

  • no intervention;
  • delayed intervention beyond the last date of data acquisition including follow-up;
  • information on stopping smoking either delivered to individuals in control groups or as literature (indicated in Characteristics of included studies as “Brief Intervention”);
  • general tobacco education given to all participants in trial.

Studies that compared two different cessation interventions or combinations of interventions were also included.

We have not included primary prevention strategies that identify and follow up baseline tobacco users, or programmes aimed solely at relapse prevention.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Measures of quitting

The primary outcome of interest was change in smoking behaviour, i.e. being a smoker at baseline and becoming an ex-smoker at post-test for all participants who received the intervention. The primary outcome was smoking status at six months follow-up or longer. Trials with follow-up of less than six months have been excluded. We have not included relapse rates in the review.

We have reported the definition of cessation used in each trial, for example abstinence during a particular period, such as in the past 7 or 30 days (point prevalence), abstinence from the start of the programme (continuous abstinence), or abstinence following occasional relapse in the two weeks post-treatment grace period (prolonged abstinence) (Hughes 2003). If studies reported cessation using more than one definition of abstinence we used the most rigorous outcome. Biochemical confirmation of self-reported non-smoking is generally taken to be the gold standard for reporting of quit rates (West 2005). This tests for the presence of smoking-related substances in exhaled breath, saliva, urine or blood, and is the preferred verification method for reported outcomes where this is available. It should be noted that biochemical validation may not be a very sensitive measure of change in smoking status for irregular smokers; it is possible that some studies may have recruited participants who would not be identified as smokers at baseline.

 

Enrolment

We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis, i.e. with all participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomized, and including all the randomized participants. Where necessary we have contacted authors for discrete data if it could not be imputed from the published reports. We have reported enrolment to studies according to type, as revealed in the study designs; e.g. personal invitation, entry through mass media campaigns, non-voluntary interviews in schools, etc. Randomization may be at the level of individual or organization. We have noted whether randomization took place after enrolment into the intervention.

 

Participation and retention in intervention

Since one might postulate that there is educational benefit from participation in a cessation programme, we report data on losses to follow-up. We have counted drop-outs and losses to follow-up as continuing smokers.

 

Adverse events

We extracted data on adverse events as a secondary outcome.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

We used the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs), and controlled trials of smoking cessation and prevention interventions. Trials relevant to the review were identified using the free text and keywords 'Child' or 'adolescent*' or 'adolescence'. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in February 2013. At the time of the search the Register included the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), issue 12, 2012; MEDLINE (via OVID) to update 20130104; EMBASE (via OVID) to week 201252; and PsycINFO (via OVID) to update 20121231. See the Tobacco Addiction Group Module in the Cochrane Library for full search strategies and a list of other resources searched. We have also searched the 'grey literature' (unpublished resources and conference proceedings) and the reference lists of identified studies and contacted manufacturers of smoking cessation products. 

Where necessary, we have contacted the authors of existing trials and other experts for ongoing trials, and for unpublished results pertaining to completed trials, subject to the availability of peer review.

We also contacted smoking cessation e-networks with a list of the references to extracted studies, to request verification and any additional information.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

We drew up a prospective list of eligibility criteria with two levels of priority: essential and desirable. Two authors (GG and AS) assessed the retrieved abstracts against this list for possible inclusion, to measure the feasibility of each criterion. We assessed levels of agreement by kappa score.

After piloting, we applied the agreed criteria to the abstracts of all studies extracted from the databases. We then categorized studies into three groups:

  1. Both authors agree on inclusion based on the abstract;
  2. One author suggests inclusion based on the abstract;
  3. Both authors agree on exclusion based on the abstract.

We retrieved full text articles for groups (1) and (2). The processes outlined here and later were used for all updates.

Two authors independently assessed each full article, using the agreed inclusion criteria. For studies where there was disagreement, the editorial base was consulted to reach a consensus. Where there was ambiguity in trial reporting or lack of data, we contacted investigators for clarification where possible. If we could not retrieve missing data, a study may have been excluded on that basis.

 

Data extraction and management

We extracted and reported the following information, where it was available, concerning each study:

  1. Country and study setting
  2. Theoretical framework (including a brief description of the intervention)
  3. Focus of the intervention
  4. Type of intervention, its duration, intensity, delivery format, gatekeeper
  5. Length of follow-up
  6. Size of eligible population
  7. Recruitment rate
  8. Number of participants or number of clusters and participants
  9. Definition of the study population
  10. Age range, grade, gender and ethnicity of participants
  11. Definition of smoking status used at baseline
  12. Definition of abstinence
  13. Biochemical validation
  14. Adverse effects of intervention

We report any threats to validity or other limitations described by the studies and report where authors have been contacted for discrete data in the 'notes' section (see Characteristics of included studies).

We have maintained a full list of excluded studies (see the Characteristics of excluded studies).

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We rated each included study as being at low, unclear, or high risk of bias in five domains:

  1. Random sequence generation
  2. Concealment of allocation. For cluster-randomized controlled trials which recruited after allocation to intervention or control status, we took account of whether individuals may have been selectively recruited or may have differentially refused to participate in the light of the known allocation, where this could be ascertained (Campbell 2004a; Campbell 2004b; Hahn 2005).
  3. Performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel, if applicable)
  4. Detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment, biochemical validation)
  5. Attrition

We also recorded any other risks of bias that did not fit in the above categories.

 

Measures of treatment effect

We summarised an effect size for each individual study as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals, and these are displayed in  Analysis 1.1 for descriptive purposes. The risk ratio is calculated as (number quit in intervention group/ number randomized to intervention) / (number quit in control group/ number randomized to control), with participants randomized but lost to follow-up regarded as non-abstinent.

 

Unit of analysis issues

For cluster randomized trials, we checked whether the analysis used the same unit as randomization, or if other methods were used to account for cluster effects, such as multi-level modelling. We either included data that had been corrected or considered whether it was possible to adjust odds ratios. Unadjusted results are reported as such.

 

Data synthesis

We have pooled groups of studies that we consider to be sufficiently similar in their interventions, comparison groups, setting, and participants, provided that there was no evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity as assessed by the I² statistic (Higgins 2003). We estimated a pooled risk ratio using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, based on the quit rates at longest follow-up. Where meta-analysis was not appropriate, we present summary and descriptive statistics.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

For this update 64 references were identified, and four new trials were added to the included studies. These include one trial previously awaiting classification, which tested two different interventions so is treated as two trials in the analyses (Joffe 2009; NoT MD 2009). Figure 1 displays the numbers of records screened and studies included in previous versions of the review. The 90 excluded trials are listed in the Characteristics of excluded studies table with reasons for their exclusion, and the characteristics of two ongoing studies can be found in the Characteristics of ongoing studies table. One previously ongoing study was published in full after the date of search so is in the Characteristics of studies awaiting classification table.

 FigureFigure 1. Study flow diagram

 

Included studies

Full details of the included studies are given in the Characteristics of included studies table where new trials are identified in the notes as "New for 2013 update".  Trials are identified by the first author and the publication year of the main report, except for a group of studies reporting the Not on Tobacco (NoT) programme and the Project X programme, which are identified by programme type, trial location, and publication year of the main report.

 

Theoretical basis of intervention

It was difficult to stratify studies into categories with respect to the nature of the intervention. One intervention, conducted in 1978, used the health promotion strategies of that period (Greenberg 1978). Another used personal health risk management (Chan 1988). However, many interventions were complex and used combinations of psycho-social theories (see Sheppard 2009 for discussion of management of reviews of complex interventions). Constructs relating to motivational enhancement and strategies for resisting cultural and social pressures were the most common. Studies of this type included those using Motivational Interviewing, such as Colby 2005, Peterson 2009 and Horn 2007, sometimes combined with some form of relapse prevention advice and ongoing support (Brown 2003; Robinson 2003; Lipkus 2004). Other studies tested interventions based on the Transtheoretical Model of Change for adolescents (Prochaska 2000), either alone (Aveyard 2001) or in combination with other modalities, including brief advice and motivational enhancement (Hollis 2005) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (Lipkus 2004). Myers 2005 used an intervention based on CBT and motivational enhancement, while two other studies (Project EX-1 2001 and Project EX Russia 2013) used a more eclectic mix which included yoga and meditation. Studies of NoT used social cognitive theory (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; NoT AL 2008; NoT MD 2009; NoT WV 2011). Three further studies have been undertaken based, at least in part, on social cognitive learning models (Patten 2006; Woodruff 2007; Peterson 2009). Three were primarily Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based interventions (Aveyard 2001; Patten 2006; Woodruff 2007). Finally, three studies have explored pharmacological support for quitting (Killen 2004; Moolchan 2005; Muramoto 2007).

 

Recruitment and settings

As can be expected from a cohort where most are still associated with some form of formal education, recruitment for studies was mainly within an educational setting (Greenberg 1978; Chan 1988; Aveyard 2001; NoT FL 2001; Project EX-1 2001; NoT NC 2002; Robinson 2003; Killen 2004; NoT WV 2004; Kelly 2006; Woodruff 2007; Hoffman 2008; NoT AL 2008; Joffe 2009; NoT MD 2009; NoT WV 2011). Educational settings have the advantage of easier recruitment and minimization of contamination. Six studies recruited from the healthcare environment (Brown 2003; Colby 2005; Hollis 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005; Horn 2007). Two studies (Lipkus 2004; Patten 2006) recruited directly from the community. Typically, where school or college was the base, the trials were clustered and the intervention was delivered to all students in one school, with matched schools used for control (Aveyard 2001; NoT studies; Project X studies; Woodruff 2007). All trials but two (Aveyard 2001 in the UK and Kelly 2006 in Australia) were based in North America. The rate of recruitment was commented on by several trialists. Where schools were recruited and matched or randomized (Greenberg 1978; Aveyard 2001; NoT studies; Project EX-1 2001; Project EX Russia 2013) and attendance in the programme was not compulsory, typically fewer than half of the students who smoked showed interest in enrolling. It should be noted, however, that for many of these studies parental permission was a requirement. Inducements to enrol and to remain in the study were also a feature of these trials (Greenberg 1978; Project EX-1 2001; Killen 2004; Lipkus 2004; Colby 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005; Woodruff 2007; NoT AL 2008). In three trials some element of compulsion was present (Brown 2003; Robinson 2003; Myers 2005), either with attendance as a consequence of a smoking policy violation (Robinson 2003) or as a controlled regimen in a hospital setting (Brown 2003; Myers 2005). One trial used a hospital emergency room to identify higher risk teens (Horn 2007).

 

Definition of smoking

One of the crucial issues for smoking cessation research for young people is how smoking is defined, and how cessation is defined and verified. The cessation issues are dealt with in the Risk of bias in included studies section and in the Discussion section. There was diversity among the included studies concerning the definition of smoking status, with most studies relying on self-reported smoking status at recruitment.  

In general at least one cigarette per week (cpw) was used as a definition of being a smoker.  Many studies used different definitions (e.g. one cigarette per day at recruitment). Where there was doubt we assured compatibility with our criterion through discussion with authors. Hollis 2005 differentiated between smokers and 'experimenters', but no studies explicitly took account of the episodic nature of adolescent smoking (Corby 2000; Grimshaw 2003). Many studies estimated nicotine dependence using some form of scale, most commonly the modified Fagerstrom Questionnaire (Prokhorov 2000; NoT FL 2001; Project EX-1 2001; NoT NC 2002; Brown 2003; NoT WV 2004; Killen 2004; Lipkus 2004; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005).

 

Measurement of outcomes

The primary outcome of all interventions was smoking cessation for each individual. Just as a wide variety of definitions of smoking were used so there were several definitions of cessation.

The gold standard outcome of continuous abstinence (West 2005) was used by two authors (Lipkus 2004; Peterson 2009). Other continuous measures included 90-day abstinence (Myers 2005) and "prolonged abstinence" (Moolchan 2005).

Point prevalence measures were in the majority and these ranged from cessation for longer than one day (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; Hoffman 2008) to 30 day cessation (Chan 1988; Aveyard 2001; Project EX-1 2001; Hollis 2005; Kelly 2006; Project EX Russia 2013). The most common outcome measure was seven-day point prevalence (Aveyard 2001; Brown 2003; Robinson 2003; Killen 2004; Lipkus 2004; Colby 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005; Muramoto 2007; NoT AL 2008). One study defined cessation as two sequential reports of seven-day point prevalence at four months and eight months from the start of the intervention (Lipkus 2004).

 

Verification of smoking status

Of the 28 studies which satisfied the inclusion criteria for this review, only 14 used or attempted some form of biochemical verification of self reports of smoking status for the whole cohort or for the full duration of follow-up (West 2005). Five trials used more than one method of biochemical verification (Brown 2003; Killen 2004; Colby 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005). Carbon monoxide levels were measured in eleven trials (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; Brown 2003; Killen 2004; Colby 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005; Patten 2006; Horn 2007; Muramoto 2007; NoT WV 2011), and salivary cotinine in ten trials (Brown 2003; Killen 2004; Lipkus 2004; Colby 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005; Hoffman 2008; NoT AL 2008; Joffe 2009; NoT MD 2009). In Chan 1988 and Myers 2005, smoking status was confirmed by report of another individual, and Peterson 2009 used internal verification within questionnaires.

 

Risk of bias in included studies

Figure 2 summarises review authors' judgements across each risk of bias domain. The majority of studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain.

 FigureFigure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

 

Allocation

Of the 28 studies included studies, 12 allocated groups or institutions to conditions (Chan 1988; Aveyard 2001; NoT FL 2001; Project EX-1 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; Woodruff 2007; NoT AL 2008; Hoffman 2008; Peterson 2009; NoT WV 2011; Project EX Russia 2013) and 16 allocated individuals (Greenberg 1978; Brown 2003; Robinson 2003; Killen 2004; Lipkus 2004; Colby 2005; Hollis 2005; Moolchan 2005; Myers 2005; Sherbot 2005; Kelly 2006; Patten 2006; Horn 2007; Muramoto 2007; Joffe 2009; NoT MD 2009). Of the cluster-randomized trials, seven were judged to be at high risk of selection bias either because groups or institutions were not randomly allocated or because of the way in which students within clusters were recruited (Chan 1988; NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; Woodruff 2007; NoT AL 2008; NoT WV 2011). Four of the individual studies were rated at high risk of selection bias because of the method of allocation or concealment (Greenberg 1978; Brown 2003; Myers 2005; Sherbot 2005). Fifteen studies did not provide sufficient detail on randomization and allocation, and hence were judged to be at unclear risk of selection bias.

 

Blinding

The majority of studies were judged to be at unclear risk of performance bias, as it was not clear if blinding had taken place and, in the case of behavioural interventions, was not clear if participants in control groups were aware of the programme the intervention arms were receiving. Nine studies that involved face-to-face contact in the intervention group did not employ any form of biochemical validation, and were hence judged to be at high risk of detection bias due to possible differential misreport.

 

Incomplete outcome data

One marked feature of all included studies was the effort required to follow-up cases. Losses to follow-up ranged from less than 10% to more than 50% of the cohort. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of attrition bias as over half of the participants were missing data at follow-up (NoT FL 2001; Horn 2007; NoT AL 2008). A further three studies were judged to be at unclear risk as attrition rates were not reported in sufficient detail with which to judge (NoT NC 2002; Robinson 2003; NoT WV 2004). All other studies were judged to be at low risk of attrition bias.

It is a frequent feature of analysis of smoking cessation studies that cases lost to follow-up are assumed to be still smoking. Several authors attempt to discuss this issue and make adjustments in analysis (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; Hollis 2005; Joffe 2009). As these studies cover those aged 20 or less, it can be assumed that, amongst other issues, this is a mobile population, changing or leaving school, moving on to college, etc. Paradoxically, there may be real pressures to conceal quit attempts from social groups. Several trials analysed their data on an intention-to-treat basis, i.e. including all participants in the groups to which they were originally randomized, and classifying those lost to follow-up as continuing smokers. One other feature of reporting was a tendency to report outcomes as percentages, sometimes without any particular clarity as to the denominator. Some of the results of our analysis have been imputed from percentage data, and in all cases authors have been contacted to ask for verification of the calculations (Chan 1988; NoT FL 2001; Project EX-1 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; Brown 2003; Killen 2004; Lipkus 2004; Colby 2005).

 

Other potential sources of bias

We also evaluated studies for any other potential sources of bias. Three studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of other bias due to possible or confirmed issues with treatment fidelity and contamination (Chan 1988; Aveyard 2001; Robinson 2003). One study was judged to be at high risk of other bias due to significant between group differences at baseline (Sherbot 2005). Finally, one further study was judged to be at high risk of other bias due to a doubling of the control group quit rate between 6 and 15 month follow-ups, which the authors speculate may represent confounding due to the influx of prevention initiatives delivered statewide during that period as a result of funds from the Master Settlement Agreement (NoT WV 2004).

 

Effects of interventions

See:  Summary of findings for the main comparison Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) for smoking cessation in young people;  Summary of findings 2 Interventions including motivational enhancement for smoking cessation in young people;  Summary of findings 3 Not on Tobacco (NoT) programmes for smoking cessation in young people

 

Smoking cessation

Details of individual study outcomes are given in  Analysis 1.1, in subgroups by the definition of abstinence used. Studies that reported more than one definition appear in each applicable subgroup. Four trials reported sustained or prolonged abstinence for at least six months, eight trials reported 30 day point prevalence abstinence and six trials used seven day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) as the strictest outcome. Eight other trials reported cessation that could be based on an even shorter period, or were unclear about the definition. One study is not displayed because we were unable to establish the denominator and the study report was published before follow-up was complete (Robinson 2003).  Analysis 1.2 displays the results of trials added for the 2013 update. The wide confidence intervals for individual studies reflect the lack of power due to the small size and low quit rates in many trials. In total, around 6000 young people participated in the included studies.

 

Studies including Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM)

Four studies were based on interventions targeting the stage of change of individual participants using TTM. A school-based intervention using a TTM computer expert system (Aveyard 2001) had a risk ratio (RR) for 30 day PPA of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 2.08) at 12 months, and 1.14 (0.78 to 1.66) after 24 months. By contrast the 'Teen Reach' study (Hollis 2005) included a brief clinical message and motivational counselling and booster sessions as well as using a TTM-based computer expert system recruiting from family practices and paediatric departments. The 'Teen Reach' intervention was effective for smokers (a subgroup of those recruited), with an RR of 1.80 (1.19 to 2.71) at 12 months and the intervention effect persisted with an RR of 1.71 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.76) at 24 months. Hoffman 2008 used a programme of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) tailored to stage of change. The measures of quitting on this programme were defined as no smoking during 24 hours prior to interview and verification was attempted although administration proved problematic. The results from this trial do need consideration alongside the known nature of episodic smoking reported by teens.

Pooled results from these three trials show a significant effect in favour of the intervention (at 12 months, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.01,  Analysis 2.1,  Summary of findings for the main comparison), yielding a number needed to treat of 17.5 at the end of the first year after the beginning of the intervention. In the two trials with follow-up at two years, the direction of the effect remained consistent but results were no longer statistically significant, with a pooled RR of 1.33 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.79,  Analysis 2.2) and a doubling of the number needed to treat.

Lipkus 2004 used a TTM-based intervention that also included motivational enhancement via telephone and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for young people recruited in the community (shopping malls and an amusement park). At eight month follow-up, the hypothesis that telephone counselling as an adjunct to self-help material would be effective was not supported (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62) for seven-day PPA. As this trial was testing mode of delivery rather than stage of change, we have not included it in the pooled analysis with the other TTM-based trials. It should be noted that this study was one of the few included in this review which attempted to measure sustained quitting between two points of data collection (four months and eight months).

 

Psycho-social interventions

Twelve studies used some form of motivational enhancement for young people within their intervention (Figure 3,  Analysis 3.1,  Summary of findings 2). Point estimates of effect ranged from 0.85 (in a trial with just two quitters, Horn 2007) to 6.00 (Greenberg 1978). Confidence intervals were wide and many trials were small, with only half enrolling more than 50 participants per trial arm (Project EX-1 2001; Brown 2003; Lipkus 2004; Hollis 2005; Peterson 2009; Project EX Russia 2013). Only Hollis 2005 detected a significant effect. Pooled results detected a significant effect in favour of the intervention (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.01, n = 2667,  Analysis 3.1). Two of these studies (Lipkus 2004; Myers 2005) met Russell standards (West 2005) and these have been analysed as an additional subgroup ( Analysis 9.1); pooled results were not statistically significant (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.72). Six studies within the motivational enhancement group used complex interventions that included motivational interviewing as one of their theoretical frameworks. Brown 2003 was based in an inpatient psychiatric facility, Colby 2005 was based in a hospital outpatients and emergency room, Sherbot 2005 recruited from a pool of teenagers identified as having substance misuse issues, Project EX-1 2001 and Peterson 2009 were school based, and Project EX Russia 2013 was based in a youth camp. Although when pooled the six interventions that included Motivational Interviewing as one component of the intervention had a significant effect (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.72,  Analysis 3.2), it would be unwise to draw any inferences from this finding, as not all trials studied Motivational Interviewing alone.

 FigureFigure 3. Analysis 3.1 Motivational enhancement versus brief interventions, cessation at 6 months or longer.

Thirteen studies included cognitive behavioural techniques ( Analysis 4.1). This analysis is included as a record of where CBT has been included in trials. It is not possible to pool data from trials using CBT as, in general, CBT was only one component of a multicomponent intervention and the impact of the CBT element is impossible to disaggregate. This impact of this specific technique would, however, be interesting to explore as one study using a combination of CBT and motivational techniques delivered over four sessions with telephone follow-up did not detect any effect on cessation (Robinson 2003). A brief summary of the range of complex interventions is shown in  Analysis 5.1.

Greenberg 1978 explored three educational approaches: fact-based, scare-based and attitudinal (values and affective strategies), but differences between the small groups were not statistically significant. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was trialled by Chan 1988 amongst university students. This study recruited only 40 smokers to the group contributing to this review and did not detect a difference between HRA with feedback and HRA without feedback (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.59 to 33.50 at nine months).

In some studies there was a degree of externally applied motivation to quit smoking. In Brown 2003, the inpatient adolescents were prohibited from smoking during hospital admission. The Myers 2005 cohort were obliged to attend group quit sessions, although they could decline to be followed up. The Robinson 2003 cohort were referred because of a violation of a local no smoking policy, and reduced punitive sanctions were offered if they attended groups in addition to monetary inducements.

 

Not on Tobacco (NoT) interventions

The Not on Tobacco intervention (NoT) has been tested in five localities with 1420 smokers in 148 schools (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; NoT AL 2008; NoT MD 2009; NoT WV 2011). The RRs of the individual trials and overall effectiveness are summarized in  Analysis 6.1 (see Figure 4 and  Summary of findings 3). Individually, none of the six trials of the NoT intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect at six months follow-up using an intention-to-treat analysis (raw data supplied by the authors). This may be related to the low power of the individual trials; when the trials are pooled, the result shows a statistically significant effect (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71), though the confidence interval is close to the line of no effect. Two new trials of the NoT intervention have been added in the 2013 update (NoT MD 2009; NoT WV 2011). These new trials use outcome measures designed to show persistence of intervention effect beyond measures in previous trials, thereby correcting for one of the difficulties of estimating effectiveness from previous reports, given the episodic pattern of teen smoking. Recent NoT trials have broadly confirmed previous results and it should be noted that length of abstinence measured has been extended in recent work to be in line with Russell Standards (NoT MD 2009; NoT WV 2011).

 FigureFigure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 5 NoT (Not on Tobacco), outcome: 5.1 Cessation at 6 months or longer.

In addition to comparing the standard NoT intervention to control, NoT WV 2011 involved a third arm in which the NoT programme was augmented with a physical activity component (NoT+Fit). At six months, the NoT+Fit arm had significantly higher quit rates when compared with control (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.02 and 3.79,  Analysis 6.2) but the result was not significant when compared with NoT alone (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.48,  Analysis 6.3).

 

Interventions using ICTs

In settings where all teens have equal access to the Internet and/or computers it has been possible to design studies that include this medium. Four studies utilise ICTs to deliver part of the intervention. Aveyard 2001 and Hollis 2005 used programmes specifically tailored to stage of change, Patten 2006 tested a home-based internet programme based on Social Learning Theory, and Woodruff 2007 used the internet to disseminate a smoking educational package based in a virtual reality. No study relied solely on ICTs. Aveyard 2001 and Hollis 2005 detected significant evidence of an effect, whereas the other two studies did not detect a significant difference between intervention and control arms (see  Analysis 7.1;  Analysis 7.2;  Analysis 7.3).

 

Pharmacological interventions

This review contains three studies exploring different pharmacological interventions, which we have not pooled. Effect sizes are displayed in  Analysis 8.1. All studies were relatively small and abstinence rates were low, hence confidence intervals are wide. One study investigated the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in supporting cessation (Moolchan 2005), one tested bupropion as an adjunct to NRT (Killen 2004) and one tested bupropion alone at two strengths: the standard daily dose of 300 mg or a single daily dose of 150 mg (Muramoto 2007). Comparing NRT patches and gum with placebo (Moolchan 2005), results at six months were not statistically significant in this underpowered study, with an RR of 4.12 (95% CI 0.92 to 18.52) for patches and an RR of 1.74 (95% CI 0.34 to 9.00) for gum versus placebo using biochemically verified seven-day PPA. Results using prolonged abstinence also did not detect a significant effect of either type of NRT. Muramoto 2007 did not detect evidence for a benefit of standard dose bupropion (RR 1.49 95% CI 0.55 to 4.02) or a lower 150 mg dose (RR 0.33 95% CI 0.07 to 1.58). Killen 2004 also failed to detect an effect for bupropion used as an adjunct to NRT patches (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.41 to 2.69). The evidence regarding the effectiveness of the use of bupropion alone in adolescence from the single study conducted so far appears to suggest that this intervention does not have a persistent effect (six months or longer) for either of the doses tested.

 

Adverse effects

No adverse effects were reported in any of the psycho-social trials. In the trial of bupropion as an adjunct to nicotine patch (Killen 2004), although young people reported a total of 47 self-rated 'severe' complaints with nausea the most common, none of these were judged to be severe by the lead study physician. In the trial of nicotine patch versus nicotine gum (Moolchan 2005), active medication was associated with a statistically significant (P > 0.01) increase in four symptom categories, including sore throat, erythema, pruritus and shoulder/arm pain.  In the trial of bupropion alone (Muramoto 2007), four percent of participants reported adverse effects and eight subjects discontinued treatment because of adverse events.  Two serious adverse events resulting in hospitalisation occurred in this trial: one participant was admitted for anticholinergic crisis after ingesting Datura innoxia and one participant intentionally overdosed on study medication and other substances.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

For the purpose of this review, we have taken a clinical focus on young smokers. In public health terms, the line between young smokers, experimenters and 'potential' smokers is blurred. Some interventions are therefore aimed at the population level, attempting to combine prevention and cessation. Individual clinicians, however, face a different problem: what advice should they give and what works for the young person who has started smoking and expresses a wish to stop? For this review, therefore, we drew what might otherwise be seen as an arbitrary line and developed a protocol which would include those prevention studies that had a cessation intervention component and discrete results for smokers (Chan 1988; Aveyard 2001; Hollis 2005).

Ideally, we would wish to know outcomes in terms of true smoking cessation, i.e. quitting smoking and not returning to the habit, although an absolute measure of cessation in these terms is in practice impossible, as it would require life-long follow-up of subjects. It is necessary therefore to consider just how well what are effectively proxy measures correspond to the desired outcome. Clearly, longer periods of follow-up will be of greater value. We therefore limited our review to studies with six months follow-up, as recommended elsewhere (Mermelstein 2002; West 2005). There is clear evidence in some of the included studies that have done repeated measures of a waning effect over this period (e.g. Myers 2005 and Brown 2003). Early relapse is an obvious danger, especially for young people who have been shown to make many quit attempts (MMWR 2009). In order to standardize comparisons, we took the six month period as beginning from baseline measurement. It should be noted however, that studies may not set a quit date until some weeks into the programme (e.g. Project EX) and this may be a source of bias when comparing outcomes.

A more substantial weakness in the evidence base springs from the definitions of quitting used in studies. These vary from self-reported quitting longer than one day (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004) through to seven-day or 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the point of ascertainment, to longer or continuous periods (see Effects of interventions and forest plots). With respect to the shorter PPAs, a negative result is useful in demonstrating evidence of a lack of effect where the study size is adequate but care should be taken with the shorter quit lengths such as 24 hours. The irregularity and instability of the smoking habit in its early stages (for example, weekend smoking is commonly reported) and the low number of cigarettes smoked at baseline by some subjects, call into question the prognostic value of short-term PPA measurements of less than 30 days. Several trials recognize this pattern of smoking and use a 30 day measure of abstinence but  continuous abstinence remains the important and recommended outcome (West 2005). It is tempting to conclude that encouraging an increased number of what are effectively short-lived (e.g. seven-day) quit attempts allows young people to 'practice' quitting, and therefore may help to achieve prolonged cessation in the long run. Prolonged quit attempts might also have a health benefit of their own, or interrupt the progression to more regular or heavy smoking. However, we have no data for young people against which we can test these assumptions.

For our results, we have used an intention-to-treat analysis, i.e. all those randomized included in their original groups, whether or not they received the full intervention. We counted all those with missing data as continuing smokers. We requested information from authors where necessary to facilitate these calculations. Although this is standard practice in adult cessation studies, our review demonstrates that the reasons for young people dropping out from follow-up are diverse, and by no means always related to risk of continued smoking (NoT FL 2001; NoT NC 2002; NoT WV 2004; Hollis 2005). We accept, therefore, that this assumption leads to a conservative analysis, and that it may bias our results towards the null. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any other way of reliably imputing missing data across all situations, so this problem would seem to be intractable.

Several studies clearly demonstrate the importance of biochemical verification (Robinson 2003; Killen 2004; Colby 2005) as substantial numbers of subjects have given false information regarding quit attempts. This raises possible doubts about the validity of those studies which showed positive results but did not use verification, e.g. Hollis 2005. In Project EX-1 2001, verification was incomplete and a weighting factor was added to results. For NoT WV 2011, verification was added to the intervention but only done at three months. There is a continued need for further studies where smoking status has been verified, but the experience of Kohler (NoT AL 2008) and Hoffman (Hoffman 2008) underline the challenges that face researchers in this area. Muramoto warns that exhaled CO has a short half life and may be an insensitive measure given the episodic nature of teen smoking.  She reports cotinine confirmed rates 50 to 65% lower than CO rates.

With regard to the limitations of the pharmacotherapy trials (Killen 2004; Moolchan 2005; Muramoto 2007), the existing evidence base gives us no reason to believe that the neuropharmacological efficacy, effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation would be different for adolescents than for any other group of smokers. However, the context and meaning of smoking in adolescence is very different from that for adult smokers (Amos 2006), and there is currently insufficient evidence to determine whether NRT aids quitting in adolescents. The evidence on bupropion however appears to suggest this is not effective alone and varenicline is not currently licensed for under 18 years old in UK.

Several of the studies we reviewed appear underpowered as demonstrated by wide confidence intervals (e.g. Greenberg 1978; Chan 1988; Colby 2005; Sherbot 2005; Myers 2005; Horn 2007; Project EX Russia 2013), whilst Moolchan 2005 was powered for smoking reduction outcomes rather than cessation. Overall, the total number of young people currently contributing to this review is around 6000, a very small number considering the low quit rates and the range of interventions under investigation.

It should be noted that where recruitment was by inclusion from self reports it is likely that those volunteering, and in some trials obtaining parental consent, could be perceived as a subset of all smokers - those willing to quit. Some authors comment on this aspect of recruitment (Kealey 2009b). 

The results of this review are consistent with other reviews in this area, though other reviews are very different from ours (Sussman 1998; Sussman 2002; McDonald 2003; Sussman 2006; Gervais 2007). Wherease other reviews had a much wider focus and included non-experimental studies, our review has aimed to evaluate where possible the experimental evidence for effectiveness rather than the more discursive evaluation of current approaches undertaken by other authors. Our results are also consistent with Riemsma 2003, whose review found results similar to Aveyard 2001. A recent review by Patnode et al was limited to interventions relevant to primary care and did not find any evidence of effectiveness (Patnode 2013).

With the exception of two very small trials (Greenberg 1978 and Chan 1988), all the included studies have been published within the last twelve years, suggesting an increase in both activity and quality. We are aware there is a growing interest in this topic and we intend to continue regular updates of this review.  Over the period we have been extracting data, teen prevalence figures have shown some improvement in those countries using global public health campaigns, such as bans on smoking in public places, suggesting global measures may have had an impact on smoking initiation. In some developing countries, however, the prevalence is rising and concern for teens remains.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

There is currently little evidence on effectiveness of pharmacotherapies or incorporation of NRT into psycho-social programmes in this age group. The evidence does not support the use of bupropion either alone or as an adjunct to NRT.  Evidence from one study suggests a mandatory intervention for those caught in violation of school smoking cessation policies is ineffective.

The evidence of outcomes on the Not on Tobacco (NoT) programme is improving and there is better evidence of the effectiveness of this programme in terms of length of abstinence.  The meaningfulness of the definition of cessation (one day or more) used for many of the older NoT trials must be challenged when compared to the episodic nature of patterns of smoking of young people but newer studies are encouraging. 

Those interventions with positive outcomes, in terms of their own protocols, are complex and are designed to respond to the many issues that characterise young persons' smoking. In particular, complex approaches show promise and show some persistence of abstinence (30 days point prevalence or longer) and recent publications add weight to interventions combining motivational enhancement and support with approaches based on social cognitive theory.  A recent trial demonstrates that attention to recruitment and the mode of delivery and follow-up may be as important as the construct for the intervention. However, complex interventions often contain components requiring one-to-one (or one-to-few) input from trained staff, raising the cost of delivery, and means of communication other than face-to-face may be more cost effective. Within the context of a clinical trial, great attention is paid to quality management of the intervention. The challenge for services is to maintain these levels of clinical effectiveness.  In view of the paucity of the current evidence, services should recognize the need to maintain rigorous evaluation in terms of outcomes; many of the issues researchers encountered did not arise simply from research protocols but from the practicalities of working with organisations and young people (Grimshaw 2003; Kishnuck 2004; NoT WV 2011).  There is not as yet sufficient evidence to recommend widespread implementation of any one model.

 
Implications for research

Research is developing and increasingly studies are measuring verified, sustained quitting. This trend is to be encouraged for all new trials for teen smoking. The evidence is developing for complex psycho-social interventions but needs to be replicated and tested in different settings. The role of motivation to quit and other variables in predicting cessation need to be further explored as do the most appropriate ways of combining readiness to quit into complex programmes. Trials of brief interventions or self-help materials would be useful, particularly as these are often used as control conditions for more complex interventions. Further studies of appropriate ways to use pharmacotherapy in adolescent populations are needed (adequately powered for cessation).

In the six years since this review was first published, few trials have been able to implement suggested standards (Mermelstein 2002; West 2005).  Funders of future trials must give priority to proposals which conform to these standards.  Futhermore, given the evidence now available about effect sizes there is no reason why future studies should not be adequately powered.  The theoretical basis of all interventions should be explicit, and reporting using CONSORT standards should be the norm (e.g. Hollis 2005).

Likely losses to follow-up for this age group must also be considered in the research design and the assumption that losses to follow-up are non-quitters (whilst representing the current "gold standard”) needs testing. Every effort should be made to keep the latter as small as possible, so that intention-to-treat analysis with missing subjects treated as continuing smokers can be carried out without excessive bias towards the null. Brown 2003 and Peterson 2009 demonstrate good practice in this respect. Subsidiary analysis of data with other imputed data is acceptable but should not represent the main result.

Biochemical verification remains the gold standard (West 2005).  If this is used, note should be made of comments on the limitations of exhaled CO given the episodic nature of smoking in this population.  However, although it is recognized that self reports in this cohort are not necessarily reliable, use of verification can affect recruitment and retention and a pragmatic decision needs to be taken in study design, balancing these factors.

Few of our studies complied with Russell Standards ( Analysis 9.1). Six months follow-up should be a minimum requirement, and research now needs to move on to using outcomes based on sustained, continuous quitting in line with the Russell Standards (West 2005). Longer interventions, perhaps with relapse prevention as a feature, need to be further explored. As a complementary measure, long-term prospective studies of the natural smoking history of those making quit attempts in adolescence are needed. Finally, as the field matures, direct comparisons of effective treatments should become possible and should support full economic analyses.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

We would like to thank Paul Aveyard and Cathy Backinger for reading and commenting on drafts of the initial review. Our gratitude goes to Review Group Co-ordinators and staff, who have been untiring in their support, especially with searches and with software applications, and to all the trialists who supplied additional data or information for this review. We would particularly like to thank Steve Sussman for sharing with us the bibliography of his systematic reviews. These have provided invaluable secondary checks of our search and quality assessment strategies. No additional studies were identified from these bibliographies as meeting the criteria for inclusion in this Cochrane Review.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Effect sizes for all studies with extractable data

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Subgroups by abstinence definition27Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    1.1 Sustained or prolonged abstinence
4Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.2 30 day point prevalence abstinence
8Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.3 7 day point prevalence abstinence
12Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.4 Other abstinence measure
9Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 2 New studies in 20134Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

 
Comparison 2. TTM vs standard care or dietary advice

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Cessation at 1 year31662Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.56 [1.21, 2.01]

 2 Cessation at 2 years21537Risk Difference (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.03 [-6.17, 0.06]

 
Comparison 3. Motivational enhancement vs brief interventions

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Cessation at 6 months or longer122667Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.60 [1.28, 2.01]

 2 Complex interventions including Motivational Interviewing61583Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.88 [1.30, 2.72]

 
Comparison 4. Interventions including Cognitive Behavioural Techniques

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Cessation at 6 months or longer13Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

 
Comparison 5. Complex interventions using M I, Social cognitive theory, CBT or/and TTM

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Biochemically verified 6 month continuous abstinence2456Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.18 [0.80, 1.72]

 2 6 month continuous cessation2836Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.72 [1.03, 2.86]

 3 Cessation at 6 months, ≧ 7days PPA1402Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.10 [0.74, 1.62]

 
Comparison 6. NoT (Not on Tobacco)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Cessation at 6 months or longer61420Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.31 [1.01, 1.71]

 2 NoT+Fit vs Control1143Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.97 [1.02, 3.79]

 3 NoT+Fit vs NOT1170Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.48 [0.88, 2.48]

 
Comparison 7. ICT-based interventions

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 30 day PPA at 6 months1139Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.44 [0.14, 1.36]

 2 7 day PPA at 12 months2Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

 3 30 day abstinence at 12m1448Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.80 [1.19, 2.71]

 
Comparison 8. Pharmacological interventions

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Point prevalence abstinence at six months3Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    1.1 Nicotine patch + bupropion versus nicotine patch + placebo
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.2 Nicotine patch versus placebo
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.3 Nicotine gum versus placebo
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.4 Bupropion vs placebo
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 
Comparison 9. Russell Standards

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Biochemically verified 6 month continuous abstinence2456Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.18 [0.80, 1.72]

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 31 July 2013.


DateEventDescription

24 June 2013New search has been performedSearches updated in February 2013. 4 new studies included and risk of bias tables expanded.

6 June 2013New citation required but conclusions have not changedChange in author order. No major changes to conclusions.



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 3, 2005
Review first published: Issue 4, 2006


DateEventDescription

6 November 2009New search has been performedUpdated for issue 1, 2010. Eight new studies included, no major change to conclusions

30 October 2009New search has been performedConverted to new review format.



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

Both authors conceived the review, and both selected and extracted data. GG and AS wrote the review in collaboration.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Index terms

None known.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies included in this review
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to studies awaiting assessment
  20. References to ongoing studies
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Aveyard 2001 {published and unpublished data}
  • Aveyard P, Cheng KK, Almond J, Sherratt E, Lancashire R, Lawrence T, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial of expert system based on the transtheoretical (''stages of change'') model for smoking prevention and cessation in schools. BMJ 1999;319:948-53.
  • Aveyard P, Sherratt E, Almond J, Lawrence T, Lancashire R, Griffin C, et al. The change-in-stage and updated smoking status results from a cluster-randomized trial of smoking prevention and cessation using the transtheoretical model among British adolescents. Preventive Medicine 2001;33:313-24.
Brown 2003 {published data only}
  • Brown RA, Ramsey SE, Strong DR, Myers MG, Kahler CW, Lejuez CW, et al. Effects of motivational interviewing on smoking cessation in adolescents with psychiatric disorders. Tobacco Control 2003;12(Suppl iv):iv3-iv10.
  • Brown RA, Strong DR, Abrantes AM, Myers MG, Ramsey SE, Kahler CW. Effects on substance use outcomes in adolescents receiving motivational interviewing for smoking cessation during psychiatric hospitalization. Addictive Behaviours 2009;34:887-891.
  • MacPherson L, Strong DR, Kahler CW, Abrantes AM, Ramsey SE, Brown RA. Association of post-treatment smoking change with future smoking and cessation efforts among adolescents with psychiatric comorbidity. Nicotine Tobacco Research 2007;9(12):1297-1307.
  • Macpherson L, Strong DR, Palm KM, Abrantes AM, Brown RA. Post-intervention lapse and relapse in adolescent smokers with psychiatric comorbidity (POS1-84). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 13th Annual Meeting, February 21-24, Austin, Texas. 2007.
Chan 1988 {published data only}
Colby 2005 {published data only}
  • Colby SM, Monti PM, O'Leary Tevyaw T, Barnett NP, Spirito A, Rohsenow DJ, et al. Brief motivational intervention for adolescent smokers in medical settings. Addictive Behaviors 2005;30(5):865-74.
  • Monti P, Colby SM, O'Leary TA, Spirito A, Woolard RH, Lewander WJ, et al. Motivational interviewing for adolescent smokers: preliminary results from a randomized clinical trial. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 8th Annual Meeting Rapid Communications Posters (RP-27) Savannah, Georgia; February 20-23 2002. 2002.
Greenberg 1978 {published data only}
  • Greenberg JS, Deputat Z. Smoking intervention: comparing three methods in a high school setting. Journal of School Health 1978;48:489-502.
Hoffman 2008 {published data only}
  • Hoffman J, Nemes S, Weil J, Zack S. Adolescent smoking cessation escaping nicotine and tobacco (ASCENT): outcomes. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 11th Annual Meeting, 20-23 March; Prague, Czech Republic. 2005.
  • Hoffman J, Nemes S, Weil J, Zack S, Munly K, Hess L. Evaluation of the ASCENT smoking cessation program for adolescents. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2008;3(1):2-8.
  • Hoffman J, Nemes S, Weil J, Zack S, Munly K, Levin H. Adolescent smoking cessation escaping nicotine and tobacco (ASCENT): Outcome evaluation preliminary findings. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 9th Annual Meeting, February 19-22 New Orleans, Louisiana. 2003.
  • Zack SL, Hoffman J, Nemes S, Weil J, Hess J. Participation in a successful and multifaceted teen cessation program. National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Chicago, 2005.
Hollis 2005 {published data only}
  • Hollis JF, Polen MR, Whitlock EP, Lichtenstein E, Mullooly JP, Velicer WF, et al. Teen Reach: outcomes from a randomized, controlled trial of a tobacco reduction program for teens seen in primary medical care. Pediatrics 2005;115(4):981-9.
Horn 2007 {published data only}
  • Horn K, Dino G, Hamilton C, Noerachmanto N. Efficacy of an emergency department-based motivational teenage smoking intervention. Preventing Chronic Disease 2007;4(1):A08.
Joffe 2009 {published data only}
  • Joffe A, McNeely C, Colantuoni E, An M, Wang W, Scharfstein D. Evaluation of school-based smoking-cessation interventions for self-described adolescent smokers. Pediatrics 2009;124:e187-e194.
Kelly 2006 {published data only}
Killen 2004 {published data only}
  • Killen JD, Robinson TN, Ammerman S, Hayward C, Rogers J, Stone C, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the efficacy of bupropion combined with nicotine patch in the treatment of adolescent smokers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2004;72(4):729-35.
Lipkus 2004 {published data only}
  • Lipkus IM, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Schwartz-Bloom RD, Bloom PN, Tilson E. A randomized trial comparing the effects of self-help materials and proactive telephone counseling on teen smoking cessation. Health Psychology 2004;23(4):397-406.
Moolchan 2005 {published data only}
  • Collins CC, Epstein DH, Parzynski CS, Zimmerman D, Moolchan ET, Heishman SJ. Puffing behavior during the smoking of a single cigarette in tobacco-dependent adolescents. Nicotine and bTobacco Research 2010;12(2):164-7.
  • Franken FH, Pickworth WB, Epstein DH, Moolchan ET. Smoking rates and topography predict adolescent smoking cessation following treatment with nicotine replacement therapy. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2006;15(1):154-7.
  • Mancha B, Cranford D, Snidow N, Radzius A, Conrad S, Cadet JL. Patterns of compliance of teenage smokers in cessation treatment: are the first two weeks determining? (PO3 75). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 7th Annual Meeting March 23-23 2001 Seattle Washington. 2001.
  • Moolchan ET, Robinson ML, Ernst M, Cadet JL, Pickworth WB, Heishman SJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of the nicotine patch and gum for treatment of adolescent tobacco addiction. Pediatrics 2005;115(4):407-14.
  • Moolchan ET, Robinson ML, Schroeder JR, Huestis MA, Ernst M. A randomized trial of the efficacy of the nicotine gum and patch for adolescent smokers (PA2-8). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 10th Annual Meeting February 18-21 2004, Phoenix, Arizona. 2004.
  • Robinson ML, Schroeder JR, Moolchan ET. Adolescent smokers screened for a nicotine replacement treatment trial: Correlates of eligibility and enrollment. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2006;8:447-454.
  • Thorner-Bantug E, Jaszyna-Gasior M, Schroeder JR, Collins CC, Moolchan ET. Weight gain, related concerns, and treatment outcomes among adolescent smokers enrolled in cessation treatment. Journal of National Mediacl Association 2009;101(10):1009-1014.
Muramoto 2007 {published data only}
  • Muramoto M, Leischow S, Sherrill DL. A randomized trial of the efficacy of bupropion for adolescent smoking cessation [RP-064]. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 11th annual meeting, March 2005; Prague, Czech Republic. Rapid Communications posters. 2005.
  • Muramoto ML, Leischow SJ, Enright P, Strayer L, Hadjioannou M, Matthews E, et al. So you want to do a smoking cessation study with teens ... interim process evaluation of 'Lessons Learned' from a dose response study of safety and efficacy of sustained release bupropion for smoking cessation in adolescents (PO3-67). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 7th Annual Meeting, Seattle WA. 2001.
  • Muramoto ML, Leischow SJ, Sherrill D, Matthews E, Strayer LJ. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 2 dosages of sustained-release bupropion for adolescent smoking cessation. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2007;161:1068-74.
Myers 2005 {published data only}
  • Myers MG, Brown, SA. A controlled study of a cigarette smoking cessation intervention for adolescents in substance abuse treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2005;19(2):230–3.
  • Myers MG, Gwaltney CJ, Strong DR, Ramsey SE, Brown RA, Monti PM, et al. Adolescent first lapse following smoking cessation: Situation characteristics, precipitants and proximal influences. Addictive Behaviors 2011;36(12):1253-1260.
  • Myers MG, Prochaska JJ. Does smoking intervention influence adolescent substance use disorder treatment outcomes?. Substance Abuse 2008;29(2):81-8.
NoT AL 2008 {published and unpublished data}
  • Kohler C, Schoenberger YM, Phillips M. Effectiveness evaluation of a school-based smoking cessation program for adolescents. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 11th Annual Meeting, 20-23 March 2005; Prague, Czech Republic. 2005.
  • Kohler CL. Schoenberger YM, Beasley TM, Phillips MM. Effectiveness evaluation of the N-O-T smoking cessation program for adolescents. American Journal of Health Behavior 2008;32(4):368-79.
  • Vaid IG. Self-efficacy to resist smoking as a mediator between nicotine dependence and quit attempt in adolescent smokers in Alabama. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2008;69(5-B).
NoT FL 2001 {published data only}
  • Dino G, Goldcamp J, Fernandes A, Kalsekar I, Massey C. A 2-year efficacy study of Not On Tobacco in Florida: An overview of program successes in changing teen smoking behavior. Preventive Medicine 2001;33(6):600-5.
NoT MD 2009 {published data only}
  • Joffe A, McNeely C, Colantuoni E, An M, Wang W, Scharfstein D. Evaluation of school-based smoking-cessation interventions for self-described adolescent smokers. Pediatrics 2009;124:e187-e194.
NoT NC 2002 {published data only}
NoT WV 2004 {published data only}
NoT WV 2011 {published data only}
  • Horn K, Dino, G, Branstetter S, Noerachanto N, Zhang J, Jarrett T, Taylor M. Effects of physical activity on teen smoking cessation. Pediatrics 2011;128(4):e801-e811.
Patten 2006 {published data only}
  • Croghan IT, Campbell HM, Patten CA, Croghan GA, Schroeder DR, Novotny PJ. A contest to create media messages aimed at recruiting adolescents for stop smoking programs. Journal of School Health 2004;74(8):325-8.
  • Patten CA, Croghan IT, Meis TM, Decker PA, Pingree S, Colligan RC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of an Internet-based versus brief office intervention for adolescent smoking cessation. Patient Education & Counseling 2006;64(1-3):249-58.
Peterson 2009 {published data only}
  • Bricker JB, Liu J, Comstock BA, Peterson AV, Kealey KA, Marek PM. Social cognitive mediators of adolescent smoking cessation: results from a large randomized intervention trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2010;24(3):436-45.
  • Kealey KA, Ludman EJ, Mann SL, Marek PM, Phares MM, Riggs KR, Peterson AV Jr. Overcoming barriers to recruitment and retention in adolescent smoking cessation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(2):257-70.
  • Kealey KA, Ludman EJ, Marek PM, Mann SL, Bricker JB, Peterson A. Design and implementation of an effective telephone counseling intervention for adolescent smoking cessation.. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009;101(19):1393-405.
  • Liu J, Peterson AV Jr, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Bricker JB, Marek PM. Addressing challenges in adolescent smoking cessation: design and baseline characteristics of the HS Group-Randomized trial. Preventive Medicine 2007;45(2-3):215-25.
  • Peterson AV Jr, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Marek PM, Ludman EJ, Liu J, Bricker JB. Group-randomized trial of a proactive, personalized telephone counseling intervention for adolescent smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009;101:1378-92.
Project EX-1 2001 {published data only}
  • Dent CW, Pfingston YM, Schmuker K, Granstra J. Nicotine replacement in school-based cessation (RP-33). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 8th Annual Meeting Rapid Communications Posters February 20-23 2002 Savannah, Georgia. 2002.
  • McCuller WJ, Sussman S, Wapner M, Dent C, Weiss DJ. Motivation to quit as a mediator of tobacco cessation among at-risk youth. Addictive Behaviors 2006;31:880-8.
  • Sussman S, Dent CW, Litchman KL. Project EX: Outcomes of teen smoking cessation program. Addictive Behaviors 2001;26:425-38.
  • Sussman S, McCuller WJ, Zheng H, Pfingston YM, Miyano J, Dent CW. Project EX: A program of empirical research on adolescent tobacco use cessation. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2004;2(3):119-32.
Project EX Russia 2013 {published data only}
  • Idrisov B, Sun P, Akhmadeev L, Arpawong TE, Kukhareva P, Sussman S. Immediate and six-month effects of Project EX Russia: A smoking cessation intervention pilot program. Addictive Behaviors 2013;38(8):2402-8.
Robinson 2003 {published data only}
  • Robinson LA, Vander Weg MW, Riedel BW, Klesges RC, McLain-Allen B. "Start to stop": results of a randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation programme for teens. Tobacco Control 2003;12(Suppl IV):iv26-iv33.
Sherbot 2005 {published data only}
  • Sherbot NA. The use of motivational enhancement therapy and the quit 4 life program as a means to facilitate adolescent smoking cessation. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2005;66(1-B):574.
Woodruff 2007 {published data only}
  • Woodruff SI, Conway TL, Edwards CC. Sociodemographic and smoking-related psychosocial predictors of smoking behavior change among high school smokers. Addictive Behaviors 2008;33:354 8.
  • Woodruff SI, Conway TL, Edwards CC, Elliott SP, Crittenden J. Evaluation of an Internet virtual world chat room for adolescent smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors 2007;32:1769-1786.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies included in this review
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to studies awaiting assessment
  20. References to ongoing studies
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Abelin 1989 {published data only}
  • Abelin T, Ehrsam R, Buhler Reichert A, Imhof PR, Muller P, Thommen A, et al. Effectiveness of a transdermal nicotine system in smoking cessation studies. Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology 1989;11:205-14.
Abroms 2007 {published data only}
  • Abroms LC, Windsor R, Simons-Morton B. Getting young adults to quit smoking: A formative evaluation of the X-Pack Program. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008;10:27-33.
  • Abroms LC, Windsor R, Simons-Morton BA. A formative evaluation of an email-based program for smoking cessation in young adults (POS1-115). Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco 13th Annual Meeting Febuary 21-22 Austin, Texas. 2007.
Adelman 2000 {published data only}
Adelman 2009 {published data only}
  • Adelman, W.P. Nicotine nasal spray neither effective nor well-tolerated by adolescent smokers. Journal of Pediatrics 2009;154(3):462-463.
Ames 2007 {published data only}
  • Ames S, Patten C, Werch C, Covil E, Craggs J, Olmos J, et al. Expressive writing as a smoking cessation treatment adjunct for young adult smokers (POS2-28). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting February 15-18, Orlando, Florida. 2006.
  • Ames SC, Patten CA, Offord KP, Pennebaker JW, Croghan IT, Tri DM, et al. Expressive writing intervention for young adult cigarette smokers. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2005;61:1555-70.
  • Ames SC, Patten CA, Werch CE, Schroeder DR, Stevens SR, Fredrickson PA, et al. Expressive writing as a smoking cessation treatment adjunct for young adult smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(2):185-94.
An 2007 {published data only}
  • An LC, Hennrikus DJ, Perry CL, Lein EB, Klatt C, Farley DM, et al. Feasibility of Internet health screening to recruit college students to an online smoking cessation intervention. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2007;9(Suppl 1):s11-8.
Audrain-McGovern 2011 {published data only}
  • Audrain-McGovern J, Stevens S, Murray PJ, Kinsman S, Zuckoff A, Pletcher J, et al. The efficacy of motivational interviewing versus brief advice for adolescent smoking behavior change. Pediatrics 2011;128(1):e101-1.
Audrey 2008 {published data only}
  • Audrey S, Holliday J, Campbell R. Commitment and compatibility: Teachers' perspectives on the implementation of an effective school-based, peer-led smoking intervention. Health Education Journal 2008;67(2):74-90.
Bauman 2000 {published data only}
  • Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Foshee VA, Pemberton M, King TS, Koch GG. Influence of a family-directed program on adolescent cigarette and alcohol cessation. Prevention Science 2000;1:227-37.
Bloor 1999 {published data only}
  • Bloor M, Frankland J, Langdon NP, Robinson M, Allerston S, Catherine A, et al. A controlled evaluation of an intensive, peer-led, schools-based, anti-smoking programme. Health Education Journal 1999;58(1):17-25.
Bond 2004 {published data only}
  • Bond L, Patton G, Glover S, Carlin JB, Butler H, Thomas L, et al. The Gatehouse Project: Can a multilevel school intervention affect emotional wellbeing and health risk behaviours?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;58(12):997-1003.
Bramley 2005 {published data only}
  • Bramley D, Riddell T, Whittaker R, Corbett T, Lin RB, Wills M, et al. Smoking cessation using mobile phone text messaging is as effective in Maori as non-Maori. New Zealand Medical Journal 2005;118(1216):U1494.
  • Rodgers A, Corbett T, Bramley D, Riddell T, Wills M, Lin RB, et al. Do u smoke after txt? Results of a randomised trial of smoking cessation using mobile phone text messaging. Tobacco Control 2005;14(4):255-61.
Braverman 1994 {published data only}
  • Braverman MT, Moskowitz JM, D'Onofrio CN, Foster V. Project 4-health develops program to curb youth tobacco use. California Agriculture 1994;48:39-43.
Brendryen 2008 {published data only}
  • Brendryen H, Drozd F, Kraft P. A digital smoking cessation program delivered through internet and cell phone without nicotine replacement (happy ending): randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;10(5):e51.
Burton 1994 {published data only}
  • Burton D. Tobacco cessation programs for adolescents. In: Richmond R editor(s). Interventions for smokers: an international perspective. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994:95-136.
  • Burton D, Chakravorty B, Weekes K, Flay BR. Outcome of TNT tobacco-cessation randomised trial with high school students. Unpublished material 1994.
  • Burton D, Chakravorty B, Weeks K, Flay BR, Dent C, Stacy A, et al. Outcome of a tobacco use cessation randomized trial with high-school students. Substance Use & Misuse 2009;44(7):965-80.
Cai 2000 {published data only}
  • Cai YM, Zhao CX, Wong SU, Zhang L, Lim SK. Laser acupuncture for adolescent smokers - A randomized double-blind controlled trial. American Journal of Chinese Medicine 2000;28(3-4):443-9.
  • Yiming C. Laser acupuncture for adolescent smokers - a randomised double blind controlled study.. XI World Congress of Psychiatry, Hamburg, August 6-11, 1999. 1999; Vol. II:105.
Campbell 2008 {published data only}
  • Campbell R, Starkey F, Holliday J, Audrey S, Bloor M, Parry-Langdon N, et al. An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2008;371(10):1595-1602.
  • Starkey F, Moore L, Campbell R, Sidaway M, Bloor M, ASSIST. Correction: rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial. BMC.Public Health 2007;7:301.
Cavallo 2007 {published data only}
  • Cavallo DA, Smith AE, Liss TB, McFetridge AK, Babuscio T, et al. Contingency management and cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation in adolescent smokers: comparison of two different CBT formats. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 13th Annual Meeting February 21-24, Austin, Texas. 2007:54.
Chen 2006 {published data only}
  • Chen HH, Yeh ML. Developing and evaluating a smoking cessation program combined with an internet-assisted instruction program for adolescents with smoking. Patient Education and Counseling 2006;61(3):411-8.
  • Chen HH, Yeh ML, Chao YH. Comparing effects of auricular acupressure with and without an internet-assisted program on smoking cessation and self-efficacy of adolescents. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2006;12(2):147-52.
Colby 1998 {published data only}
  • Colby SM, Monti PM, Barnett NP, Rohsenow DJ, Weissman K, Spirito A, et al. Brief motivational interviewing in a hospital setting for adolescent smoking: a preliminary study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998;66(3):574-8.
  • Monti P, Colby SM, O'Leary TA, Spirito A, Woolard R, Rohsenow D, et al. Motivational interviewing plus parental intervention for adolescent smokers: results from a randomized clinical trial (POS4-31). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 9th Annual Meeting February 19-22 2003 New Orleans, Louisiana. 2003.
Digiusto 1994 {published data only}
  • Digiusto WE. Pros and cons of cessation interventions for adolescent smokers at school. In: Richmond R editor(s). Interventions for smoking - an international perspective. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994:107-36.
Dino 1998 {published data only}
  • Dino G, Horn K, Meit H. A pilot study of Not On Tobacco: a stop smoking programme for adolescents. Health Education 1998;6:230-41.
Egger 1983 {published data only}
  • Egger G, Fitzgerald W, Frape G, Monaem A, Rubinstein P, Tyler C, et al. Results of large scale media antismoking campaign in Australia: North Coast 'Quit for Life' programme. British Medical Journal 1983;287:1125-8.
Ehrsam 1991 {published data only}
  • Ehrsam RE, Buhler A, Muller P, Mauli D, Schumacher PM, Howald H, et al. [Weaning of young smokers using a transdermal nicotine patch]. Schweizerische Rundschau für Medizin Praxis 1991;80(7):145-50.
Elsasser 2002 {published data only}
  • Elsasser GN, Guck TP, Destache CJ, Daher PM, Frey DR, Jones J, et al. Sustained release bupropion in the treatment of nicotine addiction among teenage smokers (RP-32). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 8th Annual Meeting Rapid Communications Posters February 20-23 2002 Savannah, Georgia. 2002.
Emmons 2003 {published data only}
  • Emmons KM, Butterfield RM, Puleo E, Park ER, Mertens A, Gritz ER, et al. Smoking among participants in the childhood cancer survivors cohort: the Partnership for Health Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;21(2):189-96.
Erol 2008 {published data only}
  • Erol S, Erdogan S. Application of a stage based motivational interviewing approach to adolescent smoking cessation: The Transtheoretical Model-based study. Patient Education and Counseling 2008;72(1):42-48.
Escoffery 2004 {published data only}
  • Escoffery C, McCormick L, Bateman K. Development and process evaluation of a web-based smoking cessation program for college smokers: innovative tool for education. Patient Education and Counseling 2004;53(2):217-25.
Faessel 2009 {published data only}
  • Faessel H, Ravva P, Williams K. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of varenicline in healthy adolescent smokers: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Clinical Therapeutics 2009;31(1):177-89.
Fagan 2003 {published data only}
  • Fagan P, Stoddard AM, Hunt MK, Frazier L, Girod K, Sorensen G. The feasibility of evaluating a tobacco control intervention for working youth. Tobacco Control 2003;12:34-9.
Figa-Talamanca 1989 {published data only}
  • Figa-Talamanca I, Modolo M. Evaluation of an anti-smoking educational programme among adolescents in Italy. Hygie 1989;8:24-8.
Flay 1995 {published data only}
  • Flay BR, Miller TQ, Hedeker D, Siddiqui O, Britton CF, Brannon BR, et al. The television, school, and family smoking prevention and cessation project. VIII student outcomes and mediating variables. Preventive Medicine 1995;24:29-40.
Gray 2011 {published data only}
  • Carpenter MJ, Baker NL, Gray KM, Upadhyaya HP. Assessment of nicotine dependence among adolescent and young adult smokers: A comparison of measures. Addictive Behaviours 2010;35(11):977-82.
  • Gray KM, Carpenter MJ, Baker NL, Hartwell KJ, Lewis AL, Hiott DW, et al. Bupropion SR and contingency management for adolescent smoking cessation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2011;40(1):77-86.
Hamilton 2005 {published data only}
Hancock 2001 {published data only}
  • Hancock L, Sanson-Fisher R, Perkins J, Girgis A, Howley P, Schofield M. The effect of a community action intervention on adolescent smoking rates in rural Australian towns: the CART project. Cancer Action in Rural Towns. Preventive Medicine 2001;32(4):332-40.
Hanson 2003 {published data only}
  • Dickmann PJ, Mooney ME, Allen SS, Hanson K, Hatsukami DK. Nicotine withdrawal and craving in adolescents: effects of sex and hormonal contraceptive use. Addictive Behaviors 2009;34(6-7):620-3.
  • Hanson K, Allen S, Jensen S, Hatsukami D. Treatment of adolescent smokers with the nicotine patch. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2003;5(4):515-26.
Hanson 2006 {published data only}
  • Hanson K, Zylla E, Allen S, Avery G. Harm reduction: an intervention for adolescent smokers (SYM3B). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting February 15-18, Orlando, Florida. 2006.
  • Hanson K, Zylla E, Allen S, Li Z, Hatsukami DK. Cigarette reduction: An intervention for adolescent smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependance 2008;95:164-8.
Harris 2010 {published data only}
  • Harris KJ, Catley D, Good GE, Cronk NJ, Harrar S, Williams KB. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation in college students: a group randomized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine 2010;51(5):387-93.
Haug 2009 {published data only}
  • Haug S, Meyer C, Schorr G, Bauer S, John U. Continuous individual support of smoking cessation using text messaging: A pilot experimental study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009;11(8):915-923.
Heikkinen 2009 {published data only}
  • Heikkinen AM, Broms U, Pitkäniemi J, Koskenvuo M, Meurman J. Key factors in smoking cessation intervention among 15-16-year-olds. Behavioral Medicine 2009;35:93-9.
Hellmann 1988 {published data only}
  • Hellmann R, OShea RM, Kunz ML, Schimpfhauser FT. University health service physician intervention with cigarette smokers. Journal of American College Health 1988;37:91-3.
Helstrom 2004 {published data only}
  • Helstrom A, Hutchison K, Bryan A. Motivational enhancement therapy for high-risk adolescent smokers. Addictive Behaviors 2007;32:2404-10.
  • Helstrom AW. A smoking intervention for high-risk adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2004;64(7-B):3525.
Higgs 2000 {published data only}
  • Higgs PE, Edwards D, Harbin RE, Higgs PC. Evaluation of a self-directed smoking prevention and cessation program. Pediatric Nursing 2000;26(2):150-5.
Hollis 1994 {published data only}
  • Hollis JF, Vogt TM, Stevens V, Biglan A, Severson H, Lichtenstein E. The tobacco reduction and cancer control (TRACC) program: team approaches to counseling in medical and dental settings. In: U.S.Dept of Healh and Human Services, editor(s). Tobacco and the clinician: interventions for medical and dental practice:. Vol. I, Washington DC: U.S. Govt printing office, 1994:143.
Horn 2004 {published data only}
  • Horn K, Dino G, Kalsekar I, Massey CJ, Manzo-Tennant K, McGloin T. Exploring the relationship between mental health and smoking cessation: a study of rural teens. Prevention Science 2004;5(2):113-26.
Hort 1995 {published data only}
  • Hort W, Hort H, Willers R. [An interventional study against cigarette smoking among Dusseldorf high school students 1992-94]. Zeitschrift Fur Kardiologie 1995;84(9):700-11.
Jason 1982 {published data only}
Josendal 1998 {published data only}
  • Josendal O, Aaro LE. Evaluation of an intervention programme for smokefree schools. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 2002;122(4):403-7.
  • Josendal O, Aaro LE, Bergh IH. Effects of a school-based smoking prevention program among subgroups of adolescents. Health Education Research 1998;13(2):215-24.
Kang 2005 {published data only}
  • Kang H-C, Shin K-K, Kim K-K, Youn B-B. The effects of the acupuncture treatment for smoking cessation in high school student smokers. Yonsei Medical Journal 2005;46(2):206-12.
Kealey 2009 {published data only}
  • Kealey KA, Ludman EJ, Marek PM, Mann SL, Bricker JB, Peterson AV. Design and implementation of an effective telephone counseling intervention for adolescent smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009;101(20):1393-1405.
Kelleher 1999 {published data only}
  • Kelleher CC, Fallon UB, McCarthy E, Dineen BD, ODonnell M, Killian M, et al. Feasibility of a lifestyle cardiovascular health promotion programme for 8-15-year olds in Irish general practice: results of the Galway Health Project. Health Promotion International 1999;14:221-9.
Kentala 1999 {published data only}
Killen 1988 {published data only}
  • Killen JD, Robinson TN, Telch MJ, Saylor KE, Maron DJ, Rich T, Bryson S. The Stanford Adolescent Heart Health Program. Health Education Quarterly 1989;16(2):263-83.
  • Killen JD, Telch MJ, Robinson TN, Maccoby N, Taylor CB, Farquhar JW. Cardiovascular disease risk reduction for tenth graders. A multiple-factor school-based approach. Journal of the American Medical Association 1988;260:1728-33.
Kim 2004 {published data only}
  • Kim S, Nam KA, Seo M, Lee HH. Effectiveness of a smoking cessation program for adolescents. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi 2004;34(4):646-54.
Krishkowy 2008 {published data only}
  • Knishkowy B, Verbov-Lei G, Amitai Y, Zamir-Stein C, Rosen L. Results from a religion-based tobacco control trial among Haredi (Jewish ultra-orthodox) male adolescents in Jerusalem. Unpublished Work 2008.
Lando 2007 {published data only}
  • Lando HA, Hennrikus D, Boyle R, Lazovich D, Stafne E, Rindal B. Promoting tobacco abstinence among older adolescents in dental clinics. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2007;2(1):23-30.
Lotecka 1983 {published data only}
McCambridge 2004 {published data only}
McCuller 2006 {published data only}
Mermelstein 2006 {published data only}
  • Mermelstein R, Turner L. Web-based support as an adjunct to group-based smoking cessation for adolescents. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006;8 Suppl 1:S69-76.
  • Turner L, Mermelstein R. Web-based support as an adjunct to group-based smoking cessation for adolescents (POS2-50). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting February 15-18, Orlando, Florida. 2006.
Myers 2008 {published data only}
  • Myers MG, Gwaltney CJ, Strong DR, Ramsey SE, Brown RA, Monti PM, et al. Adolescent first lapse following smoking cessation: Situation characteristics, precipitants and proximal influences. Addictive Behaviors 2011;36(12):1253-60.
  • Myers MG, Prochaska JJ. Does smoking intervention influence adolescent substance use disorder treatment outcomes?. Substance Abuse 2008;29(2):81-88.
Niederhofer 2004 {published data only}
Norman 2008 {published data only}
  • Norman CD, Maley O, Li X, Skinner HA. Using the internet to assist smoking prevention and cessation in schools: A randomized, controlled trial. Health Psychology 2008;27(6):799-810.
  • Skinner H, Maley O, Norman C. Website intervention for youth smoking prevention: findings from school-based randomized controlled trial. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 11th Annual Meeting, 20-23 March 2005; Prague, Czech Republic. 2005.
  • Skinner H, Norman C, Maley O. Web-based intervention for youth smoking prevention and cessation. 130th Annual Meeting of APHA,12th November. 2002.
O'Neill 2000 {published data only}
  • O'Neill HK, Gillispie MA, Slobin K. Stages of change and smoking cessation: a computer-administered intervention program for young adults. American Journal of Health Promotion 2000;15(2):93-6, iii.
Pallonen 1998 {published data only}
  • Pallonen UE, Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, Bellis JM, Tsoh JY, et al. Computer-based smoking cessation interventions in adolescents: Description, feasibility, and six-month follow-up findings. Substance Use and Misuse 1998;33(4):935-65.
Pbert 2006 {published data only}
  • Pbert L, Osganian SK, Gorak D, Druker S, Reed G, O'Neill KM, et al. A school nurse-delivered adolescent smoking cessation intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine 2006;43:312-20.
Pbert 2008 {published data only}
  • Pbert L, Flint AJ, Fletcher KE, Young MH, Druker S, DiFranza JR. Effect of a pediatric practice-based smoking prevention and cessation intervention for adolescents: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2008;121(4):e738-e747.
Perry 1980 {published data only}
Quinlan 2000 {published data only}
  • Quinlan KB, McCaul KD. Matched and mismatched interventions with young adult smokers: testing a stage theory. Health Psychology 2000;19(2):165-71.
Rabius 2004 {published data only}
Rice 2010 {published data only}
  • Rice VH, Weglicki LS, Templin T, Jamil H, Hammad A. Intervention effects on tobacco use in Arab and non-Arab American adolescents. Addictive Behaviors 2010;35(1):46-8.
Roddy 2006 {published data only}
  • Roddy E, Romilly N, Challenger A, Lewis S, Britton J. Use of nicotine replacement therapy in socioeconomically deprived young smokers: a community-based pilot randomised controlled trial. Tobacco Control 2006;15(5):373-6.
Rubinstein 2008 {published data only}
Schepis 2006 {published data only}
  • Leeman RF, Schepis TS, Cavallo DA, McFetridge AK, Liss TB, Krishnan-Sarin S. Nicotine dependence severity as a cross-sectional predictor of alcohol-related problems in a sample of adolescent smokers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010;12(5):521-4.
  • Schepis TS, Warren KA, Rao U. Evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral smoking cessation treatment for adolescents and young adults (POS2-53). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting February 15-18, Orlando, Florida. 2006.
Severson 1991 {published data only}
  • Severson H, Glasgow RE, Wirt R, Brozovsky P, Zoref L, Black C, et al. Preventing the use of smokeless tobacco and cigarettes by teens: results of a classroom intervention. Health Education Research 1991;6:109-20.
Simmons 2011 {published data only}
  • Simmons VN, Heckman B, Fink AC, Patel R, Bello L, Brandon TH. Efficacy of an experiential, web-based smoking intervention for college smokers [PA2-2]. SRNT 17th Annual Meeting. Toronto, Ontario, 2011:17.
Sims 2011 {published data only}
  • Sims T, Smith SS, McAfee T, Baker TB, Fiore M, Sheffer M. Randomized clinical trial to evaluate quitline cessation counseling for 18 to 24 year-old smokers [PA2-1] . Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco 17th Annual Meeting, February 16-19, Toronto 2011.
  • Sims TH, McAfee T, Fraser DL, Baker TB, Fiore MC, Smith SS. Quitline cessation counseling for young adult smokers: A randomized clinical trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(5):932-41.
Solomon 2009 {published data only}
Stein-Seroussi 2009 {published data only}
  • Stein-Seroussi A, Stockton L, Brodish P, Meyer M. Randomized controlled trial of the ACTION smoking cessation curriculum in tobacco-growing communities. Addictive Behaviors 2009;34(9):737-43.
Stephens 2001 {published data only}
  • Stephens SA. The effectiveness of Motivational Enhancement Therapy in adolescent smoking cessation. Dissertation Abstracts International 2001;62(2-B):1101.
Stoddard 2005 {published data only}
  • Stoddard AM, Fagan P, Sorensen G, Hunt MK, Frazier L, Girod K. Reducing cigarette smoking among working adolescents: Results from the SMART study. Cancer Causes & Control 2005;16(10):1159-64.
Sussman 1995 {published data only}
  • Sussman S, Dent CW, Burton D, Stacey AW, Flay BR. Cessation Clinic Evaluation. Developing school-based tobacco use prevention and cessation programmes. California: Sage, 1995:204-10.
Sussman 2007 {published data only}
  • Sun P, Miyano J, Rohrbach LA, Dent CW, Sussman S. Short term effects of Project EX4: a classroom based smoking prevention and cessation intervention program (SYM3A). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting February 15-18, Orlando, Florida. 2006.
  • Sussman S, Miyano J, Rohrbach LA, Dent C, Sun P. Six-month and one-year effects of project EX-4: a classroom-based smoking prevention and cessation intervention program. Addictive Behaviors 2007;32(12):3005-14.
Travis 2009 {published data only}
  • Travis HE, Lawrance KA. Randomized controlled trial examining the effectiveness of a tailored self-help smoking-cessation intervention for postsecondary smokers. Journal of American College Health 2009;57(4):437-44.
Turner (NOT) 2006 {published data only}
  • Turner L, Mermelstein R. Web-based support as an adjunct to group-based smoking cessation for adolescents (POS2-50). Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 12th Annual Meeting February 15-18, Orlando, Florida. 2006.
Wang 2006 {published data only}
Werch 2008 {published data only}
  • Werch CE, Bian H, Carlson JM, Moore MJ, Diclemente CC, Huang IC, et al. Brief integrative multiple behavior intervention effects and mediators for adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2011;34(1):3-12.
  • Werch CE, Bian H, Diclemente CC, Moore MJ, Thombs D, Ames SC, et al. A brief image-based prevention intervention for adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2010;24(1):170-5.
  • Werch CE, Moore MJ, Bian H, DiClemente CC, Ames SC, Weiler RM, et al. Efficacy of a brief image-based multiple-behavior intervention for college students. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2008;36(2):149-157.
Whittaker 2011 {published data only}
  • Whittaker R, Dorey E, Bramley D, Bullen C, Denny S, Elley CR, et al. A theory-based video messaging mobile phone intervention for smoking cessation: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(1):e10.
Winkleby 2004 {published data only}
  • Winkleby MA, Feighery E, Dunn M, Kole S, Ahn D, Killen JD. Effects of an advocacy intervention to reduce smoking among teenagers. Archives Of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2004;158:269-75.
Wongwiwatthananukit 2009 {published data only}
  • Wongwiwatthananukit S, Dumrongpiwat S, Krittiyanunt S, Dhummaupakorn R, Suwanmajo S. Development and evaluation of pharmacist-based smoking cessation program for youth offenders. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 2010;50(2):267-8.

References to studies awaiting assessment

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies included in this review
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to studies awaiting assessment
  20. References to ongoing studies
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Minary 2009 {published data only}
  • Minary L, Cambon L, Martini H, Wirth N, Acouetey DS, Thouvenot F, et al. Efficacy of a smoking cessation program in a population of adolescent smokers in vocational schools: a public health evaluative controlled study. BMC Public Health 2013;13:149.
  • Minary L, Martini H, Wirth N, Thouvenot F, Acouetey DS, Martinet Y, et al. TABADO: "Evaluation of a smoking cessation program among adolescents in vocational training centers": Study protocol. BMC Public Health 2009;9:411.

References to ongoing studies

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies included in this review
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to studies awaiting assessment
  20. References to ongoing studies
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Arora 2010 {published data only}
  • Arora M, Stigler M, Gupta V, Bassi S, Dhavan P, Mathur N, et al. Tobacco control among disadvantaged youth living in low-income communities in India: Introducing Project ACTIVITY. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2010;11(1):45-52.
Varenicline-NCT01312909 {unpublished data only}
  • Smoking Cessation in Healthy Adolescent Smokers. Ongoing study TBC.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies included in this review
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to studies awaiting assessment
  20. References to ongoing studies
  21. Additional references
  22. References to other published versions of this review
Amos 2006
  • Amos A, Wiltshire S, Haw S, NcNeill A. Ambivalence and uncertainty: experiences of and attitudes towards addiction and smoking cessation in the mid-to-late teens. Health Education Research 2006; Vol. 21, issue 2:181-91.
Boden 2010
  • Boden, JM. Fergusson, DM. Horwood, J. Cigarette smoking and depression: tests of causal linkages using a longitudinal birth cohort.. British Journal of Psychiatry 2010;196:440-446.
Brinn 2010
Burt 1998
Campbell 2004a
Campbell 2004b
Carson 2011
Carson 2012
Coleman 2012
Coppo 2012
  • Coppo A, Galanti MR, Buscemi D, Giordano L, Faggiano F. School policies for preventing smoking among young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009990]
Corby 2000
  • Corby EA, Roll JM, Ledgerwood DM, Schuster CR. Contingency management interventions for treating the substance abuse of adolescents: A feasibility study. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology 2000;8:371-6.
CPHTP 2012
  • Center for Public Health and Tobacco Policy. Cause and Effect: Tobacco Marketing Increases Tobacco Use: Findings of 2012 Surgeon General’s report. Boston, MA., 2012.
DiFranza 2008
Eriksen 2012
  • Eriksen M, Mackay J, Ross H. The Tobacco Atlas . 4th Edition. Atlanta GA : World Lung Foundation and American Ca ncer Society , 2012 .
Geeta 2012
  • Thakur GA, Sengupta SM, Grizenko N, Choudhry Z, Joober R. Family-based association study of ADHD and genes increasing the risk for smoking behaviours. Arch Dis Child 2012;97:1027-33.
Gervais 2007
  • Gervais A, O'Loughlin J, Dugas E, Eisenberg M J, Wellman RJ, DiFranza JR. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of youth smoking cessation interventions. Drogués Santé et société 2007;6(1 Suppl 2):ii1-ii26.
Green 2004
  • Green H, McGinnity A, Meltzer H, Ford T, Goodman R. Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004. Office for National Statistics 2004:http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5269/mrdoc/pdf/5269technicalreport.pdf. Accessed 31/1/13.
Grimshaw 2003
Hahn 2005
  • Hahn S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J. Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005;5(10):1-8.
Higgins 2003
Hu 1998
  • Hu SC, Lanese RR. The applicability of the theory of planned behavior to the intention to quit smoking across workplaces in southern Taiwan. Addictive Behaviors 1998;23:225-37.
Hughes 2003
  • Hughes JR, Keeley JP, Niaura RS, Ossip-Klein DJ, Richmond RL, Swan GE. Measures of abstinence in clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2003;5(1):13-25.
Kealey 2009b
  • Kealey KA, Ludman EJ, Marek PM, Mann SL, Bricker JB, Peterson A. Design and Implementation of an Effective Telephone Counseling Intervention for Adolescent Smoking Cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009;101:1393-1405.
Kishnuck 2004
  • Kishchuk N, Tremblay M, Lapierre J, Heneman B, O'Loughlin J. Qualitative investigation of young smokers and ex-smokers views on smoking cessation methods. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6(3):491-500.
Lumley 2009
McDonald 2003
  • McDonald P, Colwell B, Backinger C, Huston C, Maule C. Better practices for youth tobacco cessation. evidence of review panel. American Journal of Health Behavior 2003;27:S144-58.
Mermelstein 2002
  • Mermelstein R, Colby SM, Patten C, Prokhorov A, Brown R, Myers M, et al. Methodological issues in measuring treatment outcomes in adolescent smoking cessation studies. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2002;4(4):395-403.
MMWR 2009
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High School Students Who Tried to Quit Smoking Cigarettes — United States, 2007. MMWR, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2009;58(16):428-431.
MMWR 2012
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students—United States, 2011 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2012; 61 ( 30 ):581-5.
NHSIC 2011
  • Fuller E, Gill V, Hawkins V, Mandalia D, Whalley R. Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2011 . NatCen Social Research on behalf of the Health and Social Care Information Centre 2012:https://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/public-health/surveys/smok-drin-drug-youn-peop-eng-2011/smok-drin-drug-youn-peop-eng-2011-rep2.pdf. Accessed 14/3/13.
NHSIC 2012
  • Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), Lifestyles Statistics. Statistics on smoking, England, 2012 . 2012:https://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/public-health/smoking/smok-eng-2012/smok-eng-2012-rep.pdf. Acessed 14/2/13.
O'Loughlin 2003
  • O'Loughlin J, DiFranza J, Tyndale RF, Meshefedjian G, McMillan-Davey E, Clarke PBS, et al. Nicotine-dependence symptoms are associated with smoking frequency in adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2003;25:219-25.
ONS 2000
  • Office for National Statistics. Drug use, smoking and drinking among young teenagers in 1999. www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/drugs0500.pdf (accessed 4th March 2005) 2000; Vol. 189.
Patnode 2013
  • Patnode CD, O'Connor E, Whitlock EP, Perdue LA, Soh C, Hollis J. Primary care-relevant interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013; 158 (4):253-60.
Prochaska 2000
Prokhorov 2000
  • Prokhorov AV, de Moor C, Pallonen UE, Suchanek Hudmon K, Kole S, Hu S. Validation of the modified Fagerström tolerance questionnaire with salivary cotinine among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors 2000;25(3):429-33.
Raw 1998
  • Raw M, McNeill A, West R. Smoking cessation guidelines for health professionals. A guide to effective smoking cessation interventions for the health care system. Health Education Authority. Thorax 1998;53(Suppl 5 (1)):S1-19.
Riemsma 2003
  • Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness of stage-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1175-7.
Sheppard 2009
  • Shepperd S, Lewin S, Straus S, Clarke M, Eccles MP, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?. PLoS Med 2009;6(8):e1000086.
Stanton 2001
  • Stanton A, Grimshaw GM, Andrews K, Grimshaw CM, Robertson W, Blackburn C. Maybe not tomorrow but soon. Warwick: University of Warwick, 2001.
Stead 2005
Sussman 1998
Sussman 1999
  • Sussman S, Lichtman K, Ritt A, Pallonen UE. Effects of thirty-four adolescent tobacco use cessation and prevention trials on regular users of tobacco products. Substance Use and Misuse 1999;34:1469-503.
Sussman 2002
  • Sussman S. Effects of sixty-six adolescent tobacco use cessation trials and seventeen prospective studies of self-initiated quitting. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2002;1(1):35-81.
Sussman 2006
TAG 2000
  • Tobacco Advisory Group. Nicotine addiction in Britain. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2000.
Thomas 2012
Villanti 2010
  • Villanti AC, McKay HS, Abrams DB, Holtgrave DR, Bowie JV. Smoking-cessation interventions for U.S. young adults: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010;39(6):564-74.
West 2005