Expanding the target of relapse-prevention training to include self-quit ex-smokers: Is there a need?

Preventing relapse among former smokers: A comparison of minimal interventions through telephone and mail.

“…As hypothesized, the three active intervention conditions reversed or negated that relationship. This study adds to a growing list of studies in which some form of smoking intervention negates or reverses the association between depression and poor cessation outcome (Brandon et al, 1997;Brandon & DeMichele, 1995; increased contact that involves personal attention. Perhaps for individuals prone to depressed mood, receiving such personal attention is enough to enhance their motivation to quit smoking while simultaneously attenuating the negative affective states that motivate smoking.…”

“…Recruitment strategies were too complex to calculate a response rate to the advertisements. In the feasibility study (Brandon & DeMichele, 1995), we calculated a conservative estimated response rate of 2%, which compared well with that of other community wide smoking-control programs. However, in both of these studies, we were forced to be quite vague in our advertisements about what exactly we were offering because of the multiple interventions to which callers could be assigned.…”

“…To test the feasibility and demand for a relapse-prevention program for self-quitters, Brandon and DeMichele (1995) placed a single advertisement in Syracuse, New York, newspapers offering help maintaining abstinence to former smokers. This yielded 152 responses, 85% of which were from self-quitters.…”

Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of a Minimal Intervention to Prevent Smoking Relapse: Dismantling the Effects of Amount of Content Versus Contact.

“…The decision to minimize research contact required some sacrifices in the frequency and scale of assessments compared with a typical clinical trial of a traditional smoking cessation intervention. However, given that the population of interest in this study comprises former smokers who, for the most part, are interested in smoking-related assistance only if it involves little additional effort (Brandon & DeMichele, 1995), these sacrifices were deemed necessary to attract them.…”

Transcreation of Validated Smoking Relapse-Prevention Booklets for use with Hispanic Populations

“…An initial needs assessment revealed two approaches acceptable to former smokers: a telephone hotline and receiving information through the mail. 23 A clinical trial comparing these approaches found that the hotline was poorly utilized and ineffective, whereas a series of eight relapse-prevention booklets (now titled Forever Free ) was highly effective at reducing relapse among individuals who had three months or less of abstinence at the time of program enrollment. 24 By the 12-month follow-up, the booklets had reduced the smoking rate by nearly two-thirds (relapse rates for the relapse-prevention booklets condition and control condition were 12% vs .…”