Dyadic Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: Preliminary Assessment of a New Instrument

Sterba, Katherine R.; Rabius, Vance; Carpenter, Matthew J.; Villars, Pamela; Wiatrek, Dawn; McAlister, Alfred L.

doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq236

Cited by 25 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our prior work (17) suggests a relationship between dyadic efficacy and smoking cessation. Dyadic efficacy was introduced with the following: “Think about the ONE person in your life who you consider to be your main source of support.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

‘Closet’ quit attempts: prevalence, correlates and association with outcome

Carpenter¹,

Sterba²,

Boatright³

et al. 2011

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To examine the 1) prevalence, 2) predictors, and 3) cessation outcomes of smokers who engage in undisclosed quit attempts. Design Online survey (N=524), with balanced recruitment of current smokers (55%) and past-year quitters (45%). Participants were daily smokers (current or previous) who had at least one quit attempt in the past year. Measurements Respondents were grouped on whether they did vs. did not make advanced disclosure to others of their most recent quit attempt. Findings Almost half (n=234; 45%) reported that their most recent quit attempt was undisclosed to anyone in advance. Those who planned their quit attempt in advance (OR = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.05 – 0.23) and those who used behavioral treatment (OR = 0.14; 95% CI: 0.05 – 0.43) were less likely to make ‘closet quit attempts’, while those who rated their attempt as being serious (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.16 – 5.46) and those who deemed social support to be unhelpful (OR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.24 – 2.95) were more likely to make such attempts. Closet quit attempters were more likely to achieve 30 days of abstinence than were those who made advanced disclosure (67% vs. 58%; adjusted OR 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1–2.8), but there were no differences for achieving six months of abstinence (52% vs. 49%; adjusted OR 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7–2.0). Conclusions Attempting to quit smoking without telling anyone in advance is common and does not appear to impede success. These findings do not support blanket advice to smokers to tell others about pending quit attempts.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

‘Closet’ quit attempts: prevalence, correlates and association with outcome

Carpenter¹,

Sterba²,

Boatright³

et al. 2011

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies that proactively involve social networks in smoking cessation have mainly centred on the general adult population 182 and remain under-researched in pregnancy. Only five such studies were identified in the most recent Cochrane review 183 of psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy.…”

Section: Valentementioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and following childbirth: literature review and qualitative study

Bauld

Graham

Sinclair

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although many women stop smoking in pregnancy, others continue, causing harm to maternal and child health. Smoking behaviour is influenced by many factors, including the role of women's significant others (SOs) and support from health-care professionals (HPs). Objectives: To enhance understanding of the barriers to, and facilitators of, smoking cessation and the feasibility and acceptability of interventions to reach and support pregnant women to stop smoking. Design: Four parts: (1) a description of interventions in the UK for smoking cessation in pregnancy; (2) three systematic reviews (syntheses) of qualitative research of women's, SOs' and HPs' views of smoking in pregnancy using meta-ethnography (interpretative approach for combining findings); (3) semistructured interviews with pregnant women, SOs and HPs, guided by the social-ecological framework (conceptualises behaviour as an outcome of individuals' interactions with environment); and (4) identification of new/ improved interventions for future testing. Setting: Studies in reviews conducted in high-income countries. Qualitative research was conducted from October 2013 to December 2014 in two mixed urban/rural study sites: area A (Scotland) and area B (England). Participants: Thirty-eight studies (1100 pregnant women) in 42 papers, nine studies (150 partners) in 14 papers and eight studies described in nine papers (190 HPs) included in reviews. Forty-one interviews with pregnant women, 32 interviews with pregnant women's SOs and 28 individual/group interviews with 48 HPs were conducted. Main outcome measures: The perceived barriers to, and facilitators of, smoking cessation in pregnancy and the identification of potential new/modified interventions. Results: Syntheses identified smoking-related perceptions and experiences for pregnant women and SOs that were fluid and context dependent with the capacity to help or hinder smoking cessation. Themes were analysed in accordance with the social-ecological framework levels. From the analysis of the interviews, the themes that were central to cessation in pregnancy at an individual level, and that reflected the findings from the reviews, were perception of risk to baby, self-efficacy, influence of close relationships and smoking as a way of coping with stress. Overall, pregnant smokers were faced with more barriers than facilitators. At an interpersonal level, partners' emotional and practical support, willingness to change smoking behaviour and role of smoking within relationships were important. Across the review and interviews of HPs, education to enhance knowledge and confidence in delivering information about smoking in pregnancy and the centrality of the client relationship, protection of which could be a factor in downplaying risks, were important. HPs acknowledged that they could best assist by providing support and understanding, and access to effective interventions, including an opt-out referral pathway to Stop Smoking Services, routine carbon monoxide screening, behavioural s...

show abstract

“…In a recent longitudinal study of couples in which one or both partners smoked, higher perceived partner responsiveness at baseline predicted a decreased likelihood of smoking and fewer cigarettes smoked per day nine years later (Derrick, Leonard, & Homish, 2013). Smokers who are confident in their ability to work with their partner as a team in a smoking cessation effort are more likely to successfully quit (Sterba, et al, 2011), and there is evidence that partners of smokers are interested in helping their partners quit (Thomas, et al, 2009). Positive partner support for quitting smoking has been related to higher engagement in smoking cessation treatment (Richardson et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral couples therapy for smoking cessation: A pilot randomized clinical trial.

LaChance

Cioe

Tooley

et al. 2015

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) has been found to improve long-term abstinence rates in alcohol- and substance-dependent populations but has not been tested for smoking cessation. This pilot study examined the feasibility and acceptability of BCT for smoking-discordant couples. Methods Forty-nine smokers (smoking >10 cigarettes/day) with non-smoking partners were randomized to receive a couples social support (BCT-S) intervention, or an individually-delivered smoking cessation (ST) treatment. The couples were married or cohabiting for at least one year, with partners who had never smoked or had not used tobacco in one year. Both treatments included seven weekly sessions and 8-weeks of nicotine replacement therapy. Participants were followed for six months post-treatment. The Partner Interaction Questionnaire (PIQ) was used to measure perceived smoking-specific partner support. Results Participants were 67% male and 88% White. Biochemically-verified cessation rates were 40.9%, 50% and 45% in BCT-S, and 59.1%, 50%, and 55% in ST, at end of treatment, 3-, and 6-months, respectively, and did not differ significantly between treatment conditions at any time point (all p’s > .05). Perceived smoking-specific partner support at post-treatment did not significantly differ between treatment groups (M=2.45, SD .81 in BCT-S; M=2.27, SD .92 in ST; t(38) = .67, p = .51). Conclusions Results of this pilot study do not provide support for the efficacy of BCT in smoking discordant couples.

show abstract

Dyadic Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: Preliminary Assessment of a New Instrument

Cited by 25 publications

References 26 publications

‘Closet’ quit attempts: prevalence, correlates and association with outcome

‘Closet’ quit attempts: prevalence, correlates and association with outcome

Barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and following childbirth: literature review and qualitative study

Behavioral couples therapy for smoking cessation: A pilot randomized clinical trial.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About