Home›Pediatrics› Smoking Cessation Aids Parents of Chronically Ill Children
Smoking Cessation Aids Parents of Chronically Ill ChildrenSmoking Cessation Programs Show Mixed Results for Parents of Children
Journal of pediatric nursingPublished September 8, 2026Study authors: Ho Long Kwan Laurie, Phiri Lophina, Rana Tika, Xiao Sarah, Wu Hiu Nam Naomi, Leung Ting Fan, Li Ho C…PubMed ↗DOI ↗Editorial oversight: Dr. Sofia Müller, MD · Lifespan & Whole-Person Care
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review.
How we work
Share
Key Takeaway
Counseling boosts short-term quit rates in parents of chronically ill children, but effects fade; sustained support is needed.
A meta-analysis of 3758 parents of children with chronic disease examined the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, including nonpharmacological approaches alone or combined with nicotine-replacement therapy. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence.
Immediately post-intervention and at the first follow-up, these interventions significantly increased abstinence rates compared to control conditions. However, these effects were not sustained at the second follow-up, suggesting that gains may diminish over time.
Biochemically validated abstinence and continuous abstinence showed limited or inconsistent effects, indicating that self-reported improvements may not always be corroborated by objective measures. Notably, there was no significant reduction in children's second-hand smoke exposure, a key concern for this population.
The findings suggest that interventions incorporating motivational interviewing and personalized, child-specific health information, including feedback on second-hand smoke, are particularly promising. Hospital visits may offer optimal teachable moments for nurses to engage parents in cessation efforts.
Overall, the evidence is of moderate strength, but the lack of sustained effects and no reduction in children's exposure highlight the need for ongoing support and booster sessions. Clinicians should consider integrating these interventions into pediatric chronic disease management, while being mindful of the need for long-term strategies.
How this fits prior evidence
This meta-analysis extends prior coverage on chronic disease management by focusing on parental smoking cessation in the context of a child's chronic disease. It confirms the potential of behavioral interventions, similar to how mHealth and digital tools have shown modest benefits in chronic disease contexts, but it also highlights the challenge of sustaining effects over time, a limitation seen in other digital adherence interventions. The finding of no significant reduction in children's second-hand smoke exposure contrasts with the positive short-term abstinence effects, underscoring the need for comprehensive approaches that address environmental exposure.
Researchers looked at how different programs helped parents of children with chronic diseases stop smoking. The study included over 3,700 parents who tried various methods, including non-drug programs and those combined with nicotine-replacement therapy.
Findings showed that many parents reported staying smoke-free for at least seven days immediately after joining a program. However, these results were often not sustained over a longer period of time. Additionally, the study found inconsistent results when measuring success through chemical tests or long-term continuous abstinence.
Importantly, the study did not find a significant reduction in the amount of second-hand smoke children were exposed to. The results suggest that programs using personalized information and specific feedback about child health may be more effective. Because the evidence is of moderate strength, these findings should be viewed as a starting point for improving how healthcare providers support parents.
What this means for you:
Short-term programs may help parents quit smoking, but they do not consistently reduce children's smoke exposure.
Common questions
Do these programs help parents quit smoking quickly?
Yes, the study found that self-reported abstinence for at least 7 days increased significantly immediately after the intervention and at the first follow-up. However, these effects were not sustained at the second follow-up. These results are based on what parents reported themselves.
Do these programs reduce a child's exposure to smoke?
The study found no significant reduction in children's exposure to second-hand smoke. While some programs helped parents report quitting for a short period, the actual amount of smoke the children were exposed to did not show a clear decrease.
What types of programs were most effective?
The research suggests that interventions using motivational interviewing and personalized, child-specific health information show positive effects. These programs may be most effective when delivered during hospital visits, which can provide a good opportunity for nurses to provide guidance.
AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions and identify essential/effective components that contribute to successful cessation among parents of children with chronic disease.
REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search of seven electronic databases was conducted from inception to December 2025. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials evaluating smoking cessation interventions targeting parents who smoke and have children with chronic disease. A fixed-effect meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method was conducted to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Ten studies involving 3758 participants were included. Six combined nonpharmacological interventions with nicotine-replacement therapy, while four used nonpharmacological interventions alone. Nonpharmacological interventions were categorised as motivational interviewing-based interventions or behavioural therapy. The pooled results showed that the interventions significantly increased self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence immediately post-intervention and at first follow-up, but effects were not sustained at second follow-up, indicating stronger short-term than long-term effectiveness. Biochemically validated abstinence and continuous abstinence showed limited or inconsistent effects across studies. Subgroup analyses showed that motivational interviewing-based interventions maintained significant effects at first follow-up, and that interventions incorporating child-specific health information were more effective immediately post-intervention. No significant reduction in children's second-hand smoke exposure was observed across studies.
CONCLUSION: Interventions that incorporate motivational interviewing and personalised, child-specific health information, including feedback on children's second-hand smoke exposure, demonstrate positive effects in promoting abstinence among parents of children with chronic disease, with moderate strength evidence. Hospital visits may provide optimal "teachable moments", positioning nurses to play a central role in engaging parents in smoking cessation efforts.
