Counselling, guaranteed rewards and text messages helped smokers quit.
HelpedThe short version
Adults who had counselling quit smoking more often than those who got no quitting support.

- 194
- studies pooled
- 72,273
- adults who smoked
- 1 tool
- tested
The review
Who took part
About 250,000 adults who smoked took part in 312 trials, mostly in the USA and Western Europe. They were aged 18 to 63.
What they did
Trials compared each kind of extra help, such as counselling or rewards, with no extra help at all. Quit rates were checked at six months or longer, about 10 and a half months on average.
What happened
About 9 in 100 quit with counselling, guaranteed rewards or text messages, and 6 in 100 without them. Rewards that were not guaranteed did not clearly change how many quit. Tailoring, motivational content and a focus on how to quit gave small gains that are uncertain.
What the review found
- Helped
Adults who had counselling quit smoking more often than those who got no quitting support.
Pooled analysis of 194 studies with 72,273 people · vs people who got no quitting support · the authors rated their certainty high · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Helped
Adults who were guaranteed a reward for quitting quit more often than those who got no quitting support.
Pooled analysis of 19 studies with 8,877 people · vs people who got no quitting support · the authors rated their certainty high · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Helped
Adults who got support by text message quit more often than those who got no quitting support.
Pooled analysis of 22 studies with 14,161 people · vs people who got no quitting support · the authors rated their certainty moderate · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- No difference
Adults offered rewards that were not guaranteed, like prize contests, did not quit more often than those with no support.
Pooled analysis of 10 studies with 6,827 people · vs people who got no quitting support · the authors rated their certainty very low · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Numbers unreliable
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
Source
Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis (2021)
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013229.pub2 (opens in a new tab)

