Does Acceptance and Relationship Focused Behavior Therapy Contribute to Bupropion Outcomes? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Functional Analytic Psychotherapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Smoking Cessation

Gifford, Elizabeth J.; Kohlenberg, Barbara S.; Hayes, Steven C.; Pierson, Heather M.; Piasecki, Melissa; Antonuccio, David O.; Palm, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.002

Cited by 160 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the results comport with the ACT theoretical model of acceptance as it applies to smoking cessation, namely that acceptance of cravings is an underlying process of smoking cessation. Finally, the results are highly consistent with our first trial of telephone-delivered ACT (Bricker et al, 2010) and all three face-to-face studies of ACT for smoking cessation (Gifford et al, 2004(Gifford et al, , 2011Hernandez-Lopez et al, 2009). …”

Section: Impact On Acceptance Of Cravingssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The 31% observed quit rate for ACT was similar to the 29% we obtained in our first trial of telephone-delivered ACT (Bricker et al, 2010) and the 30%-35% quit rates observed in all three face-to-face trials of ACT for smoking cessation (Gifford et al, 2004(Gifford et al, , 2011Hernandez-Lopez et al, 2009). While each study had different designs and their own set of methodological limitations, the similarity of ACT quit rates across studies is noteworthy.…”

Section: Quit Rates Overall and Among Three Key Subgroupssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…While high for both arms, participant satisfaction in the ACT arm was generally higher than that of the CBT arm. The high level of satisfaction for ACT is very similar to that reported in our first ACT telephone study (Bricker et al, 2010) and all three face-to-face studies of ACT for smoking cessation (Gifford et al, 2004(Gifford et al, , 2011Hernandez-Lopez et al, 2009). This is an important finding because ACT asks smokers to do something counterintuitive-namely, to accept their cravings.…”

Section: Participant Receptivity and Satisfactionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Interrater agreement was high and did not differ by arm (proportion of positive agreement = 0.91 for CBT; 0.99 for ACT; proportion of negative agreement = 0.00 for CBT; 0.00 for ACT). ACT calls were rated using the ACT Adherence Raters' Manual (modified from Gifford et al, 2004Gifford et al, , 2011, whereas CBT calls were rated using the Alere Call Quality Management Tool used in multiple NIH-funded trials (Bush et al, 2012;Hollis et al, 2007;Swan et al, 2003).…”

Section: Counselor Competence Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Promising evidence from three studies, albeit with methodological limitations (e.g., nonbehavioral comparison group, small Ns), suggests that face-to-face ACT for smoking cessation has 30%-35% quit rates at 12 months follow-up (Gifford et al, 2004(Gifford et al, , 2011Hernandez-Lopez et al, 2009). For example, in a randomized trial of 302 smokers, Gifford and colleagues (2011) compared individual plus group therapy ACT with bupropion to bupropion only.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Randomized Trial of Telephone-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Study

Bricker

Bush

Zbikowski

et al. 2014

Nicotine & Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We conducted a pilot randomized trial of telephone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) versus cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for smoking cessation.Method: Participants were 121 uninsured South Carolina State Quitline callers who were adult smokers (at least 10 cigarettes/ day) and who wanted to quit within the next 30 days. Participants were randomized to 5 sessions of either ACT or CBT telephone counseling and were offered 2 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).results: ACT participants completed more calls than CBT participants (M = 3.25 in ACT vs. 2.23 in CBT; p = .001). Regarding satisfaction, 100% of ACT participants reported their treatment was useful for quitting smoking (vs. 87% for CBT; p = .03), and 97% of ACT participants would recommend their treatment to a friend (vs. 83% for CBT; p = .06). On the primary outcome of intent-to-treat 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months postrandomization, the quit rates were 31% in ACT versus 22% in CBT (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7-3.4). Among participants depressed at baseline (n = 47), the quit rates were 33% in ACT versus 13% in CBT (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.6). Consistent with ACT's theory, among participants scoring low on acceptance of cravings at baseline (n = 57), the quit rates were 37% in ACT versus 10% in CBT (OR = 5.3, 95% CI = 1.3-22.0). Conclusions:ACT is feasible to deliver by phone, is highly acceptable to quitline callers, and shows highly promising quit rates compared with standard CBT quitline counseling. As results were limited by the pilot design (e.g., small sample), a fullscale efficacy trial is now needed.

show abstract