Background: Partner Assisted Smoking Cessation Treatment (PACT) was designed to improve smoking abstinence rates by integrating evidence-based relationship education strategies to build effective couple support into standard cognitive behavioral smoking cessation treatment (CBT). Methods: This small randomized clinical trial examined the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of PACT versus CBT in improving couple support processes and smoking outcomes, focusing on effect sizes. Thirty-eight smokers and their nonsmoking partners were randomized to and completed either PACT or CBT. Both treatments included 8 weekly group sessions and nicotine replacement therapy. Results:Treatment credibility and satisfaction were high and comparable between conditions, though perceived helpfulness and treatment engagement were higher in PACT (ds = .48-.68). Compared to CBT, PACT showed no difference in effects on perceived partner support, small effects on observed social support behaviors (ds = .23 to .46), a medium effect on dyadic efficacy (d = .63), and a large effect on active listening (d = .85). Biochemically-verified smoking abstinence rates did not differ between conditions at 12-week follow-up (CBT: 27.3%, PACT: 37.5%). Conclusions: PACT may have stronger effects than standard CBT on treatment engagement and some couple support processes, but not abstinence. Program refinement and testing in larger samples are needed.
RCT Entities:
Background: Partner Assisted Smoking Cessation Treatment (PACT) was designed to improve smoking abstinence rates by integrating evidence-based relationship education strategies to build effective couple support into standard cognitive behavioral smoking cessation treatment (CBT). Methods: This small randomized clinical trial examined the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of PACT versus CBT in improving couple support processes and smoking outcomes, focusing on effect sizes. Thirty-eight smokers and their nonsmoking partners were randomized to and completed either PACT or CBT. Both treatments included 8 weekly group sessions and nicotine replacement therapy. Results: Treatment credibility and satisfaction were high and comparable between conditions, though perceived helpfulness and treatment engagement were higher in PACT (ds = .48-.68). Compared to CBT, PACT showed no difference in effects on perceived partner support, small effects on observed social support behaviors (ds = .23 to .46), a medium effect on dyadic efficacy (d = .63), and a large effect on active listening (d = .85). Biochemically-verified smoking abstinence rates did not differ between conditions at 12-week follow-up (CBT: 27.3%, PACT: 37.5%). Conclusions: PACT may have stronger effects than standard CBT on treatment engagement and some couple support processes, but not abstinence. Program refinement and testing in larger samples are needed.
Authors: Zidian Xie; Francisco Cartujano-Barrera; Paula Cupertino; Dongmei Li Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-28 Impact factor: 4.614