Search

Background: Hypnotherapy is widely promoted as a method for aiding smoking cessation. It is intended to act on underlying impulses to weaken the desire to smoke, or strengthen the will to stop. Objectives: To evaluate the effect and safety of hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. Search Methods: For this update we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), using the terms "smoking cessation" and "hypnotherapy" or "hypnosis", with no restrictions on language or publication date. The most recent search was performed on 18 July 2018. Selection Criteria: We considered randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked and implemented a hypnotherapy intervention for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, or with any other therapeutic interventions. Trials were required to report smoking cessation rates at least six months after the beginning of treatment. Study eligibility was determined by at least two review authors, independently. Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data on participant characteristics, the type and duration of hypnotherapy, the nature of the control group, smoking status, method of randomization, and completeness of follow‐up. These authors also independently assessed the quality of the included studies. In undertaking this work, we used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow‐up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated abstinence rates where available. Those lost to follow‐up were considered to still be smoking. We summarized effects as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we performed meta‐analysis using a fixed‐effect model. We also noted any adverse events reported. Main Results: We included three new trials in this update, which brings the total to 14 included studies that compared hypnotherapy with 22 different control interventions. The studies included a total of 1926 participants. Studies were diverse and a single meta‐analysis was not possible. We judged only one study to be at low risk of bias overall; we judged 10 studies to be at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Studies did not provide reliable evidence of a greater benefit from hypnotherapy compared with other interventions or no treatment for smoking cessation. Most individual studies did not find statistically significant differences in quit rates after six months or longer, and studies that did detect differences typically had methodological limitations. Pooling small groups of relatively comparable studies did not provide reliable evidence for a specific effect of hypnotherapy relative to controls. There was low certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, that showed no statistically significant difference between hypnotherapy and attention‐matched behavioural treatments (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.61; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 957 participants). Results were similarly imprecise, and also limited by risk of bias, when comparing hypnotherapy to intensive behavioural interventions (not matched for contact time) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 211 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision. No significant differences were detected in comparisons of hypnotherapy with brief behavioural interventions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.69; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 269 participants), rapid/focused smoking (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.33; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 54 participants), and pharmacotherapies (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.20; I2 = 5%; 2 studies, 197 participants). When hypnotherapy was evaluated as an adjunct to other treatments, the pooled result from five studies showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of hypnotherapy (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.35; I² = 62%; 224 participants); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias across studies (four had a high risk or bias, one had an unclear risk), and substantial statistical heterogeneity. Most studies did not provide information on whether data specifically relating to adverse events were collected, and whether or not any adverse events occurred. One study that did collect such data did not find a statistically significant difference in the adverse event ‘index’ between hypnotherapy and relaxation. Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether hypnotherapy is more effective for smoking cessation than other forms of behavioural support or unassisted quitting. If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most. There is very little evidence on whether hypnotherapy causes adverse effects, but the existing data show no evidence that it does. Further large, high‐quality randomized controlled trials, and more comprehensive assessments of safety, are needed on this topic.

BACKGROUND: Access to mobile phones continues to increase exponentially globally, outstripping access to fixed telephone lines, fixed computers and the Internet. Mobile phones are an appropriate and effective option for the delivery of smoking cessation support in some contexts. This review updates the evidence on the effectiveness of mobile phone‐based smoking cessation interventions. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether mobile phone‐based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation in people who smoke and want to quit. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in April 2015. We also searched the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio for current projects in the UK, and the ClinicalTrials.gov register for ongoing or recently completed studies. We searched through the reference lists of identified studies and attempted to contact the authors of ongoing studies. We applied no restrictions on language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi‐randomised trials. Participants were smokers of any age who wanted to quit. Studies were those examining any type of mobile phone‐based intervention for smoking cessation. This included any intervention aimed at mobile phone users, based around delivery via mobile phone, and using any functions or applications that can be used or sent via a mobile phone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors extracted information on risk of bias and methodological details using a standardised form. We considered participants who dropped out of the trials or were lost to follow‐up to be smoking. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each included study. Meta‐analysis of the included studies used the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect method. Where meta‐analysis was not possible, we presented a narrative summary and descriptive statistics. MAIN RESULTS: This updated search identified 12 studies with six‐month smoking cessation outcomes, including seven studies completed since the previous review. The interventions were predominantly text messaging‐based, although several paired text messaging with in‐person visits or initial assessments. Two studies gave pre‐paid mobile phones to low‐income human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐positive populations ‐ one solely for phone counselling, the other also included text messaging. One study used text messages to link to video messages. Control programmes varied widely. Studies were pooled according to outcomes ‐ some providing measures of continuous abstinence or repeated measures of point prevalence; others only providing 7‐day point prevalence abstinence. All 12 studies pooled using their most rigorous 26‐week measures of abstinence provided an RR of 1.67 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.90; I(2) = 59%). Six studies verified quitting biochemically at six months (RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.54 to 2.19). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a beneficial impact of mobile phone‐based smoking cessation interventions on six‐month cessation outcomes. While all studies were good quality, the fact that those studies with biochemical verification of quitting status demonstrated an even higher chance of quitting further supports the positive findings. However, it should be noted that most included studies were of text message interventions in high‐income countries with good tobacco control policies. Therefore, caution should be taken in generalising these results outside of this type of intervention and context.