Cited by 201Smoking Behavior and CessationBehavioral Health and InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The importance of supporting autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating long-term tobacco abstinence

Open access
Williams, Geoffrey C., Niemiec, Christopher P., Patrick, Heather, Ryan, Richard M., Deci, Edward L.·2009·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Public Health Service (PHS) Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence (Fiore et al. 2000) recommends supporting autonomy and perceived competence to facilitate tobacco abstinence. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive tobacco-dependence intervention based on self-determination theory (SDT) and intended to support autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating long-term tobacco abstinence. METHODS: One thousand and six adult smokers were recruited into a randomized cessation-induction trial. Community care participants received cessation pamphlets and information on local treatment programs. Intervention participants received the same materials and were asked to meet four times with counselors over 6 months to discuss their health in a manner intended to support autonomy and perceived competence. The primary outcome was 24-month prolonged abstinence from tobacco. The secondary outcome was 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 24 months postintervention. RESULTS: Smokers in the intervention were more likely to attain both tobacco abstinence outcomes and these effects were partially mediated by change in both autonomous self-regulation and perceived competence from baseline to 6 months. Structural equation modeling confirmed the SDT model of health-behavior change in facilitating long-term tobacco abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention based on SDT and consistent with the PHS Guideline, which was intended to support autonomy and perceived competence, facilitated long-term tobacco abstinence.

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 · 10.1007/s12160-009-9090-y

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The instruments described have been used to assess to what extent a medical professional, healthcare intervention, or a procedure supports autonomy.

    “The instruments described herein have been used in various contexts, for example to assess to what extent a medical professional (Williams et al., 2009), healthcare intervention (Williams et al., 2011; Teixeira et al., 2012) or a procedure (Ng et al., 2012) supports autonomy.”

    From Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience (2018) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2009

    The citation to Williams et al. (2009) is attached to the medical-professional example. The Method > Measures section describes questionnaires assessing smokers’ autonomous reasons and perceived competence, not an instrument assessing how much autonomy support a medical professional provides. Searches for a provider-autonomy-support scale or assessment found no such use in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, G. C., Niemiec, C. P., Patrick, H., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Geoffrey C.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2009-04-17
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
315-324
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2124904904
Cited by
201
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
7.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH59594, R01MH059594)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA106668)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
smoking abstinence, smoking cessation, self-determination theory, autonomy support, perceived competence, tobacco dependence, health behavior change
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Psychological Theory, Psychotherapy, Tobacco Use Disorder, Mental Competency, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Tobacco Use Cessation, Personal Autonomy

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