You are here

Tobacco Use

Find evidence-based information and recommendations related to Tobacco Use.

Strength of Evidence Topic Area Publication Date Resource Type
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Guide to Community Preventive Services: Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Increasing Tobacco Use Cessation: Quitline Interventions. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Increasing Tobacco Use Cessation: Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Evidence-Based Cessation Treatments. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General

HHS/OSG, CDC/NCCDPHP
2012 Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Increasing Tobacco Use Cessation: Increasing the Unit Price for Tobacco Products. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2011 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2011 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Recommendations for worksite-based interventions to improve workers' health. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General

HHS/OSG, CDC/NCCDPHP
2010 Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Tobacco use counseling and interventions: nonpregnant adults

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Tobacco use counseling: pregnant women

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update

AHRQ
2008 Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2007

CDC/NCCDPHP
2007 Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General

HHS/OSG, CDC/NCCDPHP
2006 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Reducing Tobacco Use Initiation: Increasing the Unit Price of Tobacco Products. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2005 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2005 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2005 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2001 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2001 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2001 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2001 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Increasing Tobacco Use Cessation: Mass Media Campaigns When Combined with Other Interventions—Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smok

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2001 Systematic Review
3 out of 4
3 out of 4
Tobacco Use
For the Public's Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy To Meet New Challenges

IOM
2011 Non-Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
3 out of 4
3 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Monograph 19: The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use

NIH/NCI
2008 Non-Systematic Review, Expert Opinion
3 out of 4
3 out of 4
Tobacco Use
MPOWER

WHO
2008 Non-Systematic Review
3 out of 4
3 out of 4
Tobacco Use
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation

IOM
2007 Expert Opinion, Non-Systematic Review

Clinical Recommendations

The following clinical recommendations come from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Counseling and Interventions to Prevent Tobacco Use and Tobacco-Caused Disease in Adults and Pregnant Women

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation interventions for those who use tobacco products.

Counseling and Interventions to Prevent Tobacco Use and Tobacco-Caused Disease in Adults and Pregnant Women

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant women about tobacco use and provide augmented, pregnancy-tailored counseling for those who smoke.
Back to Top

Consumer Information

The following consumer resources are from healthfinder.gov.

Quit smoking to live a longer, healthier life.
Eat healthy, stay active, and see your doctor or midwife regularly.
Talk to your child about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.
Most smokers want to quit, and support from a family member or friend can make all the difference. Use these tips to start a conversation about quitting smoking.
Back to Top

Evidence-Based Resources Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What do the ratings mean?
All of the resources in this tool are based on intervention evaluations or studies that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability. The ratings indicate how strong the evidence is.

4 stars 
4 out of 4
These resources are based on rigorous evidence. Resources with this rating include systematic reviews of published intervention evaluations or studies that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Recommendations of the Community Preventive Services Task Force
  • Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
  • Systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals

3 Stars 
3 out of 4

These resources are based on strong evidence. Resources with this rating include non-systematic reviews of published intervention evaluations or studies that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Non-systematic reviews published by the Federal Government 
  • Non-systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals

2 Stars 
2 out of 4
These resources are based on moderate evidence. Resources with this rating include intervention evaluations or studies with peer review that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Journal articles of individual studies
  • Published intervention research
  • Published pilot studies

1 Star 
1 out of 4
These resources are based on weak evidence. Resources with this rating include intervention evaluations or studies without peer review that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Unpublished intervention research
  • Unpublished pilot studies
  • Unpublished case studies
  • Unpublished field-based summaries

What are the differences between the ratings?
4 vs. 3: A rating of 4 requires a formal, comprehensive, and systematic review of all relevant literature whereas a rating of 3 only requires an informal, non-comprehensive, non-systematic review of some but not all relevant literature.

3 vs. 2: A rating of 3 requires a review of multiple evaluations or studies whereas a rating of 2 only requires one evaluation or study.

2 vs. 1: A rating of 2 requires peer review whereas a rating of 1 does not require peer review.

What criteria were used to identify these resources?
Each of the selected evidence-based resources has been rated and classified according to the criteria in the rating system. These criteria include:

  • Is it a formal, comprehensive, systematic review?
  • Was it peer reviewed and published?
  • Does it include multiple evaluations or studies? 

The rating system does not measure all dimensions of quality. Some other measures that are not included in the rating system are:

  • Statistical significance
  • Effect size (e.g., magnitude of effect)
  • Meaningfulness of effect
  • Additional effect over control
  • Study design (e.g., sample size, power, internal validity, external validity, generalizability, potential biases, and potential confounders)

Can you define the types of resources displayed?
Systematic Review: A systematic review is a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a particular issue. Researchers use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific criteria. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The systematic review may or may not include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis. 

Nonsystematic Review: A non-systematic review is a critical assessment and evaluation of some but not all research studies that address a particular issue. Researchers do not use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic, possibly using a set of specific criteria. A non-systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The non-systematic review may or may not include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis. 

Randomized Control Trial: A randomized control trial is a controlled clinical trial that randomly (by chance) assigns participants to two or more groups. There are various methods to randomize study participants to their groups. 

Cohort Study: A cohort study is a clinical research study in which people who presently have a certain condition or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group of people who are not affected by the condition. 

Cross-Sectional or Prevalence Study: A cross-sectional or prevalence study is a study that examines how often or how frequently a disease or condition occurs in a group of people. Prevalence is calculated by dividing the number of people who have the disease or condition by the total number of people in the group. 

Case-Control Study: A case-control study identifies all incident cases that develop the outcome of interest and compares their exposure history with the exposure history of controls sampled at random from everyone within the cohort who is still at risk for developing the outcome of interest. 

Expert Opinion: The opinion of someone widely recognized as a reliable source of knowledge, technique, or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.

Pilot Study: A pilot study is a small-scale experiment or set of observations undertaken to decide how and whether to launch a full-scale project. 

Experimental Study: An experimental study is a type of evaluation that seeks to determine whether a program or intervention had the intended causal effect on program participants.

Practice-based example: A practice-based example is an original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of practice and the outcomes of that practice.

Peer-Reviewed: A publication that contains original articles that have been written by scientists and evaluated for technical and scientific quality and correctness by other experts in the same field. 

What are the Leading Health Indicators (LHIs)?
Healthy People 2020 provides a comprehensive set of 10-year national goals and objectives for improving the health of all Americans. Healthy People 2020 is composed of more than 1,200 objectives across 42 Topic Areas. 

A smaller set of Healthy People 2020 objectives, called Leading Health Indicators, has been selected to communicate high-priority health issues and actions that can be taken to address them. 

The 12 Leading Health Indicator topics are:

  • Access to Health Services
  • Clinical Preventive Services
  • Environmental Quality
  • Injury and Violence
  • Maternal, Infant, and Child Health
  • Mental Health
  • Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity
  • Oral Health
  • Reproductive and Sexual Health
  • Social Determinants
  • Substance Abuse
  • Tobacco

For more information, visit: Leading Health Indicators

What are some search tips for using the evidence-based resources tool?

  • The shading of the check boxes will show you what criteria can be searched. You might want to begin with a broad search first. You can always narrow your results further using the Search Criteria sidebar on the left-hand side of the page.
  • Be sure to reset the search form before starting a new search. A link is provided at the top of the search results.
  • When filling out your search, be sure to scroll through all the choices before clicking on the Search button.
  • A quick way to change your search is to stay on the results page and use the Search Criteria sidebar. Your search results will be filtered accordingly.

Why can’t I search the database for some Topic Areas and other categories of information?
Topic Areas are dimmed in the dropdown menus to indicate that there are no resources available in the database at the time of your search. The same is true for specific search criteria, such as age ranges. We are continually adding evidence-based resources to the database. As resources become available, you will have the opportunity to choose from more Topic Areas, objectives, and search criteria.

Who developed this evidence-based resource tool?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion developed this tool with guidance, input, and support from: 

  • The Healthy People 2020 Federal Interagency Workgroup (FIW) 
  • The FIW’s Implementation Strategies Subgroup
  • The Healthy People 2020 Workgroup Coordinators
  • The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Disease Prevention

Who identified these evidence-based resources?
Subject matter experts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services who comprise the Healthy
People 2020 Workgroup Coordinators for the relevant Healthy People 2020 Topic Area. The list of Healthy People Topic Areas can be found here. The list of Healthy People Workgroup Coordinators can be found here.

Who developed the rating system?
The rating system was: 

  • Developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Best Practices Workgroup
  • Revised by the Healthy People 2020 Implementation Strategies Subgroup
  • Approved by the Healthy People 2020 Federal Interagency Workgroup

The ratings were developed to identify evidence-based resources and interventions that may be used to achieve targets set forth in Healthy People 2020.  The Healthy People 2020 evidence-based resource tool is managed by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and supported, in part, by funds from the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Disease Prevention.