Cited by 29Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Randomized Controlled Trial of an Interactive Internet Smoking Cessation Program with Long-Term Follow-up

Seidman, Daniel F., Westmaas, J. Lee, Goldband, Steve, Rabius, Vance, Katkin, Edward S., Pike, K. Joanne, Wiatrek, Dawn, Sloan, Richard P.·2010·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Internet programs for smoking cessation are widely available but few controlled studies demonstrate long-term efficacy. PURPOSE: To determine the 13-month effectiveness of an Internet program presenting a set sequence of interactive steps, and the role of depressed affect. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial sponsored by the American Cancer Society, a treatment condition (n = 1,106) was compared to a control site (n = 1,047). RESULTS: More treatment condition participants were abstinent (30-day point prevalence) than control site participants (12.9% vs. 10.1%, p < .05) at 13 months. This effect was greater among participants not reporting depressed affect (15.0% vs. 10.1%, p < .01). Among smokers who reported depressed affect, there was no difference in abstinence between the treatment and control conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Data support the long-term efficacy of an Internet intervention for cessation modeled on a structured, in-person treatment approach, especially for participants not experiencing daily depressed affect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-010-9167-7

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 number of modules completed was found to correlate with outcomes in interventions that targeted cigarette smoking, depression, and anxiety disorders.

    “The number of modules completed was found to correlate with outcomes in interventions that targeted cigarette smoking [42,46,47], depression [45,48-51], and anxiety disorders [52-57].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seidman, D. F., Westmaas, J. L., Goldband, S., Rabius, V., Katkin, E. S., Pike, K. J., Wiatrek, D., & Sloan, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • American Cancer Society (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Seidman, Daniel F.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2010-02
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
48-60
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2040885719
Cited by
29
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
smoking cessation, online intervention, long-term abstinence, depressive affect, depression, tobacco use, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, American Cancer Society, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Smoking, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, United States, Program Evaluation, Incidence, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Young Adult

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