INTRODUCTIONTobacco smoking poses a significant threat to the health of individuals living with diabetes. Intensive stand-alone smoking cessation interventions, such as multiple or long (>20 minutes) behavioral support sessions focused solely on smoking cessation, with or without the use of pharmacotherapy, increase abstinence when compared to brief advice or usual care in the general population. However, there is limited evidence so far for recommending the use of such interventions amongst individuals with diabetes. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of intensive stand-alone smoking cessation interventions for individuals living with diabetes and to identify their critical features.METHODSA systematic review design with the addition of a pragmatic intervention component analysis using narrative methods was adopted. The key terms ‘diabetes mellitus’ and ‘smoking cessation’ and their synonyms were searched in 15 databases in May 2022. Randomized controlled trials which assessed the effectiveness of intensive stand-alone smoking cessation interventions by comparing them to controls, specifically amongst individuals with diabetes, were included.RESULTSA total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Generally, the identified studies reported on the delivery of a multi-component behavioral support smoking cessation intervention for individuals with type I and type II diabetes, providing biochemically verified smoking abstinence rates at follow-up at six months. The overall risk-of-bias of most studies was judged to be of some concern. Despite observing inconsistent findings across the identified studies, interventions consisting of three to four sessions, lasting more than 20 min each, were found to be more likely to be associated with smoking cessation success. The additional use of visual aids depicting diabetes-related complications may also be useful.CONCLUSIONSThis review provides evidence-based smoking cessation recommendations for use by individuals with diabetes. Nonetheless, given that the findings of some studies were found to be possibly at risk-of-bias, further research to establish the validity of the provided recommendations is suggested.