1 / 18

EXPERIMENT 1

EXPERIMENT 1. “Comparing Two web-based Smoking Cessation Programs: Randomized-Controlled Trial” By: McKay et. Al. Summary. Authors believe that internet smoking cessation programs have potential to be an innovative and easy to use smoking cessation aid.

nicole
Télécharger la présentation

EXPERIMENT 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EXPERIMENT 1 “Comparing Two web-based Smoking Cessation Programs: Randomized-Controlled Trial” By: McKay et. Al

  2. Summary • Authors believe that internet smoking cessation programs have potential to be an innovative and easy to use smoking cessation aid. • Also wanted to test cognitive behavioral program and examine its efficacy. • Recent studies only have short follow-up intervals. • Goal: To determine the effectiveness of an online smoking cessation program as compared with a general health/exercise program adjusted to include smoking.

  3. Methods • Two web-based smoking cessation programs • QSN (Quit Smoking Network) – cognitive behavioral strategies • Active Lives – Control exercise group • Measures • Post-program evaluation of smoking at 3 months and 6 months • Questionnaires about Self-Efficacy, Program usability, and support • IV – QSN vs. Active Lives group • DV – Number of times program was acessed / Smoking at three and six months post-program

  4. Results • Contrary to hypothesis, no significant between programs effectiveness at quitting smoking 3 and 6 months after program. • Participants in QSN group did spend more time with the program and rated it higher on usability. • Possible confounds: • limited access (averaging one time a day) • Material could possibly be forgotten easily due to limited access

  5. Discussion • Potentially replace cognitive therapy with behavioral measures instead. • Cue identification • Researchers suggest finding a way to increase participant engagement • Researchers also experienced a 55% attrition rate at 6 months making follow-ups less accurate.

  6. Study 1 “Concurrent Drinking and Smoking Among College Students” By: Witkiewitz et. al.

  7. Summary • Association between drinking and smoking habits among college-aged students • 98% of student smokers report alcohol use • Few studies of concurrence of behaviors • More drinks per cigarette smoked and vice-versa • Potential dopaminergic reward system overlap

  8. Summary (Cont.) • Purpose: to evaluate potential contextual behavior effects of smoking and drinking • Look for applications to current treatment programs to see if drinking behavior is sufficiently explored in smoking cessation programs

  9. Methods • 111 college age students asked to keep a 21 day diary of smoking and drinking habits • Had 4-5 drinks in one drinking session in the past month • Replied to text/e-mail surveys three times a day and at participant’s will dependent on behavior

  10. Results • Individuals at parties are 3.57 times more likely to smoke cigarettes; 2.17 times more likely at bar • Even stronger correlations with daily smokers • Increase in both behaviors respectively after engaging in the first • Drinking leads to increased desire to smoke and vice-versa

  11. Results (Cont.) • Also more likely to drink more and smoke more cigarettes if both behaviors are engaged in • Discussion section suggests focus on social cues as a potential cause of relapse for smoking.

  12. Experiment 3 “Effects of Brief Cognitive Intervention Aimed at Communicating the Negative Reinforcement Explanation for Smoking on Relevant Cognitions and Urges to Smoke” By: McDermott, Marteau, and Hajek

  13. Summary • Current model of cessation programs is withdrawal symptom management (Nicotine dependence) • Unchanged levels of smoking in the UK (22%) • Taking smokers already in cessation programs • Randomly select individuals to take an additional cognitive intervention focused on negative reinforcement (smoking to remove anxiety)

  14. Methods • IV – Control group vs. Experimental group • Control = video on the health effects of smoking • Experimental = negative reinforcement explanation of smoking • DV – Likert scales on urges to smoke and strength of urges 1 week after smoking

  15. Results • Patients had access to different nicotine addiction medications (potential confound) • No significant difference between groups. • Although the negative reinforcement intervention program was preferred, cognitive intervention did not seem to inhibit urge to smoke.

  16. Results (Cont.) • Potential Confounds • Only consisted of one session with one week in between assessment • Information could have been easily forgotten by participants • Discussion • Patients with higher education levels may benefit more from the cognitive intervention

  17. Sources • McDermott, M. S., Marteau, T. M., & Hajek, P. (2011). Effects of a brief cognitive intervention aimed at communicating the negative reinforcement explanation for smoking on relevant cognitions and urges to smoke. Journal Of Smoking Cessation, 6(2), 112-118. doi:10.1375/jsc.6.2.112 • McKay, H., Danaher, B. G., Seeley, J. R., Lichtenstein, E., & Gau, J. M. (2008). Comparing two web-based smoking cessation programs: Randomized controlled trial. Journal Of Medical Internet Research, 10(5), 68-81. doi:10.2196

  18. Sources (Cont.) • Witkiewitz, K., Desai, S. A., Steckler, G., Jackson, K. M., Bowen, S., Leigh, B. C., & Larimer, M. E. (2012). Concurrent drinking and smoking among college students: An event-level analysis. Psychology Of Addictive Behaviors, 26(3), 649-654. doi:10.1037/a0025363

More Related