Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Randomised controlled trial
Adding live, reactive telephone counselling to self-help literature does not increase smoking cessation
  1. Tim Coleman
  1. Correspondence to Tim Coleman
    Reader in Primary Care, School of Community Health Sciences, Division of Primary Care, Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; tim.coleman{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on:

Smoking is a massive public health problem; for example, it is the predominant avoidable cause of cancer, causing an estimated 45 000 cancer deaths and 110 000 hospital admissions in the UK annually.1 Smoking is also strongly associated with social disadvantage and is the leading known cause of social inequalities in health.2 Consequently, reducing smoking prevalence is an international health priority, and telephone helplines can provide smoking cessation support at low cost to many, often highly motivated, smokers. Proactive smoking cessation telephone counselling involves helpline counsellors contacting smokers according to a previously agreed schedule, whereas in reactive counselling all contact is initiated by smokers and counsellors operate in response mode. Proactive telephone counselling is effective; meta-analysis of nine trials with more than 24 000 participants gave a risk ratio for cessation after proactive counselling compared with minimal interventions or reactive counselling of 1.37 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.50).3 The …

View Full Text


  • Funding TC is a member of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, a UK Clinical Research Collaboration Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

  • Competing interests None.