AIMS: In an additive design, test the efficacy of cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention as an adjunct to current standard cognitive behavioral and pharmacological treatments. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING:Outpatient behavioral medicine clinic. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty-nine cigarette smokers recruited through newspaper advertisements. INTERVENTION: After receiving an initial counseling session for cessation and setting a quit day, 129 smokers were randomly assigned to one of four relapse prevention treatment conditions: (1) brief cognitive behavioral; (2) cognitive behavioral and nicorette gum; (3) cognitive behavioral and cue exposure; and (4) cognitive behavioral and cue exposure with nicorette gum. All smokers met individually with their counselor for six RP sessions. MEASURES: Seven-day, point-prevalence abstinence rates (CO verified) taken at 1, 3, 6 and 12-months post-treatment and time to first slip. FINDINGS: All manipulation checks and process measures suggested that the treatments were delivered as intended. There were no significant differences between conditions in point-prevalence abstinence rates or in time to first slip. CONCLUSIONS: These results call into question the utility of cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: In an additive design, test the efficacy of cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention as an adjunct to current standard cognitive behavioral and pharmacological treatments. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING:Outpatient behavioral medicine clinic. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty-nine cigarette smokers recruited through newspaper advertisements. INTERVENTION: After receiving an initial counseling session for cessation and setting a quit day, 129 smokers were randomly assigned to one of four relapse prevention treatment conditions: (1) brief cognitive behavioral; (2) cognitive behavioral and nicorette gum; (3) cognitive behavioral and cue exposure; and (4) cognitive behavioral and cue exposure with nicorette gum. All smokers met individually with their counselor for six RP sessions. MEASURES: Seven-day, point-prevalence abstinence rates (CO verified) taken at 1, 3, 6 and 12-months post-treatment and time to first slip. FINDINGS: All manipulation checks and process measures suggested that the treatments were delivered as intended. There were no significant differences between conditions in point-prevalence abstinence rates or in time to first slip. CONCLUSIONS: These results call into question the utility of cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention.
Authors: Marina Unrod; David J Drobes; Paul R Stasiewicz; Joseph W Ditre; Bryan Heckman; Ralph R Miller; Steven K Sutton; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-09-28 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Michael S Businelle; Lorraine R Reitzel; Yumei Cao; Paul M Cinciripini; Marianne T Marcus; Yisheng Li; David W Wetter Journal: Mindfulness (N Y) Date: 2014-01-18