Set a quit date, either stopping all at once or cutting down gradually to zero
Stopping abruptly or cutting down gradually until you quit completely are both valid options. In one UK study, after six months 22% of those who stopped all at once stayed smoke-free, compared with only 15.5% of those who cut down gradually. However, pooling more studies together shows no clear winner over the long term. If you choose to cut down first, the goal is still zero cigarettes.
No cost at all. Just choose a date on the calendar and let…
In 2016, a UK study randomized 697 smokers into two groups. One group quit abruptly on their quit date, while…
No cost at all. Just choose a date on the calendar and let family and coworkers know in advance.
In 2016, a UK study randomized 697 smokers into two groups. One group quit abruptly on their quit date, while the other reduced smoking by 75% over the two weeks leading up to the quit date. Both groups received behavioral support from nurses and used nicotine replacement therapy before and after quit day. At week 4, 49.0% (95% CI 43.8–54.2, the confidence interval) in the abrupt group had not relapsed, compared with 39.2% (34.0–44.4) in the gradual group, a relative risk of 0.80 (0.66–0.93). By month 6, 22.0% (18.0–26.6) in the abrupt group and 15.5% (12.0–19.7) in the gradual group had not relapsed, a relative risk of 0.71 (0.46–0.91). Participants who originally preferred cutting down also had lower 4-week success rates than those who preferred stopping all at once (38.3% vs. 52.2%). A 2019 Cochrane review pooled 22 studies and 9,219 people comparing smoking cessation rates after at least 6 months. Comparing cutting down first with stopping abruptly yielded a relative risk (RR) of 1.01 (95% CI 0.87–1.17). The evidence is of moderate certainty; it does not show which approach is better in the long run, nor does it prove they are completely equivalent.
Lindson-Hawley N, Banting M, West R, Michie S, Shinkins B, Aveyard P (2016). Gradual Versus Abrupt Smoking Cessation: A Randomized, Controlled Noninferiority Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(9), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2805；Lindson N, Klemperer E, Hong B, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Aveyard P (2019). Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9, CD013183. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013183.pub2；Theodoulou A, Chepkin SC, Ye W, et al. (2023). Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6, CD013308（提前用尼古丁替代品那一段）. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013308.pub2
Open source linkContested. While the 2016 trial favored stopping abruptly, it cannot replace the broader synthesis of multiple studies in the 2019 review. The review's estimate still carries uncertainty; the long-term success rate for gradual reduction might be slightly higher or slightly lower. If you choose to cut down gradually, the goal remains quitting completely, not just smoking fewer cigarettes indefinitely. Additionally, both groups in that trial began using nicotine replacement therapy before quit day, a strategy supported by its own evidence: starting early improves quit rates by about 25% compared with waiting until quit day (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08–1.44; 9 trials, 4,395 people; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence supporting pre-treatment does not mean abrupt quitting is always better than gradual reduction.