You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Smoking and tobacco
Original research
Interactive voice response (IVR) for tobacco cessation: a systematic review
  1. Maha Khan1,
  2. Ally Memedovich1,
  3. Nkiruka Eze1,
  4. Benedicta Asante1,
  5. Kamala Adhikari2,
  6. Rachel Dunn2,
  7. Fiona Clement1
  1. 1 Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  2. 2 Provincial Population and Public Health, Holy Cross Centre, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Fiona Clement; fclement{at}ucalgary.ca

Abstract

Objective To summarise the uses, outcomes and implementation of interactive voice response (IVR) as a tobacco cessation intervention.

Data sources A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on 3 May 2023. The strategies used keywords such as “tobacco cessation”, “smoking reduction” and “interactive voice recording”. Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Grey literature searches were also conducted.

Study selection Titles and abstracts were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if IVR was an intervention for tobacco cessation for adults; any outcomes were reported and study design was comparative. Any abstract included by either reviewer proceeded to full-text review. Full texts were reviewed by two independent reviewers.

Data extraction Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. The Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were used to assess study quality.

Data synthesis Of 308 identified abstracts, 20 moderate-quality to low-quality studies were included. IVR was used standalone or adjunctly as a treatment, follow-up or risk-assessment tool across populations including general smokers, hospitalised patients, quitline users, perinatal women, patients with cancer and veteran smokers. Effective studies found that IVR was delivered more frequently with shorter follow-up times. Significant gaps in the literature include a lack of population diversity, limited implementation settings and delivery schedules, and limited patient and provider perspectives.

Conclusions While the evidence is weak, IVR appears to be a promising intervention for tobacco cessation. However, pilot programmes and research addressing literature gaps are necessary.

  • health services
  • preventive medicine
  • public health

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081972

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • X @FionaHTA

    • Contributors MK: analysis and interpretation of data, data quality assessment, draft and editing of manuscript. AM: analysis and interpretation of data, data quality assessment, draft and editing of manuscript. NE: conceptualisation and design of work, analysis and interpretation of data, draft and editing of manuscript. BA: analysis and interpretation of data, data quality assessment. RD and KA: conceptualisation and design of work. FC: conceptualisation and design of work, study registration, critical review and editing of manuscript. All authors critically assessed, edited and approved the final manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria and no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. FC is the guarantor.

    • Funding This work was supported by the Alberta Health Services, Canada (grant number: N/A).

    • Disclaimer The funding source did not influence the design, conduct, or outcomes of this study.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.