Training Health Professionals in Smoking Cessation

Sharrad KJ, Carson-Chahhoud KV, Verbiest ME, Greenslade S, Parkhouse T, Assendelft WJ, Crone MR, Livingstone-Banks J.
Training Health Professionals in Smoking Cessation
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2026 Feb 12;2(2):CD000214. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000214.pub3. PMID: 41676926; PMCID: PMC12895530.

Rationale: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death worldwide. There is good evidence that brief interventions by health professionals can increase smoking cessation attempts. However, as new studies become available, the effectiveness of these training programmes needs to be re-assessed to inform public policy, clinical care, and guideline recommendations. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000, and previously updated in 2012.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of training healthcare professionals to deliver smoking cessation interventions to their patients, and to assess the effects of training characteristics (such as content, setting, delivery, and intensity).

Search methods: We searched the following databases from inception to August 2024: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; ClinicalTrials.gov (through CENTRAL); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (through CENTRAL). We also searched the references of eligible studies.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised trials in which the intervention was training of healthcare professionals in smoking cessation. We considered trials for inclusion if they reported outcomes for patient smoking at least six months after the intervention. Process outcomes needed to be reported. However, we excluded trials that reported effects only on process outcomes and not smoking behaviour.

Outcomes: The critical outcome measure was abstinence from smoking six months or more after baseline, using the strictest measure of abstinence available at the longest follow-up. Prolonged or continuous abstinence was preferred over point prevalence. Our important outcome was the number of participants who made a quit attempt.

Risk of bias: Working independently, two review authors evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, following guidance from the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group.

Synthesis methods: Working independently, two review authors extracted information about the characteristics of each included study (i.e. interventions, participants, outcomes, and methods). We pooled studies using random-effects meta-analysis where possible and otherwise summarised findings using narrative synthesis in text and tables. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Included studies: We included 29 studies in the review, published between 1989 and 2024. Together, the studies provided training for over 4030 health professionals, and data for 38,178 participants. We assessed 10 studies to have an overall low risk of bias, 17 an unclear risk, and two to have an overall high risk of bias.

Synthesis of results: Sixteen studies compared training of healthcare professionals in smoking cessation to no training, and assessed the effect on the number of participants abstinent at longest follow-up. High-certainty evidence indicates that smoking cessation training for healthcare professionals increases patient smoking cessation compared with no training (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.67; I² = 48%; 16 studies, 16,513 participants). We conducted three subgroup analyses to test the effect of specific potential sources of heterogeneity: training intensity, type of healthcare professional trained, and treatment recommended in the training; none found evidence of between-group heterogeneity. Four studies assessed the effect of high-intensity training for healthcare professionals on the number of participants abstinent at longest follow-up compared with lower-intensity training. The evidence suggests that higher-intensity training may increase smoking cessation compared with lower-intensity training, though confidence intervals were wide and included the potential for no benefit (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.12; I² = 54%; 4 studies, 1151 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies assessed the impact of adjuncts to training on the number of participants abstinent at longest follow-up. We found low-certainty evidence that when the healthcare professionals treating them are trained in smoking cessation, more people may quit when also provided with nicotine replacement therapy (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.71; I² = 69%; 2 studies, 1892 participants), and very low-certainty evidence that providing prompts to healthcare professionals in addition to smoking cessation training may help more people to quit (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.70; I² = 66%; 3 studies, 2429 participants). However, in both cases, confidence intervals were wide and included the potential for no benefit.

Authors' conclusions: High-certainty evidence supports the effectiveness of training health professionals in smoking cessation when compared with no training. Multi-component investigations incorporating new pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation (such as varenicline and bupropion) or other cessation aids alongside physician training should be considered to determine if any additional benefit in long-term abstinence can be obtained.

Funding: Production of this review was supported by PhD scholarship funding from the University of Adelaide and co-funded by Houd Research Group, awarded to KS.

Registration: This review was first published outside of Cochrane in 1994 and subsequently updated as a Cochrane review in 2000 (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000214) and 2012 (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000214.pub2). No protocol was published or registered.