OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess whether prospective follow-up data within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study can be used to predict patients who stop smoking; or among smokers who stop, those who start smoking again. METHODS: We built prediction models first using clinical reasoning ('clinical models') and then by selecting from numerous candidate predictors using advanced statistical methods ('statistical models'). Our clinical models were based on literature that suggests that motivation drives smoking cessation, while dependence drives relapse in those attempting to stop. Our statistical models were based on automatic variable selection using additive logistic regression with component-wise gradient boosting. RESULTS: Of 4833 smokers, 26% stopped smoking, at least temporarily; because among those who stopped, 48% started smoking again. The predictive performance of our clinical and statistical models was modest. A basic clinical model for cessation, with patients classified into three motivational groups, was nearly as discriminatory as a constrained statistical model with just the most important predictors (the ratio of nonsmoking visits to total visits, alcohol or drug dependence, psychiatric comorbidities, recent hospitalization and age). A basic clinical model for relapse, based on the maximum number of cigarettes per day prior to stopping, was not as discriminatory as a constrained statistical model with just the ratio of nonsmoking visits to total visits. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting smoking cessation and relapse is difficult, so that simple models are nearly as discriminatory as complex ones. Patients with a history of attempting to stop and those known to have stopped recently are the best candidates for an intervention.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess whether prospective follow-up data within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study can be used to predict patients who stop smoking; or among smokers who stop, those who start smoking again. METHODS: We built prediction models first using clinical reasoning ('clinical models') and then by selecting from numerous candidate predictors using advanced statistical methods ('statistical models'). Our clinical models were based on literature that suggests that motivation drives smoking cessation, while dependence drives relapse in those attempting to stop. Our statistical models were based on automatic variable selection using additive logistic regression with component-wise gradient boosting. RESULTS: Of 4833 smokers, 26% stopped smoking, at least temporarily; because among those who stopped, 48% started smoking again. The predictive performance of our clinical and statistical models was modest. A basic clinical model for cessation, with patients classified into three motivational groups, was nearly as discriminatory as a constrained statistical model with just the most important predictors (the ratio of nonsmoking visits to total visits, alcohol or drug dependence, psychiatric comorbidities, recent hospitalization and age). A basic clinical model for relapse, based on the maximum number of cigarettes per day prior to stopping, was not as discriminatory as a constrained statistical model with just the ratio of nonsmoking visits to total visits. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting smoking cessation and relapse is difficult, so that simple models are nearly as discriminatory as complex ones. Patients with a history of attempting to stop and those known to have stopped recently are the best candidates for an intervention.
Authors: Andrea H Weinberger; Philip H Smith; Allison P Funk; Shayna Rabin; Jonathan Shuter Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Alana M Rojewski; Stephen Baldassarri; Nina A Cooperman; Ellen R Gritz; Frank T Leone; Megan E Piper; Benjamin A Toll; Graham W Warren Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-01-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Virginia A Triant; Ellie Grossman; Nancy A Rigotti; Rekha Ramachandran; Susan Regan; Scott E Sherman; Kimber P Richter; Hilary A Tindle; Kathleen F Harrington Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Tiffany L Breger; Daniel Westreich; Andrew Edmonds; Jessie K Edwards; Lauren C Zalla; Stephen R Cole; Catalina Ramirez; Igho Ofotokun; Seble G Kassaye; Todd T Brown; Deborah Konkle-Parker; Deborah L Jones; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Mardge H Cohen; Phyllis C Tien; Tonya N Taylor; Kathryn Anastos; Adaora A Adimora Journal: AIDS Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 4.632
Authors: Nhung Thi Phuong Nguyen; Bach Xuan Tran; Lu Y Hwang; Christine M Markham; Michael D Swartz; Jennifer I Vidrine; Huong Thu Thi Phan; Carl A Latkin; Damon J Vidrine Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Andreas Mayr; Benjamin Hofner; Elisabeth Waldmann; Tobias Hepp; Sebastian Meyer; Olaf Gefeller Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Cosmas M Zyambo; Greer A Burkholder; Karen L Cropsey; James H Willig; Craig M Wilson; C Ann Gakumo; Andrew O Westfall; Peter S Hendricks Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.135