Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Methods Used to Quit Smoking in the United States: Do Cessation Programs Help?

Fiore, Michael C.·1990·JAMA

Abstract

Using data from the 1986 Adult Use of Tobacco Survey, we analyzed smoking-cessation methods used by adult smokers in the United States who tried to quit. About 90% of successful quitters and 80% of unsuccessful quitters used individual methods of smoking cessation rather than organized programs. Most of these smokers who quit on their own used a "cold turkey" approach. Multivariate analysis showed that women, middle-aged persons, more educated persons, persons who had made more quit-smoking attempts, and, particularly, heavier smokers were most likely to use a cessation program. Daily cigarette consumption, however, did not predict whether persons would succeed or fail during their attempts to quit smoking. Rather, the cessation method used was the strongest predictor of success. Among smokers who had attempted cessation within the previous 10 years, 47.5% of persons who tried to quit on their own were successful whereas only 23.6% of persons who used cessation programs succeeded. We conclude that cessation programs serve a small, but important, population of smokers that includes heavier smokers, those most at risk for tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. (JAMA. 1990;263:2760-2765)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1990.03440200064024

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Fiore, M. C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1990-05-23
Volume
263
Issue
20
Pages
2760
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4323966390
Cited by
323
References
0
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.