INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of contingency-management (CM) and motivational enhancement therapy (MET) for college student smoking cessation was examined. METHODS:Nontreatment-seeking daily smokers (N = 110) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of CM versus noncontingent reinforcement (NR) and to three individual sessions of MET versus a relaxation control in a 2 x 2 experimental design. Expired carbon monoxide (CO) samples were collected twice daily for 3 weeks. Participants earned 5 US dollars for providing each sample; additionally, those randomized to CM earned escalating monetary rewards based on CO reductions (Week 1) and smoking abstinence (Weeks 2-3). RESULTS: Compared with NR, CM resulted in significantly lower CO levels and greater total and consecutive abstinence during the intervention. Those in the CM and MET groups reported greater interest in quitting smoking posttreatment, but rates of confirmed abstinence at follow-up were very low (4% at 6-month follow-up) and did not differ by group. DISCUSSION: Findings support the short-term efficacy of CM for reducing smoking among college students. Future research should explore enhancements to CM in this population, including a longer intervention period and the recruitment of smokers who are motivated to quit.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of contingency-management (CM) and motivational enhancement therapy (MET) for college student smoking cessation was examined. METHODS: Nontreatment-seeking daily smokers (N = 110) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of CM versus noncontingent reinforcement (NR) and to three individual sessions of MET versus a relaxation control in a 2 x 2 experimental design. Expired carbon monoxide (CO) samples were collected twice daily for 3 weeks. Participants earned 5 US dollars for providing each sample; additionally, those randomized to CM earned escalating monetary rewards based on CO reductions (Week 1) and smoking abstinence (Weeks 2-3). RESULTS: Compared with NR, CM resulted in significantly lower CO levels and greater total and consecutive abstinence during the intervention. Those in the CM and MET groups reported greater interest in quitting smoking posttreatment, but rates of confirmed abstinence at follow-up were very low (4% at 6-month follow-up) and did not differ by group. DISCUSSION: Findings support the short-term efficacy of CM for reducing smoking among college students. Future research should explore enhancements to CM in this population, including a longer intervention period and the recruitment of smokers who are motivated to quit.
Authors: Jennifer Plebani Lussier; Sarah H Heil; Joan A Mongeon; Gary J Badger; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Addiction Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Amy M Duhig; Sherry A McKee; Thomas J McMahon; Thomas Liss; Amanda McFetridge; Dana A Cavallo Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Christi Patten; Chad Gwaltney; Jean Paty; Maryann Gnys; Jon Kassel; Mary Hickcox; Andrew Waters; Mark Balabanis Journal: Addiction Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Darla E Kendzor; Michael S Businelle; Insiya B Poonawalla; Erica L Cuate; Anshula Kesh; Debra M Rios; Ping Ma; David S Balis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marc L Steinberg; Jill M Williams; Naomi F Stahl; Patricia Dooley Budsock; Nina A Cooperman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rachel N Cassidy; Kristina M Jackson; Damaris J Rohsenow; Jennifer W Tidey; Tracy O' L Tevyaw; Nancy P Barnett; Peter M Monti; Mollie E Miller; Suzanne M Colby Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Kevin M Gray; Matthew J Carpenter; Nathaniel L Baker; Karen J Hartwell; A Lee Lewis; D Walter Hiott; Deborah Deas; Himanshu P Upadhyaya Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2010-10-08
Authors: Pamela M Ling; Youn Ok Lee; Juliette Hong; Torsten B Neilands; Jeffrey W Jordan; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 9.308