[Group therapy and smoking cessation].

OBJECTIVES: Smoking cessation programmes in which groups of smokers have the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques and benefit from mutual support for quitting are widely available. The aim of this review is to determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes delivered in a group format, for helping smokers achieve long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY: The Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register was used to identify trials in which one or more treatment arms used behaviour therapy, group therapy or cognitive therapy.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials which compared group therapy with self-help, individual counselling, another intervention or usual care or waiting list control were selected. Trials which compared two group programmes with manipulation of the group interaction and social support components were also included. There had to be a minimum of two group meetings, and follow-up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. Trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies were not included unless they had a factorial design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcome ceasure extracted was the number of successful quitters at the maximum follow-up using the strictest definition of abstinence, with biochemical validation where possible. Participants lost to follow-up were classified as still smoking. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies compared a group programme with a self-help programme presenting the same or similar information and behavioural techniques. There was an increase in cessation with the use of a group programme (OR 2.10 (95% C.I. 1.64-2.70). The direction of effect and significance was robust whether or not trials randomizing workplaces rather than individuals, and trials carried out during campaigns with televised cessation programmes were included. There was no evidence from two trials that group therapy was more effective than a similar intensity of individual counselling, and the trend favoured individual treatment. Comparison of group therapy with advice from a physician or nurse advice found no evidence for an effect, with heterogeneity in the results. Group programmes were more effective than no intervention or minimal contract interventions (OR 1.91 (95% C.I. 1.20-3.04). There was no evidence that manipulating the social interactions between participants in a group programme had an effect on outcome.

CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence that groups are better than self-help, and other less intensive interventions. There is not enough evidence on their effectiveness compared to intensive individual counselling. From the point of view of the consumer who is motivated to make a quit attempt it is probably worth joining a group if one is available--it will increase the likelihood of quitting. From the public health perspective, groups are unlikely to make a substantial impact because of the low uptake.