Does giving people who smoke feedback about the effects of smoking on their body help them to quit

Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, Rège Walther M, Cornuz J

Published Online:

April 15, 2009

Biomedical risk assessment is the process of giving smokers feedback on the physical effects of smoking by physiological measurements (for example: exhaled carbon monoxide measurement or lung function tests). It was thought to be a possible way of increasing quit rates. In one study, smokers who had their lung function tested and the results explained in terms of their lung age compared to a non smoker of the same age were more likely to quit than people given the same test but without the explanation. Mixed quality evidence does not suggest that other types of biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation compared with standard treatments.

Abstract (click to read)

Background:

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

Objectives:

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

Search strategy:

We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

Selection criteria:

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

Data collection and analysis:

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method.

Main results:

We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker.

Authors' conclusions:

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

This record should be cited as:

Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, Rège Walther M, Cornuz J. Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004705. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004705.pub3

Assessed as up to date:

January 27, 2009

Find the research

Get full text at The Cochrane Library

Primary Review Group:

Tobacco Addiction Group

Health topics:

Lungs & airways > Smoking cessation > Non-pharmacological interventions

Tobacco, drugs, & alcohol dependence > Tobacco > Non-pharmacological interventions

Cochrane Summaries^beta

Independent high-quality evidence for health care decision making

Does giving people who smoke feedback about the effects of smoking on their body help them to quit

More like this

Copyright © 2012 - The Cochrane Collaboration