Jennifer Irvin Vidrine1, Claire Adams Spears2, Whitney L Heppner3, Lorraine R Reitzel4, Marianne T Marcus5, Paul M Cinciripini6, Andrew J Waters7, Yisheng Li8, Nga Thi To Nguyen9, Yumei Cao10, Hilary A Tindle11, Micki Fine12, Linda V Safranek13, David W Wetter14. 1. Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. 2. Department of Psychology, Catholic University of America. 3. Department of Psychological Science, Georgia College and State University. 4. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston. 5. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Education and Research, UTHealth School of Nursing. 6. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. 7. Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 8. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. 9. Department of Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. 10. Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Houston. 11. Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University. 12. Mindful Living. 13. Independent Practice. 14. Department of Psychology, Rice University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Addiction Treatment (MBAT) to a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) that matched MBAT on treatment contact time, and a Usual Care (UC) condition that comprised brief individual counseling. METHOD: Participants (N = 412) were 48.2% African American, 41.5% non-Latino White, 5.4% Latino, and 4.9% other, and 57.6% reported a total annual household income < $30,000. The majority of participants were female (54.9%). Mean cigarettes per day was 19.9 (SD = 10.1). Following the baseline visit, participants were randomized to UC (n = 103), CBT (n = 155), orMBAT (n = 154). All participants were given self-help materials and nicotine patch therapy. CBT and MBAT groups received 8 2-hr in-person group counseling sessions. UC participants received 4 brief individual counseling sessions. Biochemically verified smoking abstinence was assessed 4 and 26 weeks after the quit date. RESULTS: Logistic random effects model analyses over time indicated no overall significant treatment effects (completers only: F(2, 236) = 0.29, p = .749; intent-to-treat: F(2, 401) = 0.9, p = .407). Among participants classified as smoking at the last treatment session, analyses examining the recovery of abstinence revealed a significant overall treatment effect, F(2, 103) = 4.41, p = .015 (MBAT vs. CBT: OR = 4.94, 95% CI: 1.47 to 16.59, p = .010, Effect Size = .88; MBAT vs. UC: OR = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.04 to 16.75, p = .043, Effect Size = .79). CONCLUSION: Although there were no overall significant effects of treatment on abstinence, MBAT may be more effective than CBTorUC in promoting recovery from lapses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Addiction Treatment (MBAT) to a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) that matched MBAT on treatment contact time, and a Usual Care (UC) condition that comprised brief individual counseling. METHOD:Participants (N = 412) were 48.2% African American, 41.5% non-Latino White, 5.4% Latino, and 4.9% other, and 57.6% reported a total annual household income < $30,000. The majority of participants were female (54.9%). Mean cigarettes per day was 19.9 (SD = 10.1). Following the baseline visit, participants were randomized to UC (n = 103), CBT (n = 155), or MBAT (n = 154). All participants were given self-help materials and nicotine patch therapy. CBT and MBAT groups received 8 2-hr in-person group counseling sessions. UC participants received 4 brief individual counseling sessions. Biochemically verified smoking abstinence was assessed 4 and 26 weeks after the quit date. RESULTS: Logistic random effects model analyses over time indicated no overall significant treatment effects (completers only: F(2, 236) = 0.29, p = .749; intent-to-treat: F(2, 401) = 0.9, p = .407). Among participants classified as smoking at the last treatment session, analyses examining the recovery of abstinence revealed a significant overall treatment effect, F(2, 103) = 4.41, p = .015 (MBAT vs. CBT: OR = 4.94, 95% CI: 1.47 to 16.59, p = .010, Effect Size = .88; MBAT vs. UC: OR = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.04 to 16.75, p = .043, Effect Size = .79). CONCLUSION: Although there were no overall significant effects of treatment on abstinence, MBAT may be more effective than CBT or UC in promoting recovery from lapses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Paul A M van den Hurk; Barbara H Janssen; Fabio Giommi; Henk P Barendregt; Stan C Gielen Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: James M Davis; Simon B Goldberg; Maggie C Anderson; Alison R Manley; Stevens S Smith; Timothy B Baker Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: David G Gilbert; F Joseph McClernon; Norka E Rabinovich; Louisette C Plath; Carmen L Masson; Allison E Anderson; Kaye F Sly Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2002-02
Authors: Sarah Bowen; Neharika Chawla; Susan E Collins; Katie Witkiewitz; Sharon Hsu; Joel Grow; Seema Clifasefi; Michelle Garner; Anne Douglass; Mary E Larimer; Alan Marlatt Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2009 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Sang Hwan Kim; Suzanne M Schneider; Margaret Bevans; Len Kravitz; Christine Mermier; Clifford Qualls; Mark R Burge Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Simon B Goldberg; Raymond P Tucker; Preston A Greene; Richard J Davidson; Bruce E Wampold; David J Kearney; Tracy L Simpson Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2017-11-08
Authors: Haruka Minami; Hannah R Brinkman; Shadi Nahvi; Julia H Arnsten; Monica Rivera-Mindt; David W Wetter; Erika Litvin Bloom; Lawrence H Price; Carlos Vieira; Remington Donnelly; Lauren M McClain; Katherine A Kennedy; Erica D'Aquila; Micki Fine; Danielle E McCarthy; J Graham Thomas; Jacki Hecht; Richard A Brown Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Christine Vinci; Liang Li; Cai Wu; Cho Y Lam; Lin Guo; Virmarie Correa-Fernández; Claire A Spears; Diana S Hoover; Paul E Etcheverry; David W Wetter Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Lorra Garey; Lorraine R Reitzel; Julie Neisler; Darla E Kendzor; Michael J Zvolensky; Clayton Neighbors; Daphne C Hernandez; Michael S Businelle Journal: Behav Med Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 3.104